Since it was revealed that the British Heritage oil tanker, shepherded out of the Persian Gulf on July 11th with a Royal Navy escort, was “not carrying any cargo at the time of the incident”, our understanding of this international power-play has significantly improved. Suddenly what had appeared as an ill-advised provocation of Iran in the Strait of Gibraltar leading to an inevitable Iranian response, could be seen as an essential act in the UK’s power-play – a necessary prelude to what would happen next in the Strait of Hormuz. (and continues to “happen”..)
The word that springs to mind is “choreographed”, and as befits such an important play, some considerable attention and planning must have gone into the sequence of false flags and provocations centered around the world’s great energy choke-point, which began back in May. To understand how this whole conspiracy has operated and indulge in reasonable speculation on the identity and intentions of the conspirators, the basic evidence for these deceptions must be presented, at least for the record. I apologize for the length, but as each new – and unexpected – event occurs, it is all too easy to forget the details of the previous ones. So here’s a program for this play in six or more parts:
First, mid-May – damage to Saudi and Emirati tankers near the Fujairah oil terminal in the Gulf of Oman – for which Iran was claimed suspect – combined with damage to the pipeline delivering oil to Fujairah that bypasses the Strait of Hormuz. Incidents provide the pretext to send more US assets to the Gulf, including B52 bombers.
Second, 14th June – explosions on two tankers carrying petrochemicals near the Strait of Hormuz,quickly blamed on Iran despite clear evidence to the contrary; Japanese tanker targeted as Japanese PM visits Tehran. Norwegian tanker, with Russian crew, run by company which has transported oil for Iran despite sanctions. Subsequently, the US produces a seriously misleading video showing Iranian rescue of ship’s crew wearing life jackets, claiming it shows Iranian Revolutionary Guards “removing a Limpet mine” they had previously attached six feet above the waterline.
Third, 20th June - Western mainstream media accepts and disseminates the US version of this story for a week before a final push by the US, presenting “evidence” to the media while making covert preparations for an attack on Iranian defences, which are thwarted when Iran shoots down the wrong target and President Trump gets a phone call and warning from Russian and Chinese leaders. The truth of this story remains unclear, but the worst interpretation – that the US intended for Iran to target a manned spy plane accompanying the high-altitude drone – seems to be confirmed two weeks later. A key point to remember, however, is that the “aborted” US strike was NOT in response to Iran’s defensive actions. As Donald Trump said – he called off the strike, that would “have killed about 150 people” because Iran had not hit a manned plane, so the strike would be disproportionate.
As the US maintains that the drone was in international airspace, the IRGC parades the pieces of the $150 million showpiece pulled from its coastal waters, as well as satellite mapping of its last flight. The Iranian foreign ministry provided a useful map as clear evidence of the US incursion.
Following the IRGC’s stunning demonstration of its defensive missile system, the “B” team stokes up anti-IRGC propaganda in advance of the showdown over the JCPOA on July 1st. In Australia, this media blitz includes the screening of the Jane Corbin – BBC documentary “Shadow Commander – Iran’s Military Mastermind” on the ABC’s leading platform “Four Corners”. Corbin’s extremist propaganda had been shown to UK viewers three months earlier.As the US maintains that the drone was in international airspace, the IRGC parades the pieces of the $150 million showpiece pulled from its coastal waters, as well as satellite mapping of its last flight. The Iranian foreign ministry provided a useful map as clear evidence of the US incursion.
Fourth, 3rd July – In a little-reported incident which has been interpreted as a serious provocation, the US flew an older type of spy plane on a mission over the key strategic Iranian island of Abu Musa. This was not only the day before Independence Day, but the 31st anniversary of the USS Vincennes’ intentional downing of an Iranian civilian airliner flying over the Gulf. Moon of Alabama interprets this, along with the false identification of the US plane, as another direct invitation to the IRGC to kill US airmen and enable a lethal “response”. But Iran does not take the bait, again.
*(The path of the US drone in the Strait of Hormuz)
Fifth, July 4th – Iranian super-tanker Grace 1 pirated by UK marines in disputed waters off Gibraltar. The tanker had been monitored since it left the Gulf, forced to sail round Africa as Suez passage blocked, and was assumed to be carrying oil to the Syrian port of Banias. The false pretext for the hijacking was that Spanish authorities were enforcing (illegal) sanctions against Syria, though Iran denies that is the oil’s destination. Claims in the UK that the seizure was at the instigation of the US generally accepted but probably false – a cooperative effort is more likely, as indicated by UK’s subsequent actions in the Gulf. It’s important to note that there is NO prohibition on selling oil TO Syria under the current EU sanctions regime. This is while EU countries continue to break their own laws by buying stolen Syrian oil via Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkey. Article 6 of this EU regulation explains the sanctions laws on purchasing Syrian Oil.
Sixth, July 6th to 11th – BP tanker “British Heritage” that entered the Persian Gulf at around the time of the US spy plane flight over Abu Musa stops short of its destination Basra and does a U-turn, causing speculation over its intentions on July 8th. Two days later the explanation appears – the British Heritage is waiting for the Royal Navy to perform the next act in the UK’s play, which this time is just a play for the media as nothing actually happens. While the UK claims that its frigate was forced to get between the empty tanker and three IRGC gunboats, pointing its guns towards them, the IRGC says that no incidents occurred around Abu Musa over that period.
The Iranian story seems plausible, as even if they weren’t following the movements of British tankers in the Gulf, the sight of the obviously unladen tanker being escorted out of the Gulf would surely only have caused them to fall about laughing. The Royal Navy won’t be releasing any video of the alleged incident, naturally enough, nor any explanation on what it was doing and where the British Heritage was going to fill up with oil instead of Iraq, nor who will pay the compensation. We are left to draw our own conclusions, which must surely be worse. Clearly, this little stunt was principally intended to preface the US request to its allies that some sort of coalition be established “to protect shipping through the Strait of Hormuz”. This was duly made, if not yet answered, along with mention of the Bab al Mandeb Strait off Yemen as equally deserving of protection.
The media dutifully reported this proposal, noting the dangers posed to the global economy by an interruption in Oil supply – as if they had only just thought of it. They didn’t get as far as thinking how allies of Iran such as China might also be seeking to protect Iranian oil shipments through the Strait with their own naval assets, and the likelihood – or inevitability – of a military confrontation rapidly getting out of control.
(At this point, July 18th, “Acts 7 and 8” have eventuated following Iran’s seizure of a fuel smuggling tanker, and the latest US provocation involving a giant US ship with 2000 marines on board. Examining this new boosting of tensions must wait for now.)
The media’s shallow and frankly stupid understanding of the dangers of the current situation, on show again now with the acceptance of the latest US pretense, is obviously not shared by theprovocateurs, given the amount of planning and expense involved in their provocations to this point. Neither would one think that leaders of the countries invited to join the proposed US coalition could fail to see and consider the consequences, even as they maintain the necessary pretense that such action would be in pursuit of “peace and security”, or simply maintain a silence.
One can hardly conclude other than that the Coalition intent is to provoke a military confrontation with Iran and its allies that will escalate into a full-blown war, particularly as it appears that such a war was already only narrowly averted, in “Act Three”.
But another possibility remains. As has happened so many times over the last eight years, when the warnings of imminent regional or global war seemed highly plausible, the feared catastrophe nevertheless failed to eventuate. For some, this might only make the seemingly inevitable final conflict more likely than ever – overdue in fact. Or it might be increasing evidence that this war was never really going to happen, and that complacency and cynicism are justified. It’s just “nuclear brinkmanship” or a strategic chess game, or even some combination of opportunism and carelessness – the modus operandi of the hegemon that knows it can throw its weight around and never considers the possibility of real defeat and retreat.
Or is this distinction, the crossing of the red line into real war, no longer applicable – as it was 16 years ago in “shock and awe”? Perhaps the war on Iran has already started, as part of the war on Syria and the “war on Islamic State”, where the rhetoric from Western media has been the weapon? As has been pointed out recently by Iran’s respected foreign Minister Mohammad Javid Zarif, as well as otherwise commentators, the economic war on Iran is similar to a military war, and is being aggressively pursued by Washington. In reality also the “war of words” on Iran has been going since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, and it has won over – or poisoned - many hearts and minds amongst Western electorates and within the country.
But there is one reason that we might consider “cyberwar” as the actual central feature of this complex hybrid warfare against Iran and her strongest ally Russia. That is the strange and significant coincidence between events being played out in the Persian Gulf and those occurring almost simultaneously in London. It happened that the UK’s Foreign Minister – and leadership contender – Jeremy Hunt, was able to make a statement on the Royal Navy’s defense of “freedom of navigation” through the Strait of Hormuz while also engaged in “defending media freedom” at the inaugural global conference of that name.
That the “Global Defending Media Freedom” conference was actually organised by the UK Foreign Office, and was led by a discussion involving Jeremy Hunt with Canada’s Foreign Minister Chrystia Freedland, made its agenda highly suspect. The conference had already been heralded with a discussion at the Frontline Club the previous day, involving high-profile and highly partisan journalists Lindsey Hilsum, Peter Greste and Courtney Radsch in a discussion on the threats facing journalists in their pursuit of truth. Their work and that of the media they have worked for – Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera, Channel 4 and the BBC – speaks for itself, particularly on Syria.
Numbers of articles and comments have been written about the conference, noting particularly the exclusion of Russian news outlets RT and Sputnik from attending, and on the failure of all except Amal Clooney to mention the incarcerated hero of true media freedom just down the road in Belmarsh prison – Julian Assange. As UK special envoy on Human Rights, Clooney gave the conference an air of independence it hardly deserved, as well as making Australia’s Foreign Minister Marise Payne pop up from her seat in the auditorium to defend Australia’s latest acts of media intimidation. We wondered where she was. More to the point perhaps was the unacknowledged presence of Australia’s former foreign minister Julie Bishop at one of the conference sessions.
What further connects the conduct of this conference with the disinformation and “narrative creation” exercises in the Persian Gulf was the role of the BBC as an integral part of the FCO’s operation – which had little to do with media “freedom” and a lot to do with media control. As can be seen from this part of the program of conference events, the BBC’s contribution was almost exclusively concerned with “monitoring disinformation”, and monitoring “Russian disinformation”. While promoting its global reach and reliability, it presents itself as the arbiter of “fake news”, as well as offering advice on video manipulation and investigative journalistic techniques.
As an example of the BBC’s mastery of disinformation, “Shadow Commander” must be hard to beat. Neither can it be dismissed as the partisan opinion of Jane Corbin, partner of the late John Maples, Conservative MP and President of Conservative Friends of Israel. This BBC article on the Persian Gulf tanker affair has contributions from two of the BBC’s chief correspondents, Jonathan Beale and Jonathan Marcus who are both recruits of the Institute for Statecraft. As it happens, the Institute’s latest incarnation as the “Open Information Partnership” recently appeared on the scene, and was extensively analyzed by Sputnik’s investigative journalist Kit Klarenberg. The nexus between the FCO, the many organizations in the “Partnership” – particularly in Eastern Europe – and these embedded journalists in the trusted media suggests a strong connection with the piracy and provocations in the Persian Gulf.
It also suggests that the BBC is an integral and trusted part of the UK Foreign Office disinformation operations and the military “posture” they support. But in order to gain the trust of the people for its illegal and immoral operations, the BBC and its partners have poisoned their minds.
No comments:
Post a Comment