Friday 12th of August 2022

creating smoke with his own fire...


Despite much egg on Pompeo’s and Bolton’s faces, US expansion of its Cold War II continues regardless

Tony Kevin

It is now clear that the US has manufactured a false case against Iran for the two-tanker sabotage incident in the Gulf of Oman on 13 June. Evidence of Iranian guilt so far offered by the US is flimsy and contestable: but Mike Pompeo does not seem to care, continuing to press for alliance solidarity no matter what.

Of this solidarity there has been remarkably little, even five days later.

The general refrain of ‘we would like to see more of the evidence’ is polite dipspeak for ‘we think you are lying’.

Trump has reluctantly backed the false US story, but with evident lack of enthusiasm. He would no doubt like to sack his irresponsible lieutenants Pompeo and Bolton, but they currently seem invulnerable, with the power of the military-industrial –national security Deep State at their backs.

Trump, a helpless passenger President, will have little room to move towards detente with Xi or Putin at Kyoto G20 (28-29 June).

Both leaders have pretty much written the US off as a serious negotiating partner for now.

Already, US Cold Warriors are flexing their muscles, with reports of US testing cyberwarfare attacks on the Russian power grid; more sanctions imposed on US allies who dare to trade with Iran; and military preparations to attack Iran reportedly moving forward

Australia is trying to lie low but pressure is mounting from official Washington to declare where we stand on the Oman Gulf incident.

First US claims were that these were torpedo or mine attacks. This was soon disproven, as damage holes were well above the waterline: torpedoes or mines do not bounce into the air before exploding.

Also, the captain and crew of the Japanese-owned tanker Kokuda Courageous reported seeing approaching ‘flying objects’, (i.e. missiles or attack drones), and the CEO of their company Kokuda Sangyo backed their story.

Holes to both tanker hulls were reported on the southwest open-sea side, away from the nearby Iran coast.

First rescuers were small Iran coastguard vessels who took both ships’ crews to the closest Iranian port of Bandar, as maritime rescue law requires

Pompeo shifted his story, claiming that a US-released blurry intelligence video showed Iranian saboteurs attempting to place (or remove) a limpet mine on the side of a tanker’s hull: ...

This false narrative was soon contradicted by a far more probable explanation: that this was a video of one of the crew rescue operations: many people are seen in the small boat wearing orange life jackets – with an electromagnetic mooring device having been attached by cable to the tanker hull. This is a normal crew rescue technology.

The list of countries and organisations calling for further independent investigation, more evidence, or more dialogue, quickly grew: EU, France, Germany, Russia, China and Japan, the UN Secretary-General and even Democratic senior Congress leader Nancy Pelosi.

Even Britain’s Foreign Secretary, after initial full support for US, hedged to Iran being ‘almost certainly’ responsible, while Opposition Leader Corbyn questioned whether the UK has ‘credible evidence’ of Iranian responsibility for the attacks.

But Pompeo seemed not to care, ploughing on demanding allied solidarity. He has been making phone calls, no doubt including to Australia. Australia has so far offered no public reaction.

Australian mainstream media quickly downgraded the story, sensing its implausibility, and reflecting the increasingly common practice in Australia of censorship by omission of embarrassing news or news topics.

The US has mounted new diversions: first, a remarkable story planted in the New York Times that US is already waging experimental cyberwarfare against Russia, to prove to the Russians that it could take out the Russian power network, crippling the country’s economy; and that knowledge of this activity may be being kept from Trump.

The message is that Pompeo and Bolton are in charge of US national security policy, and Trump is too weak to sack them now.

Russiagate continues its malevolent hold over the US liberal media. On this fraught subject, objective truth no longer matters: two and two make five. Both Xi and Putin know that Trump is now flotsam, floating helplessly on the sea of American Sinophobia and Russophobia. Neither leader currently sees him as a serious negotiating partner.

I agree with UK former ambassador Craig Murray that over the past two weeks the international security system has taken a sharp turn towards more dangerous instability.

About the best outcome one can hope for now is a peaceful gradual decoupling of the US-centric economy from China, Russia and much of the world. There seems now no alternative to an increasingly bifurcated world economy. The US system does not have a reverse button: it continues to compound its bullying with more bullying, of adversaries and allies alike.

Australia cannot go on delaying difficult but necessary choices. We need to start to downscale our dependence on this increasingly unstable and aggressive partner nation before it is too late. We need to turn off the electromagnetic device mooring Australia to this dangerous ally.

We need an independent foreign and national security policy: a conclusion towards which the continental EU is also reluctantly moving.


Tony Kevin is a former Australian senior diplomat, independent writer and author of Return to Moscow, University of Western Australia Publishing, March 2017.


Read more:

the art of war...

Reposting this very important article on the US energy/cash dichotomy strategy



Who are the arsonists of the petrol tankers in the Gulf?

by Manlio Dinucci

Manlio Dinucci invites us to take a step back. He replaces the sabotage of these petrol tankers, for which Washington accuses Teheran, in the context of the global energy policy of the United States. By doing so, he demonstrates that, contrary to appearances, Mike Pompeo is not targeting Iran, but Europe.While the United States prepared a new escalation of tension in the Middle East by accusing Iran of attacking petrol tankers in the Gulf of Oman, Italian vice-Prime Minister Matteo Salvini met with one of the artisans of this strategy in Washington, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, assuring him that « Italy wants to regain its place as the major partner on the European continent of the greatest Western democracy ». Thereby he has allied Italy with the operation launched by Washington.

The « Gulf of Oman affair » , a casus belli against Iran, is a carbon copy of the « Gulf of Tonkin affair » of 4 August 1964, itself used as a casus belli to bomb North Vietnam, which was accused of having attacked a US torpedo boat (an accusation which was later proved to be false).

Today, a video released by Washington shows the crew of an alleged Iranian patrol boat removing an unexploded mine from the hull of a petrol tanker in order to conceal its origin (because the mine would allegedly have borne the inscription « Made in Iran »).

With this « proof » - a veritable insult to our intelligence - Washington is attempting to camouflage the goal of the operation. It is part of the strategy aimed at controlling the world reserves of oil and natural gas and their energy corridors [1]. It is no coincidence if Iran and Iraq are in US crosshairs. Their total oil reserves are greater than those of Saudi Arabia, and five times greater than those of the United States. Iranian reserves of natural gas are approximately 2.5 times those of the USA. Venezuela finds itself targeted by the USA for the same reason, since it is the country which owns the greatest oil reserves in the world.

The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting to « interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz », Mike Pompeo announced that « the United States will defend freedom of navigation ». In other words, he has announced that the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo).

Low-cost Iranian natural gas might also have reached Europe by way of a pipeline crossing Iraq and Syria. But the project, launched in 2011, was destroyed by the USA/NATO operation to demolish the Syrian state.

Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy.

In fact it was the reproduction of North Stream which continued, making Germany the centre of triage for Russian gas.. Then, on the basis of the « USA/UE strategic cooperation in the energy field » agreement stipulated in July 2018, US exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the UE tripled. The triage centre was in Poland, from which was distributed the « Freedom Gas » which also arrived in Ukraine.

Washington’s objective is strategic – to hurt Russia by replacing Russian gas in Europe with US gas. But we have no guarantees, neither on the price, nor on the time-scale for US gas extracted from the bituminous shale by the technique known as fracking (hydraulic fracturation), which is disastrous for the environment.

So what does Matteo Salvini have to say about all that? When he arrived in the « greatest democracy in the Western world », he proudly declared - « I am part of a government which in Europe is no longer satisfied with breadcrumbs ».

Manlio Dinucci


Pete Kimberley


Il Manifesto (Italy)


Read more:


Toon at top "borrowed" from De Angelis...

fake reality on steroid...

During the 2016 campaign, then-candidate Donald J. Trump promised to only take on foreign challenges that had a direct impact on America’s national interests. And so far, he seems to be honoring that pledge, perhaps all too well.

In a series of moves that began at the start of his presidency, Trump has attempted to tackle nearly all international problems—imagined or otherwise—that seemingly undermine American power and might. From China’s rise to North Korea’s growing nuclear program to trade imbalances with friend and foe alike to pulling out of treaties and international commitments, Trump is putting pressure on anyone and everyone to gain an edge anywhere America can. In what can only be described as realism on steroids, the administration seems committed to taking on every problem, every challenge, everywhere—all at the same time.

Can such a strategy work? Can America literally take on the world and somehow enhance its power and influence, while also, by default, extending by decades or more its global hegemony and superpower status that seemed destined for relative decline during the Obama years?

The answer is simple: hell no.

The reasons are also simple. Any smart strategy (and we are not talking about just those that involve geopolitics) requires making choices and living with the consequences of those choices—good or bad. For example, choosing to take on Russia in Europe, as Obama did during the second half of his presidency, meant less raw military capabilities to deter China in the economically vibrant Indo-Pacific region, weakening his “pivot” to Asia. While Russia did not cleave off more of Ukraine as many believed it would, China did enhance its ability to dominate the South China Sea by building fake islands and military bases on them. Choices made, consequences flow—that’s international relations 101.

Trump is now running into the same problems. For example, say your goal is to deter but also deny China the ability to turn Asia into its own personal fiefdom—what Trump seems to be trying to do. Normally that would mean sacrificing some offensive firepower that might ensure Iran won’t become more of a troublemaker than it already is. Yet Trump’s solution has been to increase the military budget to try and take on them both. Combine that with tax cuts that are ballooning the national debt, and, well, more consequences flow.

Clearly smart foreign policy is the art of setting priorities and goals and following them through. Trying to do everything—or more like a little of everything—is a recipe for disaster, and most likely the sad reason that nothing is ever achieved.

Well, almost nothing, as we must be aware of what is only a natural counterreaction. If America is literally trying to take on everyone, essentially leveraging its status as the top power of a global system that it created after World War II, other nations will seek common cause to push back. The late William Martel, a former adviser to Senator Mitt Romney, feared the creation of a totalitarian axis to counter American power. It seems he might have been right, and now Trump is speeding up the process.


Read more:


Lesson 101: This is what Hitler did... and remember the same shit has been around for yonks:


the hawks want blood...

“And I’m not just talking about the country made a mistake; somebody under the command of the country made a mistake.”

Not so fast, several war agitators were quick to respond.

Trump bizarrely chickens out of responding to a direct attack from Iran, a piece for Business Insider charged. 

“President Donald Trump bizarrely dismissed Iran shooting down a US drone as a ‘mistake’—after the country admitted to it and declared itself ready for war—in what looks like a bold but counterfactual move to avoid war,” writes Alex Lockie. “Indeed, Trump has talked a big game on Iran, but according to multiple and persistent reports, he has pushed his officials to take a softer tone on Iran to avoid war…. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday morning that the U.S. would endeavor to ‘restore deterrence’ toward Iran, presumably by letting them know a harsh response awaited any further aggression.”

The piece approvingly cites Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of the hawkish Foundation of Defense for Democracies, who told The New York Times that Iran had likely mined oil tankers in the region in order “to demonstrate that Trump is a Twitter Tiger.”

Meanwhile, invoking Ronald Reagan, David Adesnik at the National Review ladles all the praise on Trump’s hawkish secretary of state. “Mike Pompeo brought a Reagan-esque flourish to the Trump administration’s foreign policy, demanding nothing short of Iranian surrender. While insisting that President Trump is prepared to negotiate a new deal with Tehran, Pompeo listed no fewer than twelve preconditions for an end to American pressure.”

The more demands, the better, according to Adesnik, despite the fact that  “no one should be holding their breath in anticipation of Iran’s acquiescence.”


Read more:


Read from top.

why war was avoided so far: melting chicken wings...


war is too serious a business of death...

Lies They Told Us: A Long History of Being Manipulated Into War


Before we retaliate over drone and oil tanker attacks, take a look at all the times we've been duped.


by Robert W. Merry

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says there’s no question that Iran initiated the recent attacks on those two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman. The evidence, he says, is “indisputable” and “unmistakable.” President Donald Trump weighs in with the same degree of certainty. “Well, Iran did do it,” he told Fox News. 

Maybe. But our past is screaming at us: don’t buy it; you can’t trust your leaders when war fever sets in and war prospects are on the rise. Consider the history surrounding the run-ups to the Mexican War, World War I, World War II, Vietnam, and the Iraq war. Lies, misrepresentations, and manipulations abound in all those episodes. 

As for those tankers, where’s the evidence? True, the U.S. Central Command trotted out a video that appears to show unidentified people in a small boat removing something from the side of a tanker—an unexploded mine, we are told by U.S. officials, who assert this constitutes proof of Iran’s complicity. As Trump puts it, “And you know they did it because you saw the boat.”

But that’s pretty thin stuff. The Germans and Japanese made that clear when they requested stronger evidence than that grainy video released by the Pentagon.

Now comes Politico with a piece saying the Trump administration has been making the case “in public and private” that no new congressional authorization would be necessary to go to war with Iran. They could simply rely on the 2001 authorization against Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks on American soil. 

Leave aside for the moment the ominous threat this poses to the constitutional precept that Congress is the repository of the nation’s warmaking power. It also would preclude a congressional debate on the matter, depriving the nation of an opportunity to assess the facts before hostilities actually begin. The following historical episodes reveal the importance of getting those facts established before the country goes to war. 

James K. Polk and the Mexican War: Contrary to allegations that have dogged the 11th president for nearly 180 years, it isn’t quite true to say that he lied. But he did declare to the nation that Mexico had “spilled American blood on the American soil.” The problem is that it wasn’t, strictly speaking, American soil. That territory had been under dispute between Mexico and Texas during the time of Texas independence, and America inherited that dispute when it acquired Texas through annexation in 1845. So it could be argued that Polk was merely expressing his view that that disputed territory actually belonged to the United States, just as Texas had always insisted that it belonged to Texas. 

But such niceties of language shrouded the fact that, if there was no other way for America to acquire what is now the Southwest and California, then Polk wanted a war with Mexico. And he maneuvered events with a clear intent to force the issue, much as Pompeo seems to be doing now.

Polk sent an army into the disputed territory and planted it directly across the Rio Grande from the dusty little Mexican town of Matamoros, where a large number of Mexican troops were stationed. This was highly incendiary, and it inevitably led to a skirmish in which 11 American soldiers were killed and another 50 or so captured. Polk promptly sent a message to Congress saying the United States and Mexico were in a state of war and calling for a congressional war declaration. 

South Carolina’s Senator John C. Calhoun, among others, would have none of it. This skirmish, he said, was a “mere local conflict, not authorized by either government,” and it was “monstrous” to blow it up into a doctrine that “every American is [now] an enemy of every Mexican.” But American blood had been spilled, and the country was riled. The final Senate vote was 40 to 2, with Calhoun refusing to answer the roll call. The previous House vote was 173 to 14. 

There is plenty of documentary evidence, including Polk’s own diary, that the president wanted that war and that, by maneuvering his troops in such a way as to render bloodshed all but inevitable, he manipulated public opinion. Indeed, even before the skirmish on the Rio Grande, he was preparing to ask Congress for a war declaration.

Woodrow Wilson and World War I: There can be no doubt that Wilson was reelected president in 1916 (with just 49.2 percent of the vote) on his stated resolve to keep America out of Europe’s Great War. But it was all phony, as he’d always hankered to get America onto the world stage. It wasn’t easy keeping the United States out of the war through the election season, given delicate neutrality issues forced upon the U.S. by both Britain and Germany. Britain imposed a blockade designed to thwart all trade to Germany and the Central Powers and to ”starve the whole population—men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound—into submission,” as Britain’s pugnacious First Sea Lord, Winston Churchill, brazenly declared. 

Wilson initially sought to wend his way through this neutrality thicket, rendered all the more difficult after Germany initiated submarine attacks designed to stop munitions shipments to Britain and counteract the blockade. But ultimately he favored the UK and took actions he knew would draw America into the war. He not only observed the British blockade but also allowed armed British merchant ships entry to U.S. ports, which in turn fostered a flow of American munitions to the Allied Powers. At the same time, Wilson declared that Germany would be held to a “strict accountability” for any American loss of life or property from German submarine attacks designed to enforce the neutrality that Wilson was flouting. This policy, he added, would apply even if affected Americans were traveling or working on British or French ships. After all, he declared, Americans had the “right” to travel on any vessels they wanted, even in wartime. 

Wilson’s secretary of state, William Jennings Bryan, warned the president that he faced a stark choice: either adopt a more evenhanded approach or accept the inevitability of war. Bryan ultimately resigned over the issue, and he turned out to be right. A desperate Germany, suffering horrendously under Churchill’s starvation policy, initiated unrestricted submarine warfare against ships carrying goods to Britain or France. Wilson promptly asked for a congressional declaration of war—and got it.

Franklin Roosevelt and World War II: When Europe was once again thrust into a dark conflict after Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland in September 1939, FDR almost desperately wished to take America in. But the country, still stung by the bitter fruits of Wilson’s previous intervention, didn’t want to enter the fray. “I am almost literally walking on eggs,” Roosevelt wrote to a foreign official, explaining the precarious perch between his own powerful conviction and the public’s aversion to war. “I am at the moment saying nothing, seeing nothing, and hearing nothing.” 

But this wasn’t quite true. He was applying his stealth and wiles in every way possible to help Britain and nudge his country to war. He passed diplomatic secrets to friendly reporters to help the cause. He initiated secret depth charge attacks on German submarines in the North Atlantic. As Robert Shjogan writes in his book Hard Bargain, FDR almost certainly violated the prevailing Neutrality Acts by making destroyers available to Britain—an action that in another time and political climate could have been impeachable. And he maneuvered Japan into a position of near desperation in an effort to force a confrontation. That he knew what he was doing is evidenced by the fact that he initiated planning for the removal of Japanese Americans from the West Coast even before Pearl Harbor, as John Toland reveals in his 1982 book Infamy. Shogan writes that FDR didn’t hesitate “to twist the law, flout the Constitution, hoodwink the public, and distort the political process.” 

Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam war: On August 2, 1964, North Vietnamese PT boats attacked the U.S.S. Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin. This could not have surprised those in the know inside the U.S. government. The Maddox had been providing logistical and electronic surveillance support to South Vietnamese forces engaged in raiding parties on North Vietnamese soil. Two days later, when it seemed another attack on the Maddox had ensued, President Johnson snapped into action. He asked for a congressional resolution authorizing him to counter such raids with military action as needed. This allowed Johnson to prosecute what became America’s disastrous seven-year Vietnam war. 

But that second attack on the Maddox never took place. It seems that rare weather patterns distorted radar imaging and gave the impression of multiple hostile ships when none had been in the vicinity. When this was ascertained by Navy Captain John Herrick, commander of the Seventh Fleet destroyer division, he promptly sent a corrective message to Washington: “Review of action makes many reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather effects on radar and overeager sonarmen may have accounted for many reports. No actual visual sightings by Maddox. Suggest complete evaluation before any further action taken.”

But action already had been taken, and Johnson administration officials weren’t about to turn around and let the opportunity slip. So they lied. Within days, Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara traveled to Capitol Hill to assure lawmakers that the August 4 “attacks” represented ”open aggression on the high seas against the United States of America,” as Johnson put it. In response to expressions of skepticism by Oregon Senator Wayne Morse, McNamara declared, “Our Navy played absolutely no part in, was not associated with, was not aware of, any South Vietnamese actions, if there were any…. The Maddox was operating in international waters, was carrying out a routine patrol of the type we carry out all over the world at all times.” As Robert Mann writes in a footnote in A Grand Delusion: America’s Descent into Vietnam, “That statement was, as McNamara knew, false.” 

Arkansas Senator William Fulbright agreed to manage the Tonkin Gulf resolution on the Senate floor largely because he had faith in Johnson’s veracity. As Fulbright’s staff chief, Lee Williams, later said, “He had no reason to believe that he was used as a dupe, if you will, and that this was a ruse on behalf of Johnson to get the authority that he needed to conduct a wider war.” 

George W. Bush and the Iraq war: Did Bush lie to the American people about those weapons of mass destruction that the U.S. government expected to find in Iraq? Probably not. More likely, Bush and his people lied to themselves in their zealous efforts to fashion justifications for overthrowing Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, and to ensure Middle East peace, protect the U.S. homeland, and preserve America’s regional influence. But officials have a grave responsibility to ensure extensive fact finding and sober deliberation in matters of war and peace. Presidents shouldn’t take America to war based on an oops. This was reckless behavior for which the Bush people, including Bush himself, have never been brought to account. 

And it’s undeniable that the president and many of his top officials were bent on going to war against Saddam irrespective of the factual intricacies involved. There’s the rub. That invasion arguably constitutes the greatest American strategic blunder in at least half a century, perhaps in the entire postwar period. Those kinds of decisions require serious due diligence. So if Bush and his people didn’t know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they should have. If not malfeasance, it was abject nonfeasance. 

The lesson: beware when our leaders manifest a passion for war. That’s when it’s time to demand honesty, sobriety, and restraint—and answers. The burden of proof rests with the war advocates. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t go to war, just that when we do, it should be with our eyes open.

Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century.


Read more:


The crazies rule world... forcing people into a corner isn't a reason to declare war because of their measured reaction... or own own false punch.


Read from top.

more guts than "expected"...

United States President Donald Trump ordered an attack on Iran last night but called the operation off when it was already underway, The New York Times and the Associated Press news agency are reporting.

Key points:
  • US warplanes were reportedly poised to strike when the order to stand down came through
  • Iran has warned it is "fully ready for war"
  • The Iranian military posted footage showing the moment it shot down a US military drone


A senior administration official told The New York Times that Mr Trump approved attacks on Iranian targets such as radar and missile batteries.

According to the report, the operation in reprisal for the shooting down of a US drone was already in its early stages, with planes in the air and ships in position when the order to stand down came through.

No missiles were fired.


Read more:


Donald's retreat could have had to do with a couple of reasons. First, there IS NO MORAL ground on which to launch and sustain such attack — and soon, US many SERVICE PERSONNEL's blood would be spilled without any real motive. Donald would have had to also know that the "test" — a drone flying too close to the sun — proved Iranians resolve and CAPABILITY as they have shown more guts than "expected"...


Imagine, two or three whatever F-(15,16,35) blown out of the sky! How embarrassing! The top brass would have had to advise the Donald that the "mission" had a high percentage of risks.

But this does not mean that the US "has abandoned" the idea of a strike against Iran. All this could be a tactical play on the nerves of everyone and possibly have another "mistake". Donald might launch his next aggressive fit as a surprise, like a demented lunatic. Mind you, La Madam Clinton would have tried to erase Iran from the map, at least two years ago. 

Go away. Retreat! Trump...

no choice but to warn the iranians he had "declared war"...

Donald Trump warned Tehran about an imminent attack as retaliation for a downed US drone, also giving “limited” time to respond, Reuters says. Trump reportedly ordered the strikes, but then pulled back.

The US president “gave a short period of time to get our response but Iran’s immediate response was that it is up to Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei to decide about this issue,” an Iranian official told the news agency.



Read more:



Read from top.



In international relations, one has to "declare war" on some other countries (for whatever reason) but if war is "not declared", then any war actions become ACTS OF TERRORISM. This would have been the last thing Trump would have wanted, thus he "warned" the Iranians about the attack, even via diplomatic detours.

the proof of the pudding...

Earlier, the Iranian foreign ministry said Tehran had "indisputable" proof that the US shot down by an Iranian SAM after it violated Iranian airspace. Washington has challenged the claim, saying the incident took place over international waters in the Strait of Hormuz.

A US reconnaisance plane was flying not far from the drone which was shot down in the vicinity of the Strait of Hormuz by an Iranian missile and could have been destroyed as well, but Iran's air defence troops refrained from doing so, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force commander Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh said.

"At the moment when the US spy drone was shot down, another American reconnaissance aircraft was near it, which we did not shoot down," Hajizadeh said, speaking to reporters on Friday, according to Fars. 

The commander said the plane accompanying the drone was a Boeing P-8 Poseidon with 35 airmen on board. "This aircraft also violated our air borders. We could have shot it down, but did not do so, because, having shot down the drone, we'd sent a warning to the American terrorist forces," he said, as quoted by Tasnim.


Read more:



Read from top. Below are images of the drone recovered in IRANIAN WATERS:

drone in pieces

drone 2

at the mad house on the potomac river...

Tensions between the US and Iran escalated further on Thursday after an Iranian missile shot down a US spy drone Tehran said was operating in its airspace. US President Donald Trump warned that Iran had made a "very big mistake," but later decided at the last minute against 'retaliatory' strikes which might have killed well over a hundred Iranians.

A pair of US Air Force B-52 Stratofortress bombers, each capable of carrying up to tens of thousands of kilograms of munitions, including long-range cruise missiles and nuclear bombs, flew over the Persian Gulf on Friday morning following Iran's shooting down of a US reconnaissance drone a day earlier, radar data posted by flight monitoring resources has revealed.


Read more:



Read from top.

no warning...

Iran's top national security official has denied a Reuters report claiming that Tehran had received a low-key message via Oman from the US warning of an imminent attack on the Islamic Republic.

"The US didn’t send any message,” Keyvan Khosravi, spokesman for the National Security Council, told Iranian television.

This issue is not in any way correct.

The comment dismissed a previous report by Reuters, which cited unnamed Iranian officials as saying that Donald Trump had warned Tehran of a military strike and also gave a time to respond. The message was reportedly delivered via Oman and followed the downing of a US spy UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) earlier in the week.


read more:

no message...

Tensions between Tehran and Washington escalated after Iran downed an American military drone, stressing the UAV had violated its airspace and didn't respond to demands to alter course.

Oman didn't relay the US message to Iran about the UAV, which was downed by Iranian air defences on 20 June, the country's Foreign Ministry stated on Twitter.

"The Sultanate is watching current regional developments with concern and hopes that the Iranian and American sides show restraint and address unresolved issues through dialogue", the ministry's tweet said.


تتابع السلطنة باهتمام بالغ التطورات الحالية في المنطقة،وتأمل من الجانبين الإيراني والاميركي ضبط النفس وحل المسائل العالقة بينهما عبرالحوار.وتؤكد عدم صحة ما يتداول إعلاميا من قيام السلطنة بنقل رسالة اميركية الى الحكومة الإيرانية حول حادثة إسقاط الطائرة الاميركية بتاريخ ٢٠-٦-٢٠١٩م


Earlier, Reuters reported, citing unnamed Iranian officials, that Tehran had received a message from President Donald Trump about an upcoming attack in response to the downing of the American drone, which was allegedly delivered via Oman.

However, the spokesman of Iran's Supreme National Security Council denied receiving such a message, while the US State Department denied that the President ever sent one.

The US had been planning to launch an attack on three Iranian targets, but US President Donald Trump stopped it minutes prior to launch, citing concerns that the strike might lead to 150 casualties.

Read more:





The US president announced that major sanctions would be put on Iran soon after he stopped the strikes on targets in the Islamic Republic, which were supposed to be a response for the downing of an American drone.

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on 24 June that imposed 'hard-hitting' new sanctions against Iran. They target the country's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, whom Trump called responsible for "the hostile conduct of the regime", and "those closely affiliated with him" in a bid to cut their access to "key financial resources and support". The sanctions also were slapped on eight senior commanders in Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps.

"We will continue to increase pressure on Tehran until the regime abandons its dangerous activities and its aspirations, including the pursuit of nuclear weapons, increased enrichment of uranium, development of ballistic missiles, engagement and support for terrorism, fuelling of foreign conflicts and belligerent acts directed against the United States and its allies", Trump told reporters.

While Trump at first said that new sanctions come in response to the US drone's downing, he later noted that these sanctions would be imposed regardless of that incident. The US president further noted that he continues to hope to strike a new deal with Iran one day, which will result in the lifting of all sanctions.

Read more:


prayer time


Read from top.