Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Iran

OK I'm late reading this story and its not exactly describing a highly significant development, and the BBC have their agenda, but I remain impressed by some of the slogans and lines of attack/mockery of regime propaganda/regime hypocrisy watch.

Iran officials mocked over foreign links

It began with a televised address in Iran in celebration of Persian New Year on Tuesday, when Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei urged Iranians to support local products rather than importing from abroad.

Soon afterwards, photos began to emerge on social media of some officials purportedly failing to follow that advice - including Khamenei himself.

This tweet reads: "The PM of the corrupt Pahlavi regime driving a domestically made car, but the spiritual Leader of Muslims around the world riding on the unbelievers' hundred-million [dollar] car, the Republic of mottos."

This tweet reads: "In the year of #support_for_Iranian_products give all the clerics and the ultra-religious supporters of the establishment a Kia Pride and force them to drive it."

This tweet reads: "#support_for_Iranian_products just by Haddad-Adel, father-in-law of Mojtaba Khamenei, the Prince of Iran, who is buying clothes in the wicked Britain."
 
Brief update, protests and strikes have been continuing mainly but not wholly in Kurdish areas. I've seen some seriously large demos over the last couple of weeks anyone interested could do worse than have a look at this guy's timeline Raman Ghavami (@Raman_Ghavami) on Twitter . People seem sufficiently angry that they've put aside fear of the security services, a lot of the anger seems to be as previously stated the dire economic situation and corruption. with this in mind, this seems like quite a big deal:

upload_2018-4-27_10-39-17.png

Also I posted this link on the Trump thread but it may be properly belongs here, I am wondering whether his utterances are aimed to some degree at domestic consumption to appear strong on the international stage.

Iran president: Trump a 'merchant' who doesn't understand international relations
 
Currently,there's really bad flooding in Iran - something that hasn't really been reported widely outside the country. One place it has been reported is the English language service of Deutsche Welle:



It's affecting two-thirds of Iran, according to that. US sanctions are one reason why humanitarian aid is finding it difficult to get into the country, apparently (also lack of preparation by the regime, deforestation, dodgy construction). . . Point is, this is a deeply political problem, not just a natural disaster.
 
Last edited:
So we've had Trump willy waving military assets in the region, and now this curious incident:

Saudi oil tankers 'sabotaged' in the Gulf

Two Saudi oil tankers were the targets of a "sabotage attack" off the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Sunday, Saudi Arabia's energy minister says.

The incident near Fujairah port, in the Gulf just outside the Strait of Hormuz, caused "significant damage" to the ships, according to Khalid al-Falih.

The UAE said four ships were targeted, but that there were no casualties.

Iran, which borders the strait, called the incident "worrisome and dreadful" and called for a full investigation.

Tensions are high in the region, through which about a fifth of oil that is consumed globally passes.

The US has deployed warships there in recent days to counter what it called "clear indications" of threats from Iran to its forces and maritime traffic in the region. Iran dismissed that allegation as nonsense.

Last month, Iran threatened to "close" the Strait of Hormuz if it was prevented from using the waterway following a US decision to end exemptions from sanctions for major Iranian oil importers.
 
Am being told this isn’t Iran- without wishing to begin a conspiracy death spiral, anyone got anything else in it ?

I know nothing. But I wont let decades of shit conspiracy theories completely eradicate all sensible discussion of false flags.

However, its too soon for that so I shall wait and see what other scraps of info we are treated to on this one.
 
More of that in a related story too. I think the response has been the most interesting thing so far. There are times the mainstream media and governments suggest anything but the straightforward, default line is madness, and that we should take things on face value, and then there are times like these where we are invited not to buy it and a much freer approach to drawing conclusions is encouraged.

US 'blames Iran' for damaged tankers

Screenshot 2019-05-14 at 22.12.20.png
 
More awkward moments ahead on the propaganda front if this story continues to cover territory that exposes great differences between, for example, USA an Europe on Iran.
 
Iran denies it attacked UAE ships, blaming Israel and US instead

Iran has denied it is responsible for alleged attacks on four ships at the UAE port of Fujairah on Monday, saying Israel or the US was to blame for the acts of sabotage.

On Tuesday an Iranian parliamentary official, Behrouz Namati, blamed "Israeli mischief" for the attacks on the four ships, which included two Saudi oil tankers, a Norwegian vessel, and an Emirati vessel.

Namati did not give further details regarding alleged Israeli involvement.
 
This tension with Iran is John Bolton’s doing isn’t it? Malevolent wanker should be nowhere near power.

Plus it kicking off in Iran will bring another wave of desperate refugees fleeing horrible shit, hitting a wall of hardened compassion at the borders of Europe, those getting through fuelling the rise of more far-right bollocks. Everything is fucked.
 

That would mean the US and Israel are capable of committing false flag attacks - Laughable.

Let's face it, we proles are never going to know because the US hawks are never going to admit they did it, and the Iranians would never admit they did it, but both will blame the other. Israel also makes a really handy (and very possible) country to blame.
Still, we can guess and have fun trying to find out.
 
The US is overreaching here. The US is a long way from having the trust of European nations on attacking Iran or imposing economic sanctions on Iran. Unilateral US military action against Iran is not a sensible move. But I have been wrong before on US actions in the Middle East.
 
3rd BBC story from earlier on Tuesday that I am writing about here. Following right along from the theme I focussed on earlier, and fuck me this time we are even invited to join various dots.

Why the WhatsApp spies may have eyes on Iran

Time to join some dots.

The WhatsApp hack, "sabotaged" oil tankers, the push in the US to proscribe the Muslim Brotherhood and "plans" to deploy American troops to the Gulf are all strands of the same story. At its heart is the struggle between Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
 
This tension with Iran is John Bolton’s doing isn’t it? Malevolent wanker should be nowhere near power.

Plus it kicking off in Iran will bring another wave of desperate refugees fleeing horrible shit, hitting a wall of hardened compassion at the borders of Europe, those getting through fuelling the rise of more far-right bollocks. Everything is fucked.

The US is overreaching here. The US is a long way from having the trust of European nations on attacking Iran or imposing economic sanctions on Iran. Unilateral US military action against Iran is not a sensible move. But I have been wrong before on US actions in the Middle East.

Well its not just Bolton, there are other prominent hawks like Pompeo who have Iran in their sights, but its not really clear to me how far they will actually take it. I dont like some of the assumptions that are being made, eg in that last bbc article I linked to, about Trumps transactional politics and american political timing and what options this makes commentators think are implausible. Especially in an era where Israel has its Iran agenda and the Saudi regime has reached new levels of recklessness/overt use of murderous power in blatantly dodgy ways that cannot be largely ignored in the mainstream.

And yet all of that still has to be balanced against aspects of reality as it pertains to Iran, the same things I have felt the need to go on about in the past on this forum whenever the spectre of war with Iran was being touted in some fashion. I was mostly trying to counter the idea that a war with Iran would be very similar to other wars in the region in recent decades. For big reasons including the geography of Iran, and the various military capabilities it still has that other countries the USA & friends attacked did not. Iran has not been completely unimpeded by various conflicts and sanctions over the decades, but it hasnt seen its capabilities diminished in that way that, for example, Saddams Iraqs were. And there is no 'no fly zone' (= we fly zone = your airforce and air defences have been destroyed). And Iran was arguably starting from a historically stronger position, being that some used to think of Iran as 'the Germany of the middle east' in the same way that back in the day Lebanon may have been considered the 'Switzerland of the middle east'.

For those reasons I suppose I generally do not expect the sort of full out war with Iran that would involve troops on the ground etc etc. By the standards of wars the USA has been prepared to have for many decades now, Iran has not been softened up to anything even beginning to approach the required levels.

At the other end of the possibilities spectrum, we have the idea that this is just being done to play various games, exert particular forms of pressure, or even just to maintain a certain big narrative in public, draw attention there and not elsewhere, justify some other shit, perhaps even reasons such as trying to prop up the price of oil.

And then somewhere in the middle are possibilities I suppose I also have to be open to looking out for, just in case they emerge. Things that could involve specific armed conflict that stops short of full war and invasion. Limited attacks on specific facilities. The use of proxy groups to do some parts of the job. Or trying to degrade a specific capability or two, either quickly or slowly, there could be a longer game at play. Or trying to goad Iran into making some specific mistakes. Or setting the scene in advance for something as yet unclear.

The whole thing with Qatar makes me less willing to maintain all classic assumptions about what might happen in the region, and is another example of situations that have arisen that involve contradictions and awkward non-alignment of interests between certain allies on certain fronts. As far as I know neither side backed down on that one either so that mess continues without that much routine attention given to it. Qatar stuff also links into Muslim Brotherhood stuff and Qatars relations with Iran, and the Saudis throwing their weight around thing, not to mention traditional Qatar v UAE rivalries.
 
It is all a bit odd. The use of sabotage attack in KSA statements is a bit obtuse - was it sabotage or something else? No clues yet as to what form the alleged sabotage attacks took - just a bit of film of a stern waterline hole in a pair of ships- suggesting it was either a powered water based projectile or something fixed to the hull itself - not really powerful enough to do much damage or crucially not in a place to do much damage. It’s all a bit buster crabb innit. If it was an kamikaze Iranian fast attack craft that has been hawked for what seems line decades now , then we would surely be publicised as such - this is no USS Cole incident
 
Saudis calling for surgical strikes against Iran, and the Guardian writing the sort of piece that is far more along the lines of what we are traditionally used to hearing from our media about the region, including plenty of stuff that makes Iran sound solely responsible for the ramping up of tensions.

Iran tells Middle East militias: prepare for proxy war

The dynamic between Trump and his hawks is not completely clear to me. There is this:

Trump curbs hawks rushing towards conflict with Iran

President Trump summoned the Swiss president to the White House yesterday to ask him to open a communications channel with Iran amid fears that hawkish senior advisers were leading the United States into an unwanted war.
 
Trump Tells Pentagon Chief He Does Not Want War With Iran

President Trump has sought to put the brakes on a brewing confrontation with Iran in recent days, telling the acting defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, that he does not want to go to war with Iran, administration officials said, while his senior diplomats began searching for ways to defuse the tensions.

Mr. Trump’s statement, during a Wednesday morning meeting in the Situation Room, sent a message to his hawkish aides that he does not want the intensifying American pressure campaign against the Iranians to explode into open conflict.

For now, an administration that had appeared to be girding for conflict seems more determined to find a diplomatic off-ramp.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called the leader of Oman, Sultan Qaboos bin Said, on Wednesday to confer about the threat posed by Iran, according to a statement. Long an intermediary between the West and Iran, Oman was a site of a secret channel in 2013 when the Obama administration was negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran.
 
if the yanks think the eye rainians will be push over, they are mistaken. Iran is not as weak as the Iraq during the gulf war. their soldiers wont be surrendering en mass holding up copies of the Koran.
 
if the yanks think the eye rainians will be push over, they are mistaken. Iran is not as weak as the Iraq during the gulf war. their soldiers wont be surrendering en mass holding up copies of the Koran.

Yes, they know this well really, not the sort of enemy the USA likes to have overt wars with. This is not a cast-iron guarantee that war will never happen, but it severely affects the odds and media that doesnt dwell on this is deeply misleading.
 
Iranian army have been listed as a terrorist organisation by the US. So military action can be taken unilaterally and not be called war. The question is whether Japan, China and others will continue fuel imports from Iran in defiance of the US.

Lockheed Martin share price on the up... Which is not a good sign.
 
Iranian army have been listed as a terrorist organisation by the US. So military action can be taken unilaterally and not be called war. The question is whether Japan, China and others will continue fuel imports from Iran in defiance of the US.

Lockheed Martin share price on the up... Which is not a good sign.
I reckon they will continue the oil imports. Could this turn out to be America's Suez?
 
Bolton wants to provoke Iran into blockading Hormuz as a justification for a military strike. I was sat near some navy officers on the train a couple of weeks ago and they were talking about a large mobilisation and that they expected to be in Bahrain for the rest of the year.
 
Back
Top Bottom