Read the Beforeitsnews.com story here. Advertise at Before It's News here.
Profile image
By Justice Integrity Project
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views
Now:
Last hour:
Last 24 hours:
Total:

Trump Lied About His Planned Iran Strike In Pattern With Past

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


President Trump’s clumsy explanation Friday of his planned military strike against Iran rapidly collapsed. But it falls within a longer tradition of Executive Branch secrecy and deception regarding history-making United States military and intelligence developments.

Trump claimed via Twitter and then during an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press host Chuck Todd that he learned from military officials for the first time just 30 minutes before a planned retaliatory attack on Iran that it would cause an estimated 150 Iranian deaths.

Trump is shown with Todd at right, with Vice President Mike Pence at center, at the White House for the June 23 interview. Trump said that he cancelled an Air Force attack on Iran  just before launch because the effect would be disproportionate to Iran’s downing of an unmanned drone with no casualties.

Experts, including pundits quoted by name and unnamed sources, promptly disputed Trump’s version.

Former U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, told an MSNBC audience, for example, that military officials always gave her casualty estimates early during any advance briefing for her as a senator — and that military would certainly provide an even more thorough briefing to a president before a major strike. Military and intelligence experts concurred on air.

The New York Times first reported that airplanes were already in the air when Trump aborted the mission, contradicting his account. The Washington Post later reported that Trump had in fact been briefed on casualty estimates early on Thursday, unlike his claim that he raised the issue for the first time just 30 minutes before the attack and that “generals” had to research the matter and then get back to him in time for his executive decision.

Other critics roundly criticized Todd and NBC. Aaron Rupar of Vox, for example, published a June 24 column, Chuck Todd’s Trump interview, and the backlash to it, explained. Rupar wrote: At numerous points throughout the interview, Todd let Trump get away with blatant falsehoods and gaslighting. Todd also teed up a number of softball questions for the president, like ‘Do you think you’ve been more successful in business or the presidency?’”

Similarly, the conservative but anti-Trump Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin wrote on June 24Trump’s lies need to be exposed in real time.

The dispute over Trump’s veracity raises many issues. One involved the sudden resignation of Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan after someone leaked rumors of a long-ago domestic scandal. Shanahan and his son reportedly his then-wife.

Some commentators have claimed that replacement of Shanahan, rumored to have been less militant on Iran than Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, smacks of internal Trump Administration intrigue, especially since Shanahan’s replacement was Secretary of the Army, Mark Esper, (shown at right) a West Point colleague of Pompeo’s and purported ally of the administration’s most extreme hawks.

Whatever the facts on that, one issue noted all too seldom by major media is that dissembling and secrecy have a disturbing history in such presidential decision-making on the most important matters, typically involving war, assassinations and covert backgrounds of elected office-holders.

With a few exceptions, such as the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” hoax leading to the 2003 U.S. coalition attack on Iraq, the mainstream, corporate-owned media are especially reluctant to reassess the past even, or especially, in historically important “national security” matters for several enduring reasons.

Those reasons include fear of lost access to powerful officials and fear of compromising the news’  organizations’ own mistakes and / or complicity. The latter reason should concern the public most of all:

This is that on the ultimate civic issues, particularly in matters of lying to promote “national security” or other foreign policy goals, the major media are partners in elite Western “democratic” power structures, not independent critics of it as promoted in conventional wisdom.

For example, our most recent column here, Trump Found His Roy Cohn In Deep State Fixer Bill Barr, reported how the major media and Congress alike have been extremely reluctant event to mention Attorney General William Barr’s disgraceful record as a CIA operative and Justice Department apparatchik decades ago helping cover up heinous, state-sanctioned narcotics and arms smuggling decades ago, along with associated financial crimes totaling hundreds of billions of dollars in victim losses. 

Attorney General William Barr, center, flanked by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, right, and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Edward O’Callaghan of the National Security Division, are shown as Barr used pro-Trump language to dismiss the findings of the Mueller Report at Justice Department news conference on April 18, 2019.

Just in the time since that column, there are new examples of how secrecy envelopes even the most important foreign policy decisions an even when enough time has passed so that they become the focus of historical inquiry.

A vivid example occurred two weeks ago when former U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter spoke at the Atlantic Magazine’s headquarters at the Watergate about his new book, Inside the Five-Sided Box): Lessons from a Lifetime of Leadership in the Pentagon.

Carter, shown at right on the cover of his book, had spent three decades at the Pentagon before his promotion from deputy defense secretary to the cabinet position during President Obama’s second term.

During Q&A, this reporter noted that the book briefly addressed Obama’s failure to enforce his “red line” in Syria during the late summer of 2013 but failed to describe who advocated for war authorization from Congress and who advocated for an immediate strike against the Syrian government led by President Bashar al-Assad.

Carter, now director of Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, is writing and speaking for “history,” I mentioned in seeking more detail and no longer an administration employee.

“I’m not going to tell you that for two reasons,” Carter responded. “One, I’m not sure I know because I was deputy secretary at the time….Second, I don’t remember that kind of detail and I would never betray that kind of confidence.”

Can’t Confirm

Shortly afterward during the book-signing part of the program, I mentioned to Carter that I had published 2013 columns based on sources who said that top uniformed military had persuaded the president, despite contrary advice from top civilian advisors, to seek congressional authorization before starting a war against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government.

“I can’t confirm that,” Carter responded while signing my copy of his 463-page book, billed on the cover by endorser Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, as “required reading for every citizen who wants to know more about how our country stays secure.”

My two 2013 columns on the Justice Integrity Project site had been Did America’s Top General Save Nation From Open-Ended War in Syria? on Sept. 3 and Learn the Truth About Benghazi Before Syria Vote! on Sept. 4.

They followed a column on the Wayne Madsen Report (WMR), Obama’s Syrian chemical attack “proof” relies solely on Israeli intelligence on Aug. 28, 2013, by my colleague Wayne Madsen, who had arranged a meeting for us with two intelligence experts used to analyzing timely but non-classified, sensitive matters.

Madsen, himself a former Navy intelligence officer and analyst for the National Security Agency, had begun his column this way:

WMR’s sources inside the Washington Beltway report that President Obama relied solely on signals intelligence (SIGINT) provided by Israel’s version of the U.S. National Security Agency, Unit 8200, to conclude that Syria’s government ordered the August 21 chemical attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta.

Unit 8200 claimed it had intercepted a communication from a Syrian army unit operating near Ghouta on August 21. The Israelis concluded from the intercept that Syria’s army carried out the chemical attack on Ghouta, although there has been no independent confirmation from Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) or the UN weapons inspection team as to who carried out the attack and even what type of chemical weapons were used.

Madsen, right, has also published many columns and a 2012 book, The Manufacturing of a President. It documents how Obama’s and his parents’ longstanding ties to the U.S. intelligence community better explained his ascendancy to the presidency and his presidential policies than a his brief and later work as a “community organizer” in Chicago during the mid-1980s. Madsen’s 2013 column on Syrian war decision-making continued:

Obama claims that his pursuit of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is intended to safeguard NSA’s most closely-guarded secrets that are used to combat terrorism. However, Obama, in his decision to accept the Israeli SIGINT as prima facie evidence of a Syrian chemical attack on civilians, has bypassed NSA’s own SIGINT product, which is flowing into the joint NSA/British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) interception facility in Cyprus, to push the notion that Syrian President Bashar al Assad carried out the attack.

NSA’s and GCHQ’s intelligence do not conclusively prove Syrian government involvement.

WMR has also learned that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, were opposed to taking military action against Syria based only on Israeli SIGINT. However, after Obama made his decision after deferring to National Security Adviser Susan Rice, UN ambassador Samantha Power, and political adviser Valerie Jarrett, both Hagel and Dempsey began plans on August 23 to carry out a unilateral military strike on Syria without the invocation of the War Powers Act or with the authorization of the UN Security Council.

Hersh Tries To Inform

Famed investigative reporter Seymour M. Hersh, a former New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winner who had long contributed as a featured free-lancer to The New Yorker Magazine, later published a similar source-based story in The London Review of Books, Whose sarin? on Dec 19.

Hersh, shown delivering a lecture in 2015, began:

Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts.

Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack.

In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order — a planning document that precedes a ground invasion — citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.

The New Yorker declined to publish Hersh’s story or his follow up, The Red Line and the Rat Line on April 14, 2014. Hersh’s question, answered in nearly 5,800 words, was:

Why did Obama delay and then relent on Syria when he was not shy about rushing into Libya? The answer lies in a clash between those in the administration who were committed to enforcing the red line, and military leaders who thought that going to war was both unjustified and potentially disastrous.

The New Yorker’s banishment of Hersh for raising these types of questions severely undermined his relationship with his most important outlet and thus the ability of one of the nation’s best known and most honored investigative reporters to inform the public about national security issues. 

Other examples abound. Discerning readers can find lots of them, although they are most apparent when investigative reporters on national security issues compare recollections with one another about the ongoing tensions between reporting “the story” and maintaining employment. Job-holding often typically requires access to pro-interventionist sources, often labeled “right to protect’ advocates when Democrats like Obama and his aides and “neo-conservatives” when Republican, like Trump’s secretary of state..

I can contribute one more such example here, among the many that other reporters experience and share.

On May 18, 2015, I attended a news conference at the National Press Club featuring former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell regarding the publication of his book The Great War of Our Time: The CIA’s Fight Against Terrorism From Al Qa’ida to ISIS. For some reason, there was only about six reporters president, not all whom asked questions, even though Morell (shown in one of my photos) had been an acting CIA director and had worked “intimately” with Presidents Bush and Obama and six CIA directors during his career.

So, it was not unreasonable for me to ask three questions at separate times during the news conference. One was why the CIA was fighting release of remaining classified documents about President Kennedy’s 1963 assassination that Congress had voted unanimously in 1992 to be released by 2017 in accordance with a careful review process.

Another question regarded the identity of those in the adjoining 2013 picture of then U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, the late Republican of Arizona, meeting with Syrian rebels in May 2013.

Some critics have claimed that one of the rebels was the future ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, asserted by some to be second from the left and a photo closely resembling his 2004 mug shot at right before he became fully bearded.

A New York Times New York-based editor, Rick Gladstone, disputed the characterization, in a opinion-style column that appeared as a news article in a Global Research edition in 2014.

The New York Times article, Try as He May, John McCain Can’t Shake Falsehoods About Ties to ISIS, cited scant evidence aside from general denials from McCain’s representatives that his meetings with rebel leaders had included future ISIS leaders.

“I don’t know,” was Morell’s answer at this 2015 news conference, with slight variation, to all three of my questions. He delivered it in a not-unpleasant tone, as befits a new author promoting his book to a professional audience. But his answer and the overall circumstances invited no further discussion to any of the three questions (the third was on the Syria rebellion and similar to the question posed to Ash Carter)..

After the news conference Morell amplified to me more privately while departing, again in a friendly tone: He said that while he did run the CIA at times as deputy and acting director, “that doesn’t mean I know everything.”

Fair enough. But these are hardly trivial matters for an intelligence agency. And the larger point prompting this column is that there never seems to be a time, whether in a book, a congressional investigation or small group interviews with the media, whereby the most sensitive questions are answered.

“I don’t know” seems to be the all-purpose answer from those at or close to the answers

The Basic Problem — And Suggested Solution

Future of Freedom President Jacob Hornberger summed up an even more basic problem in his June 24 opinion column, The Solution to Trump’s Iran Mayhem. Hornberger, right, a Libertarian, law school and military academy graduate, and a publisher of books on sensitive national security topics such as the JFK assassination.

Hornberger published in 2009, for example, a five-volume set Inside the Assassination Records Review Board (AARB), authored by Douglas P. Horne,for chief analyst for military records of the congressionally mandated and presidentially supervise AARB process designed to release all relevant JFK assassination records by 2017.

Trump thwarted that AARB document-release process by withholding many records until at least after his first term, with scant meaningful explanation of why he felt he could unilaterally overturn a 1992 passed unanimously by Congress simply by claiming “national security.”

Hornberger, who organized a 2017 conference portraying Kennedy at right, had predicted Trump’s actions, however, claiming that Trump as a deal-maker was doubtless in negotiations with the CIA and other intelligence agencies to advance his personal interests, including suppression of embarrassing material, in exchange for withholding information about the Kennedy assassination and cover up that might embarrass important (albeit deceased) U.S. employees and their still-living institutions.

Hornberger, in his column this week about Iran, continued:

The Iran mayhem goes far beyond Donald Trump. It should cause Americans to question the entire foreign policy/military paradigm under which the United States has been operating for more than a century, a paradigm based on empire, world policing, foreign interventionism, and national-security statism.

Hornberger’s JFK-related books focus on forensic medical discrepancies in Warren Commission report on the death and also on pro-war factions in the United States who hated Kennedy’s initiatives for peace late in his administration after the Bay of Pig fiasco in Cuba, the Russian Missile Crisis and the worsening Vietnam War.

The publisher continued in his June 24 column:

The problems began when the U.S. government abandoned its founding policies of a limited-government republic and non-interventionism and instead became a national-security state and embraced a foreign policy of empire and interventionism.

This is what gave the country a huge, permanent military establishment, both domestically and in foreign countries. It also gave the nation assassinations, torture, coups, regime-change operations, alliances with dictatorial regimes, installation of dictatorial regimes, sanctions, embargoes, illegal invasions and occupations, undeclared wars, wars of aggression, terrorism, a war on terrorism, out-of-control spending and debt, and, of course, the destruction of American liberty and privacy.

We close with the words that Douglas Horne, shown at left, used to begin his five-volume JFK assassination book series, published in 1,807 pages in an oversize, 8 by 10-inch format because there was so much-material.

The words came from President Kennedy, speaking in February 1962 on the 20th anniversary of the Voice of America (VOA), a U.S. government-run broadcast network. The words are not without irony. The VOA was always anti-Communist in tone and purpose. And the Kennedy Administration had its national security and other secrets, which have been only partially exposed despite an estimated 3,500 books addressing the still-partial public knowledge about the president’s assassination.

Nonetheless, Kennedy’s words can still inspire:

We seek a free flow of information….We  are not afraid to entrust the Ameran people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosphies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and fa;sehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.

In sum, the public deserves to know what really happened last week regarding Iran — but perhaps never will learn unless the current culture of silence, “I don’t know” and cover up is thwarted.


Subscribe to JIP Posts by email

Contact the author Andrew Kreig

Related News Coverage

June 24

Vox, Analysis: Chuck Todd’s Trump interview, and the backlash to it, explained, Aaron Rupar, June 24, 2019. President Donald Trump’s pretaped interview on Sunday’s Meet the Press is blowing up — but not for reasons host Chuck Todd, shown at right in an NBC screengrab at the White House, or NBC would like.

At numerous points throughout the interview, Todd let Trump get away with blatant falsehoods and gaslighting. Todd also teed up a number of softball questions for the president, like “Do you think you’ve been more successful in business or the presidency?” and “Do you speak to any of the former presidents?”

Trump’s interview with Todd comes at the end of a week that began with George Stephanopoulos’s occasionally hard-hitting hour-long interview with Trump and also featured an episode of Sean Hannity’s Fox News show that was devoted almost entirely to a fawning phone call.

While there were a number of newsworthy moments during the Meet the Press interview, Todd was widely criticized for how he dealt with an NBC star turned president who has made a bit of a cottage industry out of bashing his former business partner.

NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen said the interview “was not public discourse” and compared the proceedings to “feeding English sentences into a wood chipper,” while University College London political scientist Brian Klaas criticized Todd for appearing to be unprepared for Trump’s lies.

Washington Post, Opinion: Trump’s lies need to be exposed in real time, Jennifer Rubin, June 24, 2019. President Trump has made more than 10,700 false or misleading claims: Washington Post Fact Checker.

Allowing Trump and his ilk to bluster and flat-out lie their way through interviews might be the path of least resistance when trying to cover a lot of ground. However, if Trump and his teammates are not stopped dead in their tracks, the media become a platform for deceiving voters.

Headlines that echo the president — “Trump says Obama did it first” — are equally reprehensible. (It should be “Trump falsely blames Obama for his own policy.”)

We’re at risk of losing not only a shared set of facts but also a uniform belief that there are such things as facts. That’s straight out of the autocratic playbook — one that the media cannot facilitate.

Future of Freedom Foundation, Opinion: The Solution to Trump’s Iran Mayhem, Jacob G. Hornberger, right, June 24, 2019. Undoubtedly, President Trump is fantasizing about the possibility of being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for deciding at the last minute to not bomb Iran in retaliation for Iran’s shoot-down of a Pentagon drone. Apparently experiencing a crisis of conscience, Trump called off the strike when he learned that it would kill an estimated 150 people, which he decided would be disproportionate to the downing of an unmanned drone.

Meanwhile, Trump is not only continuing his brutal system of sanctions on Iran but actually ratcheting them up even more. His goal? To kill more Iranians through economic deprivation, either through starvation, illness, or domestic plane crashes arising from an inability to secure needed parts for maintenance and repair.

Should the Nobel Peace Prize be awarded to a man who resolves his own crises and then chooses to kill innocent people with sanctions rather than bombs as a way to achieve a political end? Even a blind man can see that Trump’s actions toward Iran have been entirely belligerent, all with the aim of squeezing the Iranian citizenry and bullying their government officials into complying with his dictates or else face a “defensive” U.S. bombing attack.

It’s helpful to remind ourselves of what happened here.

June 23

NBC News, President Trump’s full, unedited interview with Meet the Press, Chuck Todd, June 23, 2019. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/president-trump-s-full-unedited-interview-meet-press-n1020731

CHUCK TODD:

Let me start right in, what happened last night?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:

Well, you had a situation that was very bad because the night before, they shot down an unmanned drone. And the unmanned is a very big factor. The fact that there was not a person on it, a U.S. person on it, or anybody. And that had an impact on me. I said, “Well, you know, we got a little problem.” And I think they did that on purpose because they understand that they will be hit very hard if that were a plane with a person in it. And I think they knew that there was nobody there. So we had a very, you know, modest but pretty, pretty heavy attack schedule.

June 22

World Crisis Radio, Opinion: We have gone to the brink of hell in the last 24 hours, Webster G. Tarpley (author, historian, radio host, shown at right), June 22, 2019 (73:52 min. audio). Thanks to this regime, the great “man of peace,” the great non-interventionist, the guy who wanted to eschew all of the stupid wars and bring the troops home and take care of the United States, has been toying, has taken us one millimeter away from the worst catastrophe in modern times for the United States.

Worse than Vietnam. Worse than Iraq. Worse than anything that has been put together. A total debacle, a catastrophe. That is to say, war with Iran over nothing. A drone! A drone is an unmanned aerial vehicle….

 

Armageddon (Image by Less You Music via DCMA)

OpEdNews, Opinion: As We Face Armageddon the Western World Is Leaderless, Paul Craig Roberts, June 22, 2019. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, right, was deputy Treasury Secretary under Republican President Ronald Reagan and later associate editor of the Wall Street Journal in charge of its opinion pages. According to news reports, the validity of which cannot be ascertained by the general public, a crazed US government came within 10 minutes of igniting a general conflagration in the Middle East, the consequences of which could have been catastrophic for all.

The moronic warmongers in high office — Bolton (below at left), Pompeo, and Pence — and their Israel Lobby masters are determined, and they have not abandoned their campaign for war with Iran. Of course, the liars say that Iran will just accept its punishment for defending its territory and there will be no war. But this is not what Iran says. I believe Iran.

Some of the tiny percentage of people in the Western World who are still capable of thought regret that Trump called off the insane plan. They think the consequences would have been the destruction of the Saudi and Israeli governments — two of the most evil in history — and the cut-off of oil to the US and Europe, with the resulting depression causing the overthrow of the Western warmonger governments. They believe that catastrophic American defeat is the only way peace can be restored to the world.

In other words, it is not clear whether Trump calling off the attack saved us or doomed us. The Israel Lobby and their neoconservative agents have not been taught a lesson. Trump has not fired Bolton and Pompeo for almost igniting a conflagration, and he has not dressed down his moronic vice president. So, it can all happen again.

And likely will. The lesson that Bolton and Israel have learned is that the fake news about an Iranian attack on a Japanese freighter, denied by the Japanese, was not sufficient to lock Trump into “saving face” by attacking Iran. So be prepared for a larger orchestrated provocation. Bolton and Israel know that the Western presstitutes will lie for them. Watch for a provocation that allows Trump no alternative to an attack.

Washington’s use of fake news and false flag attacks to launch military attacks goes back a long way. In the 21st Century we have had a concentrated dose — Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Iranian nukes, Russian invasions, Maduro starving his own people, the endless lies about Gaddafi.

Yes, I know there are more. I am writing an article, not an encyclopedia.

June 21

New York Times, Analysis: They Backed Off Strikes: Trump in ’19, Obama in ’13, Clinton in ’98, Mark Landler, June 22, 2019. The immediate comparison was to President Barack Obama’s decision not to attack Syria. But the closer one might be to a last-minute choice by President Bill Clinton over a missile strike on Iraq, our reporter writes in an analysis.

The president calls off a missile strike on a Middle Eastern country at the last minute, overruling his national security advisers, confusing allies and adversaries, and provoking criticism from hawks in his own party, who warn that his vacillation could erode America’s credibility in a dangerous world.

New York Times, Opinion: Want War With Iran? Ask Congress First, Editorial Board, June 20, 2019. June 21, 2019 (print ed.). The Trump administration’s campaign of maximum pressure and minimal diplomacy are bringing the two countries ever closer to blows. From the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor in 1898 to the U.S.S. Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, maritime incidents, shrouded in the fog of uncertainty, have lured the United States into wars on foreign shoals. Which is why cooler heads must prevail — and Congress must be consulted — as American and Iranian forces inch closer to open conflict in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

The downing of an unmanned American surveillance aircraft on Thursday by an Iranian surface-to-air missile is another worrying click of the ratchet between the Trump administration, which unilaterally abandoned the 2015 nuclear accord for a campaign of “maximum pressure,” and an Iranian government suffering from tighter economic sanctions.

The United States has blamed Iran for recent attacks on shipping and pipelines in the Persian Gulf; Iran says it was not responsible. The United States has responded to the tensions by building up forces in the region.

SouthFront, IRGC Commander Says Iran Refrained From Shooting Down Second U.S. Plane, Staff report, June 21, 2019. Iran refrained from shooting down a manned U.S. Navy plane that was accompanying the downed RQ-4A Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) over the Persian Gulf, Brig. Gen. Amirali Hajizadeh, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) aerospace division, revealed on June 21. “With the U.S. drone in the region there was also an American P-8 plane with 35 people on board. This plane also entered our airspace and we could have shot it down, but we did not,” the Iranian Tasnim news agency quoted Brig. Gen. Hajizadeh as saying.

Boeing’s P-8 Poseidon, which was first introduced in 2013, is equipped with an array of signal intelligence (SIGINT), electronic intelligence (ELINT) and electronic warfare (EW) systems.

The IRGC’s aerospace division used the locally-made Khordad-3 air-defense system armed with Sayyad-2C missiles to shot down the RQ-4A. While the Khordad-3 system is designed after the Soviet Buk missile system, the Sayyad-2C is actually an Iranian copy of the US-made RIM-66 Standard missile.

Washington Post, Opinion: Iran must escape the American chokehold before it becomes fatal, David Ignatius, June 21, 2019 (print ed.).  The most important variable in the current Persian Gulf confrontation is time. The Trump administration wants to play a long game, to draw the sanctions tourniquet ever tighter. Iran needs to play a short game, to escape the U.S. chokehold before it becomes fatal.

This inner dynamic helps explain the past month’s events in the gulf — Iran’s steady escalation of deniable strikes and President Trump’s relatively restrained military response. Each side has a different playbook, dictated by its interests, resources and ability to sustain operations.ong Republicans.

Wayne Madsen Report (WMR), Opinion: What caused Trump to call off an attack on Iran? Wayne Madsen, right, June 21, 2019 (subscription required). Without a full-time Secretary of Defense, opposition to Trump’s military move would have largely rested with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Moon of Alabama (continued from above), Opinion: White House Pushes ‘Trump Pulled Back’ Story — He Likely Never Approved To Strike Iran, B, June 21, 2019. Last night U.S President Trump allegedly pulled back from a military strike against Iran after it had already been ordered. That is the official story but there are doubts that it is true.

After the drone shoot down the price of oil jumped 10%. Trump will have noticed that. He was also already warned by Iran that there is no room for talks and that any strike against it would have deadly consequences: 

DUBAI (Reuters):  Iranian officials told Reuters on Friday that Tehran had received a message from U.S. President Donald Trump through Oman overnight warning that a U.S. attack on Iran was imminent….The second official said: “We made it clear that the leader is against any talks, but the message will be conveyed to him to make a decision … However, we told the Omani official that any attack against Iran will have regional and international consequences.”

The whole storyline of “a strike was ordered but Trump held back and saved the day” might well be fake.

Unusual High Frequency radio traffic pointed to strike preparation, says the open source analyst IntelCrab. There is also a different plausible explanation why an imminent strike might have been called back. From the Wall Street Journal: “Saudi Plant Struck by Missile, Apparently From Yemen; Senior U.S. officials called back to White House after desalination facility in kingdom hit.”

This must have come as a shock for the Saudis. Some 75% of the water the Saudis use comes from desalination plants. Their people will die of thirst when those get destroyed. Did the Saudi King call the White House and urge it to call off the strike against Iran because he feared for his water resources? Was this the real reason why the White House called back its advisors and canceled the strike?

Yesterday evening Tucker Carlson, a FOX News host with a direct line to the White House, had two strong anti-war segments on his show (vid). In the second segment Carlson (shown in file photos with the president) talks with retired army Colonel Douglas McGregor. Both argue for pulling back on sanctions. This was likely a preplanned exchange (at 9:56 min) designed to give Trump cover for his decision.

Trump may well want some diplomatic exchange with Iran. But Iran will not talk to him as long as the sanctions against it are kept in place. It will continue its maximum pressure campaign by creating new incidents that will again increase the price of oil. The easiest way out for Trump is to abolish sanctions against Iran. He at least should issue waivers for China and others to allow them to again buy Iranian oil.

Unless he does so Iran will hit again and again against those who press for war against it. Yesterday it was a U.S. drone and a Saudi desalination plant that were the targets. The next incident could be in some oil facility in the United Arab Emirates or a symbolic strike against Israel.

Washington Post, Trump’s account of planning, then canceling Iran strikes is facing scrutiny, John Hudson, Missy Ryan and Erin Cunningham​, June 21, 2019. President Trump on Friday described a nail-biting decision to call off an imminent attack on Iran in order to avoid disproportionate casualties, but the account is already facing scrutiny from aides around him and military analysts questioning the sequence of events he laid out in tweets and statements.

June 20

New York Times, Trump Approves Strikes on Iran, but Then Abruptly Pulls Back, Michael D. Shear, Eric Schmitt, Michael Crowley and Maggie Haberman, June 20, 2019. President Trump approved military strikes against Iran in retaliation for downing an American surveillance drone, but pulled back from launching them on Thursday night after a day of escalating tensions.

As late as 7 p.m., military and diplomatic officials were expecting a strike, after intense discussions and debate at the White House among the president’s top national security officials and congressional leaders, according to multiple senior administration officials involved in or briefed on the deliberations.

Officials said the president had initially approved attacks on a handful of Iranian targets, like radar and missile batteries.

The operation was underway in its early stages when it was called off, a senior administration official said. Planes were in the air and ships were in position, but no missiles had been fired when word came to stand down, the official said.

Washington Post, Opinion: This is what happens when you have an unfit commander in chief, Jennifer Rubin, right, June 20, 2019. The Senate repudiating a president of the majority party on a matter of national security would be unusual under any circumstances. That it comes at a time when tensions with a major international foe are boiling over is nothing short of astonishing, a sign of how far President Trump has fallen as commander in chief.

June 19

.

 New York Times, Shanahan Withdraws as Defense Secretary Nominee, Michael D. Shear and Helene Cooper, June 19, 2019 (print ed.). President Trump on Tuesday pulled the nomination of Patrick M. Shanahan, right, to be the permanent defense secretary, saying on Twitter that Mr. Shanahan would devote more time to his family.

The move leaves the Pentagon without a permanent leader at a time of escalating tensions with Iran after attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. The Trump administration has blamed Iran for the explosions that damaged the two tankers.

Mr. Trump named Mark T. Esper, the secretary of the Army and a former Raytheon executive, to take over as acting secretary of defense. He did not say whether Mr. Esper would be nominated for the permanent position.

At the Pentagon, officials were internally discussing that a routine F.B.I. investigation for cabinet nominees was dragging on for Mr. Shanahan because of his divorce, which included an allegation from his ex-wife — denied by Mr. Shanahan — that he punched her in the stomach. Mr. Shanahan said that his ex-wife started the fight, and his spokesman said that she was arrested and charged with domestic violence, charges which were eventually dropped.

According to court documents viewed by The New York Times, in 2011 Mr. Shanahan’s son, who was 17 at the time, hit his mother repeatedly with a baseball bat, and she was hospitalized.

In an interview with the Washington Post published Tuesday, Mr. Shanahan said that “bad things can happen to good families.” He called the episode “a tragedy,” and said that dredging it up publicly “will ruin my son’s life.”

During his tenure, Mr. Shanahan was criticized for slighting Lockheed Martin, Boeing’s chief competitor, for its mismanagement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, an aircraft that is years behind schedule and millions of dollars over budget.

He was widely viewed as acquiescing to the White House and other government officials, including John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, and Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state. Mr. Shanahan famously said that the Pentagon would not be viewed as the “Department of No.”

Wayne Madsen Report (WMR), Opinion: There’s much more to the Shanahan resignation story, Wayne Madsen (author and former defense contracting executive and Navy intelligence officer), June 19, 2019 (subscription required). There is much more to the sudden decision of acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan to withdraw his name from consideration for Senate confirmation as Secretary of Defense in order to “spend more time with his family.”

June 16

Washington Post, Obama’s defense secretary explains his big decisions and major frustrations, Dan Lamothe, June 16, 2019 (print ed.). Then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter was in a meeting at the White House when a National Security Council staff member shoved a surprise his way. Amid debate over the future of the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the staffer handed out a proposed timetable that would force Carter to make a decision on the transfer of a detainee within a finite number of days.

“This tactic of springing a document on people without warning or vetting — known as ‘table dropping’ — had always been offensive to me,” Carter writes in his memoir of his time at the Pentagon. “It violates all the rules of good process and fair treatment. I picked up the paper, crumpled it into a ball, and threw it at the White House staffer who had given it to me, saying, ‘Don’t table-drop s—.’ ”

The anecdote — reported previously in less colorful terms — is one of several revealing stories that Carter includes in his book, Inside the Five-Sided Box: Lessons From a Lifetime of Leadership in the Pentagon.

Carter, now director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, said he wrote the book as a “user’s guide” for understanding the Defense Department. Carter also airs his frustrations about Congress and the media, praises some of the senior officials who worked with him, and explains the background of some of the most significant decisions he made.

June 14

Atlantic Magazine Exchange, Former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter with Jeffrey Goldberg, Staff report, June 14, 2019 (50:15 mins.). As America’s 25th Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter pushed the military to modernize. Now, in his new book, Inside the Five-Sided Box: Lessons from a Lifetime of Leadership in the Pentagon, he examines “the inner workings of the Pentagon and what it takes to lead it.”

On June 13, Secretary Carter will joined The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, for a conversation about the military, leadership, and foreign affairs. Grounded in the 160-year legacy of the magazine, AtlanticLIVE brings the unparalleled journalism of The Atlantic to life through singular event experiences, on stage and off.

2013

Dec.19

The London Review of Books, Whose sarin? Seymour M. Hersh, Dec 19, 2013. Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts.

Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack.

Sept. 4

Justice Integrity Project, Learn the Truth About Benghazi Before Syria Vote! Andrew Kreig, Sept. 4, 2013. The public deserves to know the facts about the Benghazi massacre in 2012 before approving the bombing of Syria sought by President Obama. Persistent reports suggest the CIA was using Benghazi last year as a base to smuggle arms and foreign fighters to overthrow Syria’s government.

That bombing would have been without congressional, NATO, or other significant international military support aside from enthusiasm from France, Syria’s former colonial ruler. The war could potentially escalate to a vastly wider war.

Sept. 3

Justice Integrity Project, Did America’s Top General Save Nation From Open-Ended War in Syria? Andrew Kreig, Sept. 3, 2013. President Obama was ready to launch the United States into a new Middle East war in Syria over the Labor Day weekend until the nation’s top general persuaded him that he would be blamed for serious unintended consequences that could arise, according to usually well-informed sources speaking in confidence.

The general was Martin E. Dempsey, right, a career Army officer who became chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2011. He persuaded the president that military implications could escalate beyond the limited boundaries White House civilian advisors had claimed in convincing the president as of late Friday night to move forward with bombing campaign.

Aug. 28

Wayne Madsen Report (WMR), Obama’s Syrian chemical attack “proof” relies solely on Israeli intelligence, Wayne Madsen, right, Aug. 28, 2013 (subscription required). WMR’s sources inside the Washington Beltway report that President Obama relied solely on signals intelligence (SIGINT) provided by Israel’s version of the U.S. National Security Agency, Unit 8200, to conclude that Syria’s government ordered the August 21 chemical attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta.

Unit 8200 claimed it had intercepted a communication from a Syrian army unit operating near Ghouta on August 21. The Israelis concluded from the intercept that Syria’s army carried out the chemical attack on Ghouta, although there has been no independent confirmation from Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) or the UN weapons inspection team as to who carried out the attack and even what type of chemical weapons were used.

Obama claims that his pursuit of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is intended to safeguard NSA’s most closely-guarded secrets that are used to combat terrorism.

However, Obama, in his decision to accept the Israeli SIGINT as prima facie evidence of a Syrian chemical attack on civilians, has bypassed NSA’s own SIGINT product, which is flowing into the joint NSA/British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) interception facility in Cyprus, to push the notion that Syrian President Bashar al Assad carried out the attack. NSA’s and GCHQ’s intelligence do not conclusively prove Syrian government involvement.

Backgrounder

At right, President Barack Obama is shown meeting in the Situation Room with his national security advisers to discuss strategy in Syria on  Saturday, Aug. 31, 2013.

Susan Rice, the national security adviser, is seated as usual on the president’s left.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is on her left with more junior personnel, for the most part, to the immediate left.

Vice President Biden, who argued as a senator (as did Obama) that presidentially ordered war-making was unconstitutional without consultation with Congress, is at the president’s right. Kerry and Attorney General Eric Holder are to Biden’s right. Uniformed personnel far in the background,as befits a country with a tradition of civilian military leadership.

Yet civilian war advocates often prevail with their political narratives over the argumens of those with military experience, recent history has shown. Partly for those reasons, Hagel, an award-winning combat veteran of Vietnam, had difficulty winning Senate confirmation earlier in 2013. (Official White House Photos of the Day by Pete Souza)

    


Subscribe to JIP Posts by email

 


Source: https://www.justice-integrity.org/1665-trump-lied-about-his-planned-iran-strike-in-pattern-with-past


Before It’s News® is a community of individuals who report on what’s going on around them, from all around the world.

Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.

"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.

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


Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST

Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST


Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!

HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.

Ultimate Clinical Potency 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!

Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.

Smart Meter Cover -  Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).

Report abuse

    Comments

    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

    MOST RECENT
    Load more ...

    SignUp

    Login

    Newsletter

    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.