WashPo: 'Trump, Frustrated by Advisers, Is Not Convinced The Time Is Right to Attack Iran'

Chris Menahan
InformationLiberation
May. 15, 2019

Is President Trump trying to deescalate the situation or does this mean the time will be right only after our "allies" stage a false flag?

I don't think Trump wants a war with Iran, but it doesn't seem like he's even running the show anymore.



From The Washington Post, "Trump, frustrated by advisers, is not convinced the time is right to attack Iran":
President Trump is frustrated with some of his top advisers, who he thinks could rush the United States into a military confrontation with Iran and shatter his long-standing pledge to withdraw from costly foreign wars, according to several U.S. officials. Trump prefers a diplomatic approach to resolving tensions and wants to speak directly with Iran's leaders.

Disagreements over assessing and responding to the recent intelligence -- which includes a directive from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that some American officials interpret as a threat to U.S. personnel in the Middle East -- are also fraying alliances with foreign allies, according to multiple officials in the United States and Europe.
"[S]ome officials interpret as a threat."

That translates to: "This is made up bulls**t which no one believes."

This Onion satire was dead on:


Every time the US threatens to attack Iran and Iran responds by saying they'll defend themselves, their statement is reported as a threat to attack America.

We see this same BS from our lying media over and over again.
Trump grew angry last week and over the weekend about what he sees as warlike planning that is getting ahead of his own thinking, said a senior administration official with knowledge of conversations Trump had regarding national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

"They are getting way out ahead of themselves, and Trump is annoyed," the official said. "There was a scramble for Bolton and Pompeo and others to get on the same page."

Bolton, who advocated regime change in Iran before joining the White House last year, is "just in a different place" from Trump, although the president has been a fierce critic of Iran since long before he hired Bolton. Trump "wants to talk to the Iranians; he wants a deal" and is open to negotiation with the Iranian government, the official said.

"He is not comfortable with all this 'regime change' talk," which to his ears echoes the discussion of removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein before the 2003 U.S. invasion, said the official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
It's nearly an exact repeat of Iraq, with most of the same players. All they need is a spectacular false flag to justify the attack.
National Security Council spokesman Garrett Marquis said, "This reporting doesn't accurately reflect reality."

Trump is not inclined to respond forcefully unless there is a "big move" from the Iranians, a senior White House official said. Still, the president is willing to respond forcefully if there are American deaths or a dramatic escalation, the official said.
That's a nice way to signal to our "allies" that the time is right to stage a false flag. Similar happened with the attack on Syria, which an alleged newly leaked OPCW report suggested was staged.


The Post continues:
Trump’s anger over what he considered a more warlike footing than he wanted was a main driver in Pompeo’s decision last weekend to suddenly cancel a stop in Moscow and on short notice fly instead to Brussels, where he sought meetings on Monday with the European nations that are parties to the Iran nuclear deal, two officials said. Pompeo was not accorded the symbolic welcome of joining their joint Iran-focused meeting. Instead, he met with foreign ministers one by one.

Pompeo’s visit was meant to convey both U.S. alarm over the recent intelligence on Iran and Washington’s desire for diplomacy, not war, two officials said.

But European leaders, who have been watching the febrile atmosphere in Washington with alarm, have not been convinced, according to conversations with 10 European diplomats and officials from seven countries, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive assessments of Washington and Tehran.

Pompeo “didn’t show us any evidence” about his reasons Washington is so concerned about potential Iranian aggression, said one senior European official who took part in one of Pompeo’s meetings. The official’s delegation left the meeting unconvinced of the American case and puzzled about why Pompeo had come at all.
British General Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday that "there's been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces," Common Dreams reports.
"We monitor them along with a whole range of others because that's the environment we're in," said Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika, speaking via video from Baghdad. "If the threat level seems to go up then we'll raise our force protection measures accordingly."
Video:


Our government and media -- while the government surrounds Iran with aircraft carriers and threatens an invasion -- are hilariously acting like it will just be a matter of happenstance if we "stumble" or "slide" into a war.





This is all following the neocon plan Gen. Wesley Clark laid out back in 2007 (then refused to ever mention again):



Follow InformationLiberation on Twitter, Facebook, Gab and Minds.












All original InformationLiberation articles CC 4.0



About - Privacy Policy