On Sunday, as the world ponders what’s next after an unprecedented attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure, Americans were anxious to hear from credible, authoritative sources.
Instead, we heard from Kellyanne Conway, who showed up on Fox News to discuss a number of topics, not the least of which was Iran.
After extolling the virtues of US energy independence (and we say that sincerely – energy independence is certainty a good thing), Fox pressed Conway on whether the administration is considering Lindsey Graham’s “advice” to strike Iran’s oil refineries. Here’s the clip:
So, first, Conway did not rule out strikes on Iran’s oil. But assuming you find a seat-of-the-pants approach to war funny, the punchline came when Conway, unironically, told America that “this is why it’s so important to have a president who isn’t a typical politician, because he and his team don’t sit around and say ‘Let’s study it, let’s have a commission about it’, Secretary Pompeo went right out there and pointed the finger”.
He sure did, Kellyanne. And as we noted on Sunday morning, Pompeo’s assertion that Iran was behind the attack is of course accurate, because the idea that the Saudis or the US would deliberately sabotage Abqaiq for the purposes of justifying strikes on Iran during the same week that Trump fired his most hawkish foreign policy advisor seems far-fetched even as false flag conspiracy theories go.
But the veracity of Mike’s latest indictment of Tehran notwithstanding, the idea that what you want in a president and a secretary of state when it comes to making decisions about war is an approach that says you never “sit around and study it” but rather just skip straight to bombing oil refineries, seems a bit strange – like saying “this is why it’s so important when a brown patch shows up on your lawn to just go ahead and smash your neighbor Bob’s windshield with a sledgehammer rather than ‘sit around and study’ whether Bob’s dog was actually responsible”.
On the bright side, Conway didn’t rule out diplomacy either. Trump could still meet Rouhani, she said, depending on how things pan out between now and the end of the month.
“I’ll allow the president to announce a meeting or a non-meeting”, she said.
Suffice to say if the US bombs targets inside Iran anytime soon, there will be no “meetings” – unless you mean on the battlefield.
Thanks for an interesting article as usual.
Sadly, some sort of military response is likely going to be needed this time, though it might come from Saudi Arabia in the first instance. And the reason is clear, the US, NATO and S Arabia have shown restraint in not striking Iran’s territory yet despite Iran’s escalating aggression and with a bully / rogue state like Iran, if you try to appease them, they will just take it as weakness and push their luck further. Iran has already demonstrated this.
Iran has carried out multiple drone strikes into Saudi Arabia, it has torpedoed / mined 4 ships to date in international waters, it has seized a British tanker and held its crew hostage, it has shot down a US drone and now this latest attack. Each time they get away with an action, they escalate and try another.
We learned the lesson in the 1930s with Nazi Germany: you cannot appease power-hungry dictatorships. Like any bully, they will keep escalating their actions each time they get away with something until others hurt them badly enough they are forced to stop. If Iran is not hurt in response to this aggression, their next act of aggression will be even worse.
Of course, none of this would be happening if Trump hadn’t pulled out of the nuclear deal. This is the administration’s fault. There was no rationale for pulling out of that deal. Now, we’re getting the blowback.
FC – just listen to uncle Walter .
Remember, Vietnam and the body bags. Iran, is not Iraq.
I’m surprised at your willingness. H., to dismiss false flag theories (which this certainly seems to be). Maybe Bolton, who has been to this dance before, was actually the voice of reason in the White House — “You have to present your case, Mr. President. You have to present credible evidence that can stand up to scrutiny” — and Big Mike said, “Yeah, no, fuck that. ” And the next day Bolton is out on his ass with a story no one will believe. Just sayin’…
Bolton is far more hawkish than Pompeo. Did you not read the account of his dismissal? Trump and Mnuchin wanted to ease sanctions on Iran and Bolton argued against that. If you know anything about John, you know that there is absolutely no chance, under any circumstances, ever, that he would be “the voice of reason” where that means suggesting that we need evidence to bomb Iran.
And I despise “false flag” theories. Sure, sometimes they have validity. But, like all conspiracy theories, most of the time they do not. This isn’t and never will be that kind of website. We report facts, as they become available. We do not speculate. Readers should be able to depend on me not to print speculation with no evidence to back it up. This is a website, not a “blog”.
If it turns out there’s validity to any such false flag theory, and that’s verifiable, we’ll happily report it.
So where is the evidence for what Pompeo is claiming, other than that fact that he is claiming it?
Well, the Houthis claimed responsibility, on television, in an address live, from Sanaa. And then there was Qasem Soleimani praising the Houthi’s “resistance” on Twitter literally hours later. Clearly, Iran was angling to take credit for it without suffering the consequences. You do understand that’s how this works, right? The Houthis carry out an attack or say they did, and then Iran gets to have their cake and eat it too. Like this: “Well that’s our proxy and we’re proud of them, but we didn’t do it directly”.
It doesn’t seem like you’re totally apprised of the relationships here (i.e., the Houthis are an Iran proxy. That is not speculation. It is fact. And the Houthis took credit for it. On television. On Saturday. You can watch the address on Reuters. Or on YouTube. Etc.)
So unless you think the Houthis are just lying and taking credit for something the Saudis did to themselves (which makes zero sense), then the only conclusion to come to here is that either i) the Houthis did it, which is just Iran acting through a proxy, or ii) Iran did it and asked the Houthis to take credit so the US couldn’t say Iran did it directly.
I think the missing ingredient for you when it comes to connecting the dots here is that the Houthis = the IRGC. The Houthis aren’t some loosely-affiliated bunch who is just kinda, sorta in cahoots. They are one of Qasem Soleimani’s proxy armies.
So, there is no question here about a “false flag”. It’s not a false flag. Either the Houthis did it, or one of the Quds’ Shia militias in Iraq did it, or Iran did it directly.
The false flag thing makes no sense when the Houthis have taken credit for it on television.
Yes, I know who and what the Houthis are (although they’re more than just a proxy for the IRG; one could argue they represent a legitimate liberation movement in Yemen itself). BIG difference, however, btw the Houthis doing this from Yemen and Iran doing it — either from Iranian (highly unlikely) or via Shia militias in Iraq. I don’t trust Pompeo as far as I can throw him (not very). He’s a neocon hawk who is itching to launch attacks on Iran directly. If you thought Iraq was a disaster, wait till the haws have their way.
there you go. much better answer. that’s what I was wanting to get out of you. we just want to make sure the quality of discussion here is always good and doesn’t go off the rails into crazy town. remember, there are thousands of people who visit Heisenberg Report for the first time each day. we just want to be sure they know that they didn’t stumble onto another conspiracy theory website. regulars know that’s not the case, but newbies won’t right off the bat, so i just try to steer everyone towards healthy skepticism, not unhealthy skepticism.
Oh, also, Gulf of Tonkin. And fake purchases of yellowcake from Niger. Among many others.
you’re citing a handful of examples out of the veritable cacophony of conspiracy theories and false flag rumors.
how about “we didn’t land on the moon”? or “there were explosives planted in the Twin Towers”? or “Sandy Hook was a hoax”? or “Muslims were behind the Vegas shooting”? or “There are aliens at Area 51”? Or “Putin was framed in the Skripal case”? Or…. and on, and on, and on.
Don’t be that guy. Seriously, don’t. Sure, there are conspiracies. And maybe the attacks on the Saudis on Saturday is one of those conspiracies.
But for your own sanity, don’t go down the false flag rabbit hole at every opportunity. most of the time, there’s nothin’ down there.
I’m intentionally not citing crazy conspiracy theories because…well, they’re crazy. I am citing established “false flag” operations by the U.S. government that were used to justify military conflict. Post WWII, our government has a long history of — this. — Iran in ’53, Guatemala in ’58, Chile in ’73. And more recently, though not a false flag operation per se, the cruise missile “raid” on the Syrian airfield where the Syrians were give a head’s up and we blew up a bunch of decommissioned MIGs. Trust this administration at one’s peril.
We need a real Iran policy…….all we have now is backing out of agreements and conflicting messaging from the Administration. Pompeo isn’t much better than Bolton, when it comes to Iran. Both of them have one goal in mind……regime change……and that won’t happen without war.
Having allies would be nice…….besides SA and Israel……who would also like to see Iranian regime change. Maybe someone with a large brain will figure it all out.
Michael, agreed.
What’s also needed is a real gun control policy, a real healthcare policy, a real climate policy, a real foreign policy etc. A real president would be a good thing, too.
Having allies is nice, indeed. Alienating them by threatening them with tarriffs and pulling out of multilateral agreements yields little to nothing except fewer allies.
Exiting the JCPOA for no reason was the single most consequential stupid thing this “Administration” has done.