Profile image
Story Views
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

“We Can Turn an Aircraft Carrier into a Submarine in Seconds” - Who Really Has This Technology?

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

“We can Turn an Aircraft Carrier into a

Submarine in Seconds”. Who Really Has

This Technology ?

Who stands to gain from a conflict with Iran ?  Who has a history of a deadly assault on one of our Naval vessels ? It is far more likely that this type of technology is possessed by Israel and not Iran. You will find the details in the Global Witness video below.

If anything happens to any of our military in the Persian Gulf region, the spotlight needs to go right on Israel and Saudi Arabia as the originating source.


(Note :The tag along video player and/or randomly inserted ad blocks are not part of this article. They are aggravating and a hindrance to the continuity of the article.  I apologize for the aggravation. I have no control over their placement in the body of this article.)

Iran: “We can Turn an Aircraft Carrier into a

Submarine in Seconds”..Just Test Us


VT Editors


May 25, 2019

Iran is prepared to deploy ‘secret weapons’ against American warships, a military official in Tehran said, after the Pentagon sent three destroyers to the Persian Gulf amid a wave of increased tensions between the two states.
Without mincing words, General Morteza Qorbani, an adviser to Iran’s military command, cautioned that should Washington “commit the slightest stupidity, we will send these ships to the bottom of the sea along with their crew and planes.”

Iran, he promised, would do so “using two missiles or two new secret weapons.” He did not specify what type of “secret weapons” he was referring to.

The US earlier deployed three guided-missile destroyers, the USS McFaul, USS Gonzalez, USS Mason, to the Persian Gulf, with the last warship crossing the Strait of Hormuz this week. They joined the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, which has been cruising off the coast of Oman, near the Gulf, since early May.

The military buildup near Iranian waters coincided with the Pentagon announcing plans to send around 1,500 additional troops to Iraq, which borders Iran.

Although General Qorbani did not provide details of the weapons he mentioned, in recent months the nation has been showcasing its newest ships and submarines, as well as its naval firepower. In February, Tehran unveiled and successfully tested its new Hoveizeh long-range cruise missile, which is said to have a range of over 1,350 kilometers.

In the same month, Tehran launched the massive Velayat 97 naval drill, with maneuvers spanning from the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman to the northern Indian Ocean. During the drill, a midget Ghadir-class submarine fired an anti-ship cruise missile for the first time.

Relations between the US and Iran deteriorated dramatically after disgraced President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew America from the Iran nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, and re-imposed sanctions on Tehran. The move was condemned by a number of nations, including Washington’s allies in Europe.

Meanwhile, in the US, dozens of retired top military brass and diplomats wrote an open letter to Trump, urging him to ditch the ‘stick’ approach and begin real talks with Iran. They warned that by failing to do so, the US risks not only making the situation in the Middle East worse, but also entering into “armed conflict at immense financial, human, and geopolitical cost.”



Will Israel Use a Secretly Developed Ship

Sinking Technology Against the U.S. Navy

to Provoke War With Iran ?


(Reminiscent of their deliberate attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, killing 34 servicemen and wounding 174 more. ints/ussliberty.html)




Streamed live on May 14, 2019

Please support the efforts of this ministry here:
Want to join the show for questions and comments LIVE on air? Use Zoom conference to join here:
Follow Global Witness On Twitter :
Get Global Witness email updates here:…
Join the Global Witness Family in fellowship on Discord by clicking the invite link here:
Global Witness Community Social Website #zionistfalseflag #prophecy #worldwar3



Simple laboratory electrochemical facility, simulating a sinking ship in foamed water.


Methane Bubbles Could Sink Ships, Scientists Find

Yahoo News ^ | 10/21/03 | Maggie Fox – Reuters

Posted on 10/21/2003, 7:15:50 PM by NormsRevenge

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Methane bubbles from the sea floor could, in theory, sink ships and may explain the odd disappearances of some vessels, Australian researchers reported on Tuesday.

The huge bubbles can erupt from undersea deposits of solid methane, known as gas hydrates. An odorless gas found in swamps and mines, methane becomes solid under the enormous pressures found on deep sea floors.

The ice-like methane deposits can break off and become gaseous as they rise, creating bubbles at the surface.

David May and Joseph Monaghan of Monash University in Australia said they had demonstrated how a giant bubble from one of these deposits could swamp a ship.

“Sonar surveys of the ocean floor in the North Sea (between Britain and continental Europe) have revealed large quantities of methane hydrates and eruption sites,” May and Monaghan wrote in their report, published in the American Journal of Physics.

“A recent survey revealed the presence of a sunken vessel within the center of one particularly large eruption site, now known as the Witches Hole.”

“One proposed sinking mechanism attributes the vessel’s loss of buoyancy to bubbles of methane gas released from an erupting underwater hydrate,” they wrote.” The known abundance of gas hydrates in the North Sea, coupled with the vessel’s final resting position and its location in the Witches Hole, all support a gas bubble theory.”

No one has ever seen such an eruption and no one knows how large the bubbles coming off a methane deposit would be.

May and Monaghan created a model of a single large bubble coming up under a ship. They trapped water between vertical glass plates, launched gas bubbles from the bottom and used a video camera to record what happened to an acrylic “hull” floating on the surface.

“Whether or not the ship will sink depends on its position relative to the bubble. If it is far enough from the bubble, it is safe,” they wrote.

“If it is exactly above the bubble, it also is safe, because at a stagnation point of the flow the boat is not carried into the trough. The danger position is between the bubble’s stagnation point and the edge of the mound where the trough formed,” they concluded. ).



Monster methane sinks ships

Thursday, 30 November 2000

News in Science

A research team in the North Sea has found evidence to support a theory that the ocean can suddenly become lighter than air, so that ships will sink like a stone, within minutes.

According to a report in the latest New Scientist exploding Methane gas is the culprit.

“When the gas bubbles up from the surface, it lowers the density of the water, and therefore its buoyancy,” marine geologist Alan Judd from the University of Sunderland told the journal. “Any ship caught above would sink as if it were in a lift shaft.” People jumping overboard in lifejackets would also sink immediately.

Organic matter deep under the seabed generates methane which works its way up through the sediment over thousands of years. Pockets of gas can build up beneath the surface and the gas can sometimes explode.

Gas below the surface is a known hazard for oil rigs. If they hit a gas pocket while drilling, the resulting blowout can sink the rig. But New Scientist says that until now, no one had found tangible evidence of ships being sunk by escapes of natural gas.

Judd’s interest was sparked by sonar surveys of Witch Ground, an area of sea about 150 kilometres north-east of Aberdeen, Scotland. They show the area is riddled with pockmarks from escaping gas. Surveys show that one unusually large mark, Witch’s Hole, has something resembling a plume of gas bubbles in its centre.

When the French oil company Total carried out another survey of the area, its probe collided with the “gas bubbles”, Judd realised the plume might be a wrecked ship.

He teamed up with maritime historians Robert Prescott and Mark Lawrence from St Andrew’s University, and a marine survey company, Fugro UDI to investigate.

The team sent down a remote-controlled submarine equipped with sonar and video which found a boat. It’s still in one piece, upright on the seabed, and shrouded in fishing nets snagged from passing trawlers.

Prescott identified it as a steel vessel, about 25 metres long, built between 1890 and 1930.

“The boat didn’t go in either end first, it went down flat,” said Judd. This meant that it was not a collision, or hole in the hull, because then it would have sunk end first, like the Titanic.

Judd couldn’t find signs of recent gas activity at Witch’s Hole. He was looking for mats of sulphur-oxidising bacteria, and precipitates of calcium carbonate, both of which depend on the presence of methane.

But the seabed inside the hole was extremely rugged, compared to the smooth surface elsewhere. And that could be due to recent gas releases. “It is tempting to suggest that it is evidence of a catastrophic gas escape in the not too distant past.”



Bubbling seas can sink ships

[Bermuda Triangle Explained?]

New Scientist ^ | 26 September 01 | Joanna Marchant

Posted on 9/26/2001, 11:40:32 PM by aculeus

Lab tests have proved that bubbles can sink floating objects. The findings add weight to suggestions that methane bubbles escaping from methane reserves in the seabed might have been to blame for vessels disappearing in the Bermuda Triangle and the North Sea.

The Greek mathematician Archimedes realised that for something to float, the density of the liquid has to be greater than the density of the object. So a simple argument is that if you mix enough bubbles into a liquid to lower its average density, an object floating on its surface should sink. People have suggested that this process is behind the mysterious demise of many ships that sank for no obvious reason.

However, Bruce Denardo at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, was sceptical. He points out that rising bubbles often carry currents of water up with them, exerting an upwards force on the floating object. For all but the most violent bubbles, this upward drag might be enough to keep an object afloat.

Bubbling under

Denardo and his colleagues decided to test the theory. They filled a four-litre glass beaker with water, then fed in air at the bottom at varying speeds. Then they dropped in steel balls filled with varying amounts of water and air to see how easily they would sink. If, in the absence of rising bubbles, the ball only just floated on the surface, switching on the bubbles made it sink.

“We were surprised that the theory was confirmed,” says Denardo. “This is just what one might naively expect, but we expected that an upward drag would occur.”

Even so, the case isn’t closed, Denardo says. Because the experiment was carried out in a closed container, he thinks upward currents might not have had room to form. In the open sea, upwellings would form more easily in the region of the bubbles, while the water would flow downwards again a short distance away.

Secret weapon

Initially this would help a boat to stay afloat. But if the vessel were swept slightly to one side, it might just hit the down currents and sink.

Denardo concludes that we can’t rule out the methane theory for ships lost in the Bermuda Triangle. “If a phenomenon can be made to occur in a lab, it probably occurs somewhere in the natural universe,” he says.

If bubbles can indeed sink ships, the military might want to use them as a weapon. Michael Stumborg, a researcher at the US Naval War College in Rhode Island, has proposed building “buoyancy bombs” that would collect and release bubbles.

An underwater vehicle could extract methane from a deposit in the seabed, then transport it to a point underneath a target ship. “The release of the methane will reduce the buoyancy of the ship and could in principle sink it,” says Denardo.

Journal reference: American Journal of Physics (vol 69, p 1064)


The Associated Press

updated 10/21/2003 2:44:02 PM ET

WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 — Methane bubbles from the sea floor could, in theory, sink ships and may explain the odd disappearances of some vessels, Australian researchers reported Tuesday.

The huge bubbles can erupt from undersea deposits of solid methane, known as gas hydrates. An odorless gas found in swamps and mines, methane becomes solid under the enormous pressures found on deep sea floors.

The icelike methane deposits can break off and become gaseous as they rise, creating bubbles at the surface.

David May and Joseph Monaghan of Monash University in Australia said they had demonstrated how a giant bubble from one of these deposits could swamp a ship.

“Sonar surveys of the ocean floor in the North Sea (between Britain and continental Europe) have revealed large quantities of methane hydrates and eruption sites,” May and Monaghan wrote in their report, published in the American Journal of Physics.

“A recent survey revealed the presence of a sunken vessel within the center of one particularly large eruption site, now known as the Witches Hole.”

“One proposed sinking mechanism attributes the vessel’s loss of buoyancy to bubbles of methane gas released from an erupting underwater hydrate,” they wrote. “The known abundance of gas hydrates in the North Sea, coupled with the vessel’s final resting position and its location in the Witches Hole, all support a gas bubble theory.”

No one has ever seen such an eruption, and no one knows how large the bubbles coming off a methane deposit would be.

May and Monaghan created a model of a single large bubble coming up under a ship. They trapped water between vertical glass plates, launched gas bubbles from the bottom and used a video camera to record what happened to an acrylic “hull” floating on the surface.

“Whether or not the ship will sink depends on its position relative to the bubble. If it is far enough from the bubble, it is safe,” they wrote.

“If it is exactly above the bubble, it also is safe, because at a stagnation point of the flow the boat is not carried into the trough. The danger position is between the bubble’s stagnation point and the edge of the mound where the trough formed,” they concluded.








Never forget what “they” did to the USS Liberty !



History’s Dire Warning: Beware False-Flag

Trigger for Long-Sought War with Iran

Israel’s “false flag” attack on the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967 cost 34 American lives. Dick Cheney planned to disguise U.S. troops as Iranians to fire on American ships to start a war. With Bolton and Israel on the warpath, the risk of another similar act is higher than ever.

May 14th, 2019
With the beat of Washington’s war drums continuing to grow, particularly following the Monday revelation of a government plan to send as many as 120,000 troops to counter Iran, the threat of an “accidental” provocation or a “false flag” is also becoming increasingly likely. As MintPress recently reported, the possibility of an “accident” leading to open conflict between the U.S. and Iran is now being openly stated by top European officials — such as U.K. Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt — following meetings with noted Iran hawk and current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

In Part I of this series, MintPress explored how current events — including seemingly unrelated regional events, such as the Israeli government’s bid to occupy the West Bank and the Syrian offensive against Al Qaeda-held Idlib — were converging to create a “now or never” scenario for those most eager for regime change in Iran and a U.S.-Iran military confrontation, particularly Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton.

This installment will also reveal how Trump’s top political patron Sheldon Adelson — who is also the top donor to Netanyahu and a long-time confidant of Bolton, whom he helped install in his powerful post in the Trump administration — may be the deciding factor whether Trump authorizes the use of military force against Iran

Yet, while the endgame for Bolton, Adelson and Netanyahu, as well as Pompeo, has long been a U.S.-led war with Iran, public justification for such hostilities must be given in order to manufacture American consent for a war against a country significantly larger than Iraq, complete with a more powerful army. Historically, the U.S. government has frequently planned and used false flags in order to justify the initiation or expansion of hostilities, with the best-known examples being Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

However, given the current situation, it is essential to revisit two other incidents that reveal that the key players pushing for war in Iran — Israel’s government and neoconservatives of the Bush era (Bolton chief among them) — have planned and attempted to execute false flag attacks to push the U.S. into a major war that the American public would not normally support.

Remembering the U.S.S. Liberty

On June 8, 1967, one of the worst attacks on a U.S. naval vessel during peacetime took place, an attack that the U.S. government has kept shrouded in secrecy over 50 years later in what many have called a cover-up.

Around two in the afternoon on a cloudless, sunny day, unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats attacked the U.S.S. Liberty — a largely defenseless naval intelligence vessel flying visible American flags — without provocation. The attack saw the aggressors commit several war crimes, including attacking with unmarked aircraft and vessels; shooting survivor-bearing lifeboats out of the water with machine-gun fire; and the jamming of the Liberty’s ability to use international distress frequencies.

Thirty-four American sailors lost their lives and 173 were wounded, and the Liberty — which cost U.S. taxpayers $40 million to build — was so badly damaged it was subsequently sold for scrap metal for pennies on the dollar.

During the attack and in its immediate aftermath, Liberty survivors were puzzled as to why the U.S. Department of Defense ordered the recall of U.S. ships that were on route to aid the Liberty from the hostile attack, which many sailors had assumed at the time was being conducted by Egyptian or Arab forces in light of the ship’s proximity to the Sinai Peninsula.

Indeed, the attack on the Liberty took place during the Israeli-Arab Six Day War, a war that Israel claimed to have started as a preemptive means of self-defense but that was later revealed to have been the culmination of years of planning for a war of aggression. This fact was openly admitted by former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in the early 1980s. Israel, an American ally, was not suspected by Liberty crewmen at the time of the attack as being their potential assailants.

However, no Arab nation had attacked the Liberty that day, though that assumption by Liberty sailors was what their true assailants had hoped they and the American public would believe. Instead, it had been Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats that had fired on the clearly-marked American vessel with torpedos, machine gun fire and even napalm. The Israelis “officially” maintain to this day, with little challenge from the U.S. government, that the attack was an accident, a fact that has been and continues to be heavily contested by the attack’s survivors.

Yet, beyond the testimony of survivors, the most compelling evidence that the attack on the Liberty was no accident comes from the Israelis themselves. Intercepted Israeli communications from the time of attack, made public only in recent years, reveal that the ship had been identified as American prior to the attack and, despite that, the plan was to sink the U.S.S. Liberty and ensure that there were no survivors. The goal of the attack was to place the blame on Egyptian forces, which necessitated there being no American survivors who could dispute the claim. If the Liberty had been sunk, it would have provided the United States legal cover and popular support for a more central role in the conflict and its crucial diplomatic aftermath. Indeed, the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty was a false flag, one that failed to achieve its intended goal of goading the U.S. into a major war.

Instead of responding with indignation, then-President Lyndon Johnson — whether it occurred before or during the attack is disputed — ordered that the Liberty not be rescued during the course of the attack, allegedly not wanting to harm relations with or “embarrass” an ally even if it meant consigning the 294-person crew of the Liberty to death.

USS Liberty

Damaged to the starboard side of the USS Liberty following Israeli attacks, June, 1967. Photo | NSA Archive

Those who survived the assault of the Liberty owe their lives to the then-23-year-old Terry Halbardier, who valiantly navigated the Liberty’s napalm-glazed deck and managed to jury-rig an antenna and send out an SOS signal to the Navy’s Sixth Fleet. Upon intercepting that distress signal, the Israelis immediately broke off the attack. Halbardier’s heroism prevented the massacre of all 294 crewmen and allowed them to live to tell their stories, despite Johnson’s having left them for dead.

Yet many Liberty survivors were unable to tell their stories for decades, as the U.S. government issued gag orders and threatened them with being court-martialed for speaking to anyone, even their spouses, about the incident. The Navy’s Board of Inquiry, which abetted the cover-up, was headed by Admiral John S. McCain Jr., the father of the late Senator John McCain of Arizona.

To this day, the U.S. government has failed to conduct a full, public inquiry into the attack. Liberty survivors who have since spoken out have been accused of “anti-Semitism” and of slandering Israel for discussing their personal and traumatic experiences of the attack, significantly compounding their suffering and post-traumatic stress.

While the survivors of Israel’s assault on the Liberty have been denied closure, the U.S. government’s response has endangered the lives of American personnel by clearly signaling to Israel that they will suffer no consequences for such “false flag” attacks, regardless of whether American servicemen are wounded or killed. As former CIA intelligence analyst Ray McGovern has previously noted for Consortium News, “the U.S. cover-up [of the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty] taught the Israelis that they could literally get away with murder.”

In a 2015 interview on the Real News Network, McGovern warned that the attack on the Liberty still holds “current relevance” and that he felt that “the Israelis are capable of doing this kind of thing when they see their supreme national interests at stake.” McGovern further stated that Israeli officials may well have considered a provocation, such as false flag, to throw a wrench in the Iran nuclear deal, which was being negotiated at the time.

McGovern — in an open letter to President Barack Obama, co-authored with former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East in the National Intelligence Council Elizabeth Murray — noted that Admiral Mike Mullen, former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Bush administration, had flown to Israel in 2003 and told the Israeli government emphatically “to disabuse themselves of the notion that U.S. military support would be knee-jerk automatic if they somehow provoked open hostilities with Iran. According to the Israeli press, Mullen went so far as to warn the Israelis not to even think about another incident at sea like the deliberate Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty.”

McGovern and Murray cited Mullen’s statements to Israeli officials as the first time that “a senior U.S. official braced Israel so blatantly about the Liberty incident.” In an email to MintPress, McGovern stated that he was unsure whether current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford “can be counted upon to play a similar restraining role” in preventing hostilities with Iran. Notably, Dunford was in attendance along with Bolton at the recent CIA meeting to discuss “highly sensitive covert actions” in relation to Iran.

An “accident” waiting to happen

Since Bolton announced the movement of the Lincoln carrier strike group towards the Persian Gulf, some have pointed out that the vessels could well be destined for use in a “false flag” provocation, such as one planned by former Vice President Dick Cheney in 2008 (to be discussed shortly) and another conducted by Israel in 1967. Indeed, as MintPress noted the day after Bolton’s announcement, the carrier strike group’s deployment was actually announced a month prior and was a routine deployment.

The political analysis blog Moon of Alabama also noticed that Bolton had framed this routine deployment as something more dire for his own purposes, writing:

The carrier deployment to the Gulf is routine. It had beenannounced on April 8. The U.S. has bomberson rotation in the Middle East since 2001. Moreover – a carrier in the Persian Gulf is a sure sign that the U.S. will not attack Iran. Within the restricted waters of the Persian Gulf a carrier is a too easy target. The idea though may be to provide for an ‘accident’’ as Iran’s Foreign Minister [Javad Zarif] described it in a recent CBS interview.”

In an interview late last month with CBS’ Face the Nation, Zarif explicitly told journalist Margaret Brennan his concern about an imminent “false flag” to trigger war with Iran by John Bolton in collaboration with Israeli, Saudi and Emirati leadership:

Foreign Minister Zarif | I don’t think military confrontation will happen. I think people have more prudence than allowing a military confrontation to happen. But, I think the U.S. administration is putting things in place for accidents to happen. And there has to be extreme vigilance, so that people who are planning this type of accident would not have their way.

Margaret Brennan | What do you mean? What kind of accident are you talking about?

Zarif | I’m talking about people who have — who are designing confrontation, whose interest —

Brennan | Who’s doing that?

Zarif | My ‘B’ team. I call —

Brennan | What do you mean ‘B’ team?

Zarif | I call the group ‘B’ team who have always tried to create tension, whose continued existence depends on tension. Ambassador Bolton, one ‘B,’ Bibi Netanyahu, second ‘B,’ Bin Zayed, third ‘B,’ Bin Salman, fourth ‘B.’ And I’m not just making accusations.

With an aircraft carrier little more than a sitting duck in the area amid rising tensions between the U.S. and Iran, an “accident” may well occur. As was noted in Part I of this mini-series, such a possibility was directly stated by British Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt on Monday.

Hunt told reporters “We are very worried about the risk of a [U.S.-Iran] conflict happening by accident, with an escalation that is unintended really on either side but ends with some kind of conflict.” Hunt notably made the statement after meeting with Pompeo, who is currently in Europe meeting with European heads of state to discuss Iran. The Associated Press noted that the Trump administration had warned European officials, Hunt included, that “Iran or its proxies could be targeting maritime traffic in the Persian Gulf region.”

The possibility of such an “accident” is further compounded by Bolton’s aforementioned and “highly unusual” meeting about Iran and “highly sensitive covert actions” at CIA headquarters last week. Declassified CIA documents show that the agency had previously planned to stage terror attacks on U.S. soil and murder Americans to blame on Cuba in order to justify invading the Caribbean nation in the 1960s. That plan, known as Operation Northwoods, further called for the destruction of U.S. military vessels to be blamed on Cuba and also the staging of fires and mortar attacks on U.S. military installations in Cuba (i.e., Guantanamo Bay) or nearby (i.e., in Florida). Though Operation Northwoods was never enacted, the agency has been accused of orchestrating numerous “false flags” in the decades since.

As was recently seen with the alleged “sabotage” of Saudi oil tankers near Iran, there are many potential targets for provocation. However, the incident that would most assuredly force U.S. involvement in a military conflict would be an attack on an American military target. While some have dismissed Bolton’s announcement of the carrier’s movements as a self-serving manipulation of the facts, it may have had the added purpose of framing the lead-up to an unfortunate “accident” targeting American vessels in the area, particularly the Lincoln carrier strike group or one of the other subsequent U.S. naval deployments to the Middle East.

The neocon plan for a Liberty-like attack

If any sort of provocation blamed on Iran should occur, it is important to consider that a powerful group of U.S. politicians — the neo-conservatives — have long sought to plan provocations that would drag the U.S. into war with Iran. One of the most recent examples took place during the George W. Bush administration when then-Vice President Dick Cheney held a meeting with other administration officials in 2008 aimed at provoking war with Iran.

The details of that meeting were revealed by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh, who described some of the ideas considered in that Cheney-led meeting as follows:

There were a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build in our shipyard four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives.

And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of, that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation.

Silly? Maybe. But potentially very lethal. Because … if you get the right incident, the American public will support bang-bang-kiss-kiss. You know, we’re into it.”

It is unknown if any Bush officials now in the Trump administration were present at that meeting where the use of a “false flag” pitting Americans against Americans disguised as Iranian was discussed. However, what is known is that John Bolton — who was a member of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century, along with Cheney, and who also served in the Bush administration — has zealously sought war with Iran for nearly two decades. Indeed, the New York Times recently described Bolton as “one of the administration’s most virulent Iran hawks, whose push for confrontation with Tehran was ignored more than a decade ago by President George W. Bush.” It is also known that Bolton has a history of playing fast and loose with unconfirmed intelligence and also distorting intelligence to fit his pre-determined narrative.

As MintPress reported last year, former Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Gillerman has stated that Bolton, when serving in the Bush administration, was prone to “direct fire on his own forces,” — i.e., the U.S. government — in order to advance the goals of the Israeli government, especially with respect to Iran. For instance, in more than one instance while in the Bush administration, Bolton traveled to Israel in violation of State Department rules and negotiated privately with Israeli officials, including the then-head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, to lay the groundwork for a war with Iran. As journalist Gareth Porter has noted, Bolton did this in an effort to directly undermine Colin Powell, Bolton’s superior, just as Powell “was saying administration policy was not to attack Iran.”

Worse still, Bolton has pressured Israeli officials to initiate a war with Iran, even when they didn’t support such a move. One such case was Shaul Mofaz, former Israeli defense minister, who told Israeli media last March that Bolton “tried to convince me that Israel needs to attack Iran,” even though Mofaz did not see such a war as “a smart move — not on the part of the Americans today or anyone else until the threat is real.”

Pompeo’s Holy war and rapture

Furthermore, Bolton is not the only top Trump administration official who has long promoted a war with Iran, as current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had also called for the preemptive bombing of Iran long before he joined the Trump administration. Pompeo’s desire to push the U.S. towards war with Iran is based on his fervent adherence to Christian Zionism. As a result of the admitted influence his beliefs hold over his foreign policy, Pompeo sees an “apocalyptic” war between Israel and Iran as a necessary precursor to the Second Coming of Christ and the “rapture.”

Pompeo is on record speaking about the rapture on several occasions, particularly as CIA director when he spoke about the event — which holds that “true believers” will ascend to Heaven prior to the tribulations and trials of the “end times” — so often that he made veteran intelligence officers uncomfortable. As a result, some have asserted that Pompeo is “a man who appears to view American foreign policy as a vehicle for holy war.”

The fact that the actions of the current Secretary of State are influenced by his Christian Zionist faith was on display last month, when American Christian journalist Chris Mitchell of the Christian Broadcasting Network asked Pompeo: “Could it be that President Trump right now has been sort of raised for such a time as this … to help save the Jewish people from the Iranian menace?” Pompeo responded that this was definitely “possible.”

If Adelson has his way . . .

Yet, perhaps the most dangerous force driving the U.S. towards a war with Israel is not the public face of the Trump administration’s foreign policy but its private face. Sheldon Adelson — the top donor to Trump, the entire Republican Party, and also the top political donor to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu — has long sought war with Iran, and several of Adelson’s desired policies have already been enacted by Trump. These include recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, replacing H.R. McMaster with Bolton as National Security Advisor, and withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal. Several reports have asserted that pressure from Adelson was a deciding factor in Trump’s fulfillment of these policies.

Adelson’s influence over Trump again takes on great significance, given recent events with respect to Iran, as Adelson has previously advocated for a U.S. nuclear attack on Iran without provocation, just so the U.S. could “impose its demands [on Iran] from a position of strength.”

Per Adelson’s plan, the U.S. would drop a nuclear bomb in the middle of the Iranian desert and then threaten that “the next one is in the middle of Tehran” to show that “we mean business.” Tehran, Iran’s capital, is home to nearly 9 million people with 15 million more in its suburbs. Were Tehran to be attacked with nuclear weapons, an estimated 7 million would die within moments, according to a 2013 study jointly conducted by researchers at the University of Georgia and Harvard.

Sheldon Adelson | Trump

Sheldon Adelson, center, arrives to hear President Donald Trump speak at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual meeting, April 6, 2019, in Las Vegas. Jacquelyn Martin | AP

Yet, any sort of diplomatic engagement with Iran, according to Adelson, is “the worst negotiating tactic I could ever imagine.”

In other words, Adelson has called for dropping nuclear weapons on a country, including its heavily populated capital city, for no reason other than to show that the U.S. “means business” and considers nuclear war a negotiating tactic.

While some media reports have suggested that Trump is unwilling to go to war with Iran and is uneasy with the hawkish policies of Bolton and Pompeo, he will have a hard time ignoring Adelson. Adelson, who poured $35 million into Trump’s 2016 campaign and spent $55 million on Republican primary campaigns last year, is the party’s most influential donor and angering him could well mean the end of Trump’s political career.

Would Trump resist a push for war from not just Netanyhu, Bolton and Pompeo but Adelson as well? It seems unlikely. Craig Holman of the watchdog group Public Citizen told ProPublica in 2018 that he “would put Adelson at the very top of the list of both access and influence in the Trump administration,” a sentiment that was also echoed by Alan Dershowitz, who has done legal work for Adelson and advised Trump. Dershowitz told ProPublica that Adelson “just calls the president all the time. Donald Trump takes Sheldon Adelson’s calls.” As MintPress has noted on several occasions, those calls often translate into policy decisions.

Unfortunately, Trump — even when he tries to follow a different path, as he attempted to do in Syria — often ends up conceding to the neo-conservatives and Zionist extremists who surround (and fund) him.

History issues a warning

The combination of current tensions and the documented history of both Israel and Bush-era neo-conservatives planning and even executing false flag attacks in order to justify U.S. military action against a desired target — should set off alarm bells. Instead, most corporate media outlets are playing up unfounded or baseless claims of the “Iranian threat” and Iran’s unproven role in recent acts of “sabotage” in Saudi Arabia and in the UAE in ways that are strikingly similar to the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Furthermore, the history and mindset of both Bolton and Pompeo, in addition to the unprecedented influence of Sheldon Adelson in the Trump administration, add yet another layer to this increasingly complex yet undeniably troubling situation.

As a consequence, it is imperative for people around the world, particularly in the United States, to be skeptical of any act of violence blamed on Iran before a full investigation is completed, and to resist a rapid push to begin a conflict with Iran that could well follow such an act.

The time for resistance, ideally, would be before such an attack occurs, making critical the widespread dissemination of relevant information left unmentioned by the corporate media, such as that contained in Parts I and II of this series. The crucial context here is the well-documented willingness of both the Israeli and U.S. governments to sacrifice (i.e., kill) Americans in order to plunder the natural resources of “unfriendly” nations and pursue the objectives of the political and economic elite of both countries.

Feature photo | U.S. Sailors aboard the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge (LHD 3) as it transits the Strait of Hormuz, Feb. 15, 2019. Mike DiMestico | Dvids

Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism.

Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.


End of article.


I do not necessarily endorse any products or services mentioned in these videos, on this web site or in any subsequent written material by the original authors of the presented material or this web site. I do not condone the use of any type of “inserted” advertising or p/u players into the body of an article, that is the site owner’s practice, not mine.  I do not intend to, nor do I, derive any profits or income from posting this material.

I may not agree with everything presented in this material , however I have probably found that there is sufficient valuable information to justify bringing it forward for you to sift through in order to expand your awareness and to trigger your desire to dig deeper to learn more about the subject matter presented. 

My posts are not meant to be polished works, they are more utilitarian, meant to be a gathering of data/info loosely pulled together to become a starting point for further investigation and research. Consider it more like semi-processed mined dirt, something still requiring further sifting to extract it’s wealth.

I do not make any claims of being the original creator or owner of the material that I generally post. My sole intent is to share and pass on information that has contributed to my awakening process.  I will normally print my two cents worth in green so as to distinguish it from the original author/creator of the posted material.

I present this material for informational, research and educational purposes only. It is not my intent to maliciously attack nor offend anybody (unless you are a Luciferian Swamp Dweller), so please develop a thicker skin, realize it is not my intent to insult, forgive me, shed it like water off a duck’s back and move on, a better person.   The material is presented for your edification, you filter it as you see fit according to your perspective. May God’s blessings and wisdom be upon you.




Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!

Join our affiliate program and earn extra money by sharing with friends and family or by posting on your social media.

Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at

Get our Free Ebook, "Suppressed Health Secrets"  with  Natural Cures THEY don't want you to know!

APeX - Far superior to colloidal silver! Destroys Viruses, Bacteria, Pathogens with Oxygen plus Silver!

Supreme Fulvic - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!

Ultimate Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.

MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser!  Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen! 
Organic Hemp Extract (CBD) - Full Spectrum high CBD (3300mg) hemp extract eases stiff joints, relieves stress and more!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover -  Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%!  (See Video)

FINAL WARNING!  Diseases are EXPLODING!  Watch this Video about APeX and You'll THROW AWAY Your Colloidal Silver!  APeX destroys Viruses, Bacteria and other Pathogens with the power of Oxygen PLUS Silver!  Nobody else has a product like THIS!   See why the inventor hasn't been sick in 16 years and why you'll never hear about it on the FAKE NEWS!  Get some now and tell your friends about it too so we can reach more people!  

APeX Interview - Superior to Colloidal Silver from Lee Canady on Vimeo.

Learn about APeX Here and Get the 50 Page Report in PDF format.   Call us at 888-809-8385 to order by phone.

Report abuse


    Your Comments
    Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

    Total 3 comments
    • Central Scrutinizer

      Bravo on winning the ‘BIN Longest Article That Never Actually Said Anything’ award.

      By the way – TLDR :mrgreen:

      • Knarlydawg

        You obviously just skimmed it …….. there are pieces of data throughout the posted material that help to expose the strong probability that Israel and their cohorts in the U.S. have developed weapons technology capable of sinking ships by rapidly decreasing the density of the water under the vessel. Derek Broes in the Global Witness video describes how he was involved with an Israeli company (in Israel) and he was on a team that developed that exact technology. Iran is not the one who will use such a weapon …… Israel will use it via proxy minions making it look like Iran to provoke U.S. retaliation. Deep State elements in the U.S., NATO, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran will be involved if such an event occurs.

        The last half of the article, including the TruNews videos, reveals the truth about the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty to show that Israel will do such attacks on U.S. vessels to press their agenda forward. You just have to invest the time to watch and listen to the admittedly long videos in order to glean the pertinent information. The three short pieces on sea bed mass methane releases being able to cause ship sinkings, are there to show the validity of the concept. I’m just providing pieces to the puzzle …. not the completed puzzle.

        TLDR :?:

      • Knarlydawg

        BTW Central Scrutinizer, TLDR disqualifies you from legitimately making your claim.

    Load more ...




    Email this story
    Email this story

    If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

    If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.