Bolton alleges Iran maritime sabotage but evidence points at US itself

Whitney Webb

The accusations against Iran come only weeks after US mine-laying ships and divers ran drills in the same area that the alleged sabotage incidents took place in Gulf of Oman off the UAE port of Fujairah where four ships were reportedly damaged, says Chile-based investigative journalist Whitney Webb, in her article for MintPress, titled: “Bolton alleges Iran maritime sabotage but evidence points at US itself.”

Recently, US National Security Advisor John Bolton told a group of reporters in Abu Dhabi that “naval mines almost certainly from Iran” had been used to conduct the alleged “sabotage” attack on four commercial vessels off the coast of the United Arab Emirates’ port of Fujairah earlier this month. Bolton continued, providing no evidence for his claim: “There is no doubt in anybody’s mind in Washington who is responsible for this and I think it’s important that the leadership in Iran know that we know.”

Bolton was in Abu Dhabi ahead of the “emergency” summit in Saudi Arabia, where top US and allied Arab officials discussed the implications of the tanker attacks, and drone strikes two days later, on oil pumping stations in the British-created kingdom.

The murkiness that still surrounds what caused this tanker “sabotage,” as well as the very limited extent of the alleged damage, suggests that this poorly executed incident either did not go as planned or that it was a freak accident that has now been manipulated for weeks by the US and its regional allies for political gain. Iran, however, is far from being the clear culprit, especially given that three foreign militaries — including the US Navy — concluded a mine warfare naval drill just weeks before the “sabotage” incident occurred.

MintPress previously reported on the tanker “sabotage” attacks soon after they occurred and noted that the incident was so minor that the local government of Fujairah had initially denied that any “sabotage” had taken place and maintained that its port facilities were operating normally.

Only the US had cast blame prior to Bolton’s statements, with the “initial assessment” of a group of US military investigators rapidly concluding that Iran or what it called “forces sympathetic to or working for Iran” had used explosives to damage the four commercial vessels. Public evidence to support that claim has been minimal and, at times, counter to the official narrative. For instance, one of the Saudi vessels allegedly targeted, “al-Marzoqah”, was seen floating without any visible damage in post-attack footage taken by Sky News, even though the Saudis had claimed that the vessel had sustained “significant damage.” One US official told the Associated Press that each of the four ships had sustained a 5- to 10-foot hole near or just below the water line, but only one such hole has been observed in just one of the targeted ships.

Iran has consistently rejected any involvement in the incident, with Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi warning against a “conspiracy orchestrated by ill-wishers” and “adventurism by foreigners.”

Bolton’s statement, however, echoes other recent statements made by US officials that sea mines — either floating mines or limpet mines, which attach magnetically to the targeted ship’s hull — were likely responsible for the relatively minor hull damage allegedly experienced by the four ships. Top US military officials — such as Rear Admiral Michael Gilday, the director of the Joint Staff — have attributed the mines to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which the Trump administration designated a terrorist organization in early April. Yet, recent events in the Persian Gulf suggest that the sea mines likely responsible for the attack may not have been of Iranian origin.

Before delving into the definite possibility that the mines in question were not of Iranian origin at all, it is worth considering that even if the mine(s) that were allegedly used in the tanker “sabotage” were Iranian, they had not been planted recently by Iranian forces.

First, in the event that these were floating mines, the preparation made for the deployment of mines is often detected well before the mines are even sea bound. Placing mines at sea is a massive logistical undertaking involving multiple steps that allow adversaries to detect and disrupt their deployment well in advance.

As Bob O’Donnell, a retired Navy Captain and veteran minesweeper, told Breaking Defense in 2015, the first step involves removing mines from storage facilities, given that “countries will have their mines in ammo dumps somewhere, [but] without any sensors in them. The first step is they take them out of the dumps and take them someplace where they put the sensors in.” As Breaking Defense noted, “the more mines they move, the more people and trucks they need, which makes it more likely someone will let something slip or that US spy satellites will notice suspicious activity.” Then, the mines must be placed in the water, which is usually performed by ships, or aircraft or submarines in the case of specialized mines.

Given this, the lack of satellite images, which would have shown Iran’s military engaged in these types of activities that precede mine deployment, is telling. This is because Iran’s military and its movements are under heavy scrutiny from foreign governments and satellite images of alleged Iranian military or nuclear assets have frequently accompanied official narratives that push for more aggressive policies towards Iran.

For instance, a considerable part of the basis for the alleged Iranian “threat” to US troops in the region, which has been the foundation for the recent rise in tensions, has been based on satellite imagery. If private companies, the US military and U.S. intelligence often use satellite imagery to back up their claims regarding Iran — particularly its use of military assets — the fact that such images are not present to back these claims of mine deployment is telling.

Iran is unlikely to have sought to lay mines. Furthermore, the claim of “unmarked boats” made by several US officials in recent weeks is notable for the fact that the use of “unmarked boats” in no way insinuates Iranian culpability. In fact, the use of such boats makes it plausible that anyone could have laid the mines. Yet, even then, Iran has little or nothing to gain from this “sabotage” event, especially considering the logistical undertaking it would require to lay just a handful of mines in a busy commercial shipping zone without causing major damage.

Given the lack of any evidence for Iran’s involvement in the sabotage, the mines in question could have come from another country’s military, and may have been planted by the US itself, in view of the fact that the Persian Gulf was the site of a major foreign military mine warfare drill just a few weeks before the attack lends credibility to such a possibility.

On April 15, just a week after the US labeled Iran’s IRGC as a terrorist organization, Bolton received intelligence on the threat by Iran from his Israeli counterpart, Meir Ben Shabbat, when the two met in Washington to discuss their “shared commitment to countering Iran.” That same day, in the Persian Gulf, a major naval drill known as “Artemis Trident” began among the navies of the US, the UK and France. The focus of that large naval drill, which ended on April 18, was sea mine warfare in the Persian Gulf.

Though the militaries involved described the drill as purely defensive in nature, the US contingent included Naval Task Force 52, which — according to the US Navy — “plans and executes mine warfare operations in support of US 5th Fleet operational objectives.” In the Persian Gulf, the US Fifth Fleet has bases both in Bahrain — where Artemis Trident took place — and in Fujairah, where the now infamous “sabotage” incident took place just a few weeks later.

As MintPress previously reported, the U.S. Department of Transportation is currently headed by Elaine Chao, a known Iran-hawk who was paid $50,000 for a five-minute speech to the MKO terrorists. Other top US officials, such as Bolton, have also been paid hefty sums for appearances and speeches at MKO events, where they have openly advocated for the overthrow of the Iranian government.

The naval exercise was one of the first major naval exercises of the Fifth Fleet to take place after the sudden, mysterious death of the fleet’s commander, Admiral Scott Stearney, last December. Stearney was found dead in his home in Bahrain and the death has been labeled an “apparent suicide” and is still being jointly investigated by the Navy and Bahrain, with no new conclusions nearly six months after the fact. Stearney was known for opposing a major escalation with Iran.

The presence of foreign, particularly US, mine-laying ships and divers in the region close to the same time frame as the “sabotage” incident makes it a definite possibility that the mines in question could have been American, British or French — not Iranian — in origin. In that case, the mines either could have been accidentally left over from that drill or intentionally set after the fact, given that the hardware and specialized naval vessels used in deploying mines were all present at the time of the “sabotage” incident. While the evidence for this is circumstantial, it is worth pointing out that the same evidence being used to link Iran to the same mines is just as circumstantial and arguably less convincing, given the lack of any benefit derived from this “sabotage” attack from the Iranian point of view.

On Earth Day, remembering the US military’s toxic legacy

Whitney Webb

On Earth Day, April 22 MintPress brings you a piece originally published last May, on the U.S. Department of Defense’s toxic legacy throughout the world. The DoD produces more hazardous waste than the five largest US chemical companies combined.

Now we have an article in this regard by Chile-based journalist Whitney Webb, titled: “On Earth Day, remembering the US military’s toxic legacy”.

Media outlets gave minimal attention to recent news that the US Naval station in Virginia Beach spilled an estimated 94,000 gallons of jet fuel into a nearby waterway, less than a mile from the Atlantic Ocean. While the incident was by no means as catastrophic as some other pipeline spills, it underscores an important yet little-known fact – that the U.S. Department of Defense is both the nation’s and the world’s, largest polluter.

Producing more hazardous waste than the five largest US chemical companies combined, the US Department of Defense has left its toxic legacy throughout the world in the form of depleted uranium, oil, jet fuel, pesticides, defoliants like Agent Orange and lead, among others.

In 2014, the former head of the Pentagon’s environmental program told Newsweek that her office has to contend with 39,000 contaminated areas spread across 19 million acres just in the US alone.

US military bases, both domestic and foreign, consistently rank among some of the most polluted places in the world, as perchlorate and other components of jet and rocket fuel contaminate sources of drinking water, aquifers, and soil. Hundreds of military bases can be found on the Environmental Protection Agency’s list of Superfund sites, which qualify for clean-up grants from the government.

Almost 900 of the nearly 1,200 Superfund sites in the US are abandoned military facilities or sites that otherwise support military needs, not counting the military bases themselves.

“Almost every military site in this country is seriously contaminated,” John D. Dingell, a retired Michigan congressman and war veteran, told Newsweek in 2014. Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, North Carolina is one such base. Lejeune’s contamination became widespread and even deadly after its groundwater was polluted with a sizable amount of carcinogens from 1953 to 1987.

However, it was not until this February that the government allowed those exposed to chemicals at Lejeune to make official compensation claims. Numerous bases abroad have also contaminated local drinking water supplies, most famously the Kadena Air Force Base in Okinawa.

In addition, the US, which has conducted more nuclear weapons tests than all other nations combined, is also responsible for the massive amount of radiation that continues to contaminate many islands in the Pacific Ocean. The Marshall Islands, where the U.S. dropped more than sixty nuclear weapons between 1946 and 1958, are a particularly notable example. Inhabitants of the Marshall Islands and nearby Guam continue to experience an exceedingly high rate of cancer.

The American Southwest was also the site of numerous nuclear weapons tests that contaminated large swaths of land. Navajo Indian reservations have been polluted by long-abandoned uranium mines where nuclear material was obtained by U.S. military contractors.

One of the most recent testaments to the US military’s horrendous environmental record is Iraq. US military action there has resulted in the desertification of 90 percent of Iraqi territory, crippling the country’s agricultural industry and forcing it to import more than 80 percent of its food. The US’ use of depleted uranium in Iraq during the Persian Gulf War also caused a massive environmental burden for Iraqis. In addition, the US military’s policy of using open-air burn pits to dispose of waste from the 2003 invasion has caused a surge in cancer among US servicemen and Iraqi civilians alike.

Four-year-old Alla Saleem, who suffers from a tumor in her eye, lies on her bed as she waits for medication Monday, January 15, 2001, at the Gazwan Children's Hospital in the southern Iraq town of Basra, about 60 kilometers (37 miles) from the border with Kuwait. Iraqi authorities claim that about 300 tons of bombs with depleted uranium were used by the allied forces during the Gulf War bombing campaign, and this is responsible for the increase of cancer cases in the area. According to Doctor Jawal Al-Ali, chief cancer consultant of the Basra teaching hospital and member of the Royal College of physicians in London, the cases have multiplied by 12 since 1991. (AP Photo/Enric Marti)

While the US military’s past environmental record suggests that its current policies are not sustainable, this has by no means dissuaded the US military from openly planning future contamination of the environment through misguided waste disposal efforts. Last November, the US Navy announced its plan to release 20,000 tons of environmental “stressors,” including heavy metals and explosives, into the coastal waters of the US Pacific Northwest over the course of this year.

The plan, laid out in the Navy’s Northwest Training and Testing Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), fails to mention that these “stressors” are described by the EPA as known hazards, many of which are highly toxic at both acute and chronic levels.

The 20,000 tons of “stressors” mentioned in the EIS do not account for the additional 4.7 to 14 tons of “metals with potential toxicity” that the Navy plans to release annually, from now on, into inland waters along the Puget Sound in Washington state.

In response to concerns about these plans, a Navy spokeswoman said that heavy metals and even depleted uranium are no more dangerous than any other metal, a statement that represents a clear rejection of scientific fact. It seems that the very US military operations meant to “keep Americans safe” come at a higher cost than most people realize – a cost that will be felt for generations to come both within the United States and abroad.

US withdrawal would hand northeastern Syria to Turks

Whitney Webb

The Trump administration is set to rapidly withdraw US military forces from northeastern Syria, where it has occupied around 30 percent of Syrian territory since mid-2016.

These were the remarks of Chile-based journalist Whitney Webb in her article for MintPress titled:  US Withdrawal Plan Would Hand Northeastern Syria to Turks.

In what is being characterized by some as a “drastic reversal,” reports in both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have claimed that the Trump administration is set to rapidly withdraw US military forces from northeastern Syria, where it has occupied around 30 percent of Syrian territory. The Pentagon has officially stated that there are 2,000 troops in Syria, though the true figure is believed to be closer to 5,000.

Trump bragged in his tweet – without convincing anyone – “We have defeated Daesh in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.”

Seeing would be believing. However, there is reason to doubt these new claims that the US could soon withdraw the troops that are currently stationed in the Syrian Arab Republic, in light of the fact that Trump made a similar announcement earlier this year in April. Then, just days after reports that he had instructed military leaders to withdraw from Syria “as soon as possible,” a false-flag chemical weapons attack was promptly blamed on the Syrian government despite a lack of evidence, which ultimately resulted in Trump – and his counterparts in the UK and France – launching 105 missiles into Syrian territory.

As some reports correctly noted at the time, feigning military withdrawal before pushing for greater conflict and military intervention is an established US tactic and was detailed at length in the influential 2009 policy paper, titled: “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran.”

That document was published by the influential pro-intervention, neo-conservative Brookings Institution and focused on destabilizing Iran and its regional allies, including Syria.

Another reason to doubt the likelihood of the withdrawal becoming reality is that even Trump’s “confirmation” on Twitter does not amount to a confirmation of a full military withdrawal from Syria.

Indeed, in July, Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton stated that US troops would remain in Syria until what he alleged the “Iranian menace” – not Daesh — was removed from the war-torn country, a statement that later became official administration policy in September, when administration officials stated that the US’ presence in Syria would be “indefinite” and aimed at containing Iran’s influence in the country.

This marked a shift in the US “official” reason for occupying Syrian territory from combating Daesh to containing Iran. Iranian military advisors are present in Syria at the behest of the Syrian government, and Iran has stated it will remain in the country until asked to leave by Syria, and no other entity.

Furthermore, given Israel’s influence on Trump’s Middle East policy and Israel’s push towards what it alleges containing “Iranian influence” in Syria, Trump’s plan to withdraw over Washington’s supposed defeat of Daesh could well never materialize if it is opposed by Tel Aviv.

Yet, an NBC report in October claimed that the Trump administration was seeking to combat “Iranian influence” in Syria via a new policy that would “emphasize political and diplomatic efforts to force Iran out of Syria by squeezing it financially.” The report went on to note that this new strategy “would withhold reconstruction aid from areas where Iranian and Russian forces are present” and would also involve the US imposing “sanctions on Russian and Iranian companies working on reconstruction in Syria.”

Thus, the announcement of a US troop withdrawal from Syria may mark the beginning of the implementation of the administration’s new Syria strategy, aimed at economic and diplomatic punishment as opposed to military occupation.

If and when the dust settles, a US pullout from northeastern Syria is unlikely to translate into the return of the territory to the Syrian government, but instead the occupation of the very same territory by the Turkish military.

Late last month, Turkish President Rajab Tayyeb Erdoghan stated that the US must choose between its relationship with Turkey or its Kurdish-dominated military proxy in Syria, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which Turkey considers to be terrorists owing to their links to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

Erdoghan’s ultimatum came after US Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced on November 22 that the US would be setting up observation posts on the Turkish-Syrian border in order to assuage Turkish concerns about the SDF. However, the move did nothing to alleviate Ankara’s concerns and instead provoked an angry response from Turkish officials, culminating in Erdoghan’s ultimatum.

Then, earlier this month, Erdoghan stated during a televised speech that Turkish troops would launch a military operation east of the Euphrates into the US-occupied portion of Syria in order to target the SDF. Pentagon officials called the Turkish invasion plan “unacceptable” and said that it would put US troops in harm’s way.

If US troops do withdraw from Syria, the move would pave the way for the Turkish military to attack the SDF, which would no longer be militarily protected by the United States. This would allow Turkey to become the new occupying force in northeastern Syria, an area that contains the majority of Syria’s oil and gas potential as well as most of its freshwater and agricultural resources.

Such a pass-off between occupying powers already has a precedent in Syria. In March, the US withdrew support for the SDF in the Syrian city of Afrin, which is currently occupied by the Turkish military and associated proxy forces, including the “Free Syrian Army”. Following the Turkish invasion and occupation of Afrin, Turkish media noted that Turkish operations in Syria would not be confined to Afrin, as talk of a Turkish operation targeting nearby Manbij soon proliferated. The US and Turkey have been conducting joint patrols in the area around Manbij since last month.

Erdoghan has long sought to occupy Syrian territory, though his “official” reason for targeting northeastern Syrian has been the presence of US-backed Kurdish separatists in the region.

However, Erdoghan has also made his ambition to “rebuild” the Ottoman Empire, which once included much of Syria’s current territory, no secret. This suggests that any large-scale Turkish occupation of Syria may instead serve Erdoghan’s expansive ambitions.

Indeed, as Erdoghan stated in a 2016 speech: We [Turkey] cannot be trapped inside 780,000 [square] kilometers [Turkey’s total area]. For our physical borders are different from the borders of our heart. Our brothers in Mosul, Kirkuk [in Iraq], in Al-Hasakah, Aleppo, Homs [in Syria], Misrata [in Libya], Skopje [in the Republic of Macedonia], Crimea [in the Russian Federation] and the Caucasus might be outside our physical borders, but they are all inside the borders of our heart.”

If the recent claims of an imminent US troop withdrawal from Syria do materialize, it will show that the US is more interested in preventing the return of the territory it is currently occupying to the Syrian government than in any commitment to the SDF, as such a move would most likely result in Turkey succeeding the US as the occupying force of the resource-rich territory.

Lieberman’s resignation not a “victory” for Gaza but a warning of the worst to come

By Whitney Webb

In the wake of Lieberman’s resignation the high probability of a Naftali Bennett-led Israeli War Ministry would unleash a new, even more brutal wave of extrajudicial murders of unarmed Palestinians, one that would deliberately target children, says Chile-based journalist Whitney Webb.

Now we read her opinion published by MintPress in an article titled: “Lieberman’s resignation not a “victory” for Gaza but a warning of the worst to come.”

A wave of instability now threatens the Zionist regime following the sudden resignation of War Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Wednesday. Lieberman announced that he was resigning in protest of a recently brokered ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian resistance movement Hamas, which has governed the Gaza Strip since winning elections in 2007. Zionist Premier Benjamin Netanyahu will serve as interim War Minister until an official replacement is appointed. Netanyahu also currently serves as the Zionist War Minister and Health Minister.

The still-developing situation will likely result in a rightward shift within the Israeli Knesset or the current ruling coalition, as Netanyahu is set to seek stability following Lieberman’s resignation by either placating right-wing elements unhappy with the ceasefire or by moving forward with snap elections that would Likely see more extremist politicians elected to Israel’s legislature as a reaction to the ceasefire and Lieberman’s abrupt resignation.

The warmongering Lieberman resigned in protest to the halt in the Zionist attacks on Gaza, following a ceasefire with Hamas brokered by Egypt. He also announced that his political party, Yisrael Beytenu, will be withdrawing from the Zionist regime’s ruling coalition – which is led by Netanyahu’s Likud Party — in protest of the ceasefire.

The recent hostilities between the Zionists and Gaza began following a covert Israeli military raid on the Hamas leadership on Sunday night, which martyred seven Palestinians and killed one Israeli. In retaliation, the Gazans launched an estimated 300 rockets on Zionist positions. Israel’s military responded with heavy airstrikes that targeted densely populated areas of Gaza and razed one of the enclave’s TV stations among other civilian targets.

Child-killer Benjamin Netanyahu, although agreeing to ceasefire, hinted that he would consider a large-scale offensive targeting Gaza in the future.

Netanyahu’s reluctance for a large-scale military conflict targeting Gaza at this time is likely due to the fact that the Trump administration’s so-called “peace plan” aimed at “resolving” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is set to be debuted before the year’s end.

That so-called “peace plan” — largely the work of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is well known for his fervent support for Zionism and illegal West Bank settlements — is set to provide Israel with the political cushion to pursue its ambitions. These include the Zionist regime’s ambition to annex the occupied West Bank in its entirety and to curb Palestinian demands for the return of Palestinian refugees, actual autonomy for Palestinians living in the occupied territories, and the end of the Israeli military occupation in the West Bank.

However, a major war with Gaza would sour the Zionist regime’s standing just as the new Israel-centric “peace plan” is set to be revealed. Yet, if the Zionist regime waits until the plan is revealed and triggers the protests in Gaza and elsewhere that are all but guaranteed to ensue, a subsequent military operation to quell unrest resulting from the push to implement the Kushner-drafted plan would be easier for Israel to defend on the international stage.

While Lieberman’s resignation has been touted by Hamas as a “political victory for Gaza,” his likely successor bodes to be even more hawkish and supportive of the extrajudicial murder of Palestinians. Indeed, Lieberman’s most likely replacement is current Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett, who recently threatened to withdraw the political party he leads, Jewish Home, from the Likud-led ruling coalition if he is not appointed as the next war minister.

With Lieberman’s party already withdrawing from Israel’s far-right coalition, Netanyahu will likely capitulate to Bennett’s demands in order to stabilize the current government and avoid dissolving the Knesset and subsequent snap elections. Thus, the current instability facing the Likud-led coalition now seems fated to result in a rightward surge, whether it’s through snap elections or through Netanyahu-led efforts to placate other right-wing parties and prevent them from defecting.

Other powerful politicians within Jewish Home, such as Uri Ariel, have also pushed for Bennett to be appointed. Ariel told Israeli media outlet Arutz Sheva:

Netanyahu should appoint Minister Bennett as war minister and this cabinet can continue to function.

Over the past year, Bennett has repeatedly accused Lieberman of showing “restraint and weakness” as war minister, especially in relation to his approach to Gaza’s Great Return March.

Accusing Lieberman of “weakness” is particularly shocking given that the Israeli military under Lieberman repeatedly used lethal force to quell protests in Gaza, killing over 200 unarmed Palestinians – including children, medics and journalists – and wounding over 22,000.

In addition, Bennett has frequently called to “loosen” the Israeli military’s rules of engagement that would allow Zionist soldiers to target unarmed Palestinian children with lethal force. This past July, Bennett called for Israeli warplanes to drop bombs on the heads of Palestinian children who flew crude, homemade incendiary kites into occupied territories with Bennett shamelessly saying “there is no legal impediment” for targeting children with lethal force.

During a meeting of the Israeli Security Cabinet that took place that same month, Bennett had stated “Why shoot next to them [children] and not directly at them?”

More recently, in October, Bennett told Israel’s Army Radio that if he were war minister he would approve a “shoot to kill” policy for all Gazans, including children.

Thus, if Bennett is appointed as Lieberman’s replacement, it becomes near impossible to argue that Lieberman’s resignation is a “political victory” for Gazans. Instead, the high probability of a Bennett-led War Ministry would unleash a new, even more brutal wave of extrajudicial murders of unarmed Palestinians, one that would deliberately target children.

Furthermore, given that Netanyahu’s recent hints that the current ceasefire is meant only to delay Israel’s next war with Gaza until such a conflict is more politically expedient for Israel, Bennett’s likely ascent to the role of War Minister would herald an even more disastrous war for Gazan civilians than one overseen by Lieberman.