Another striking example of a false flag operation occurred during the Vietnam War; the "Tonkin Incident" in which an American destroyer, the Maddox, was reported to have been attacked by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats in 1964. This event never happened, it was a complete fabrication but the administration of President Lyndon Johnson used it as a justification to expand the war into North Vietnam.
Then there's "wag the dog", a phrase derived from the title of a novel, a political satire, by Larry Beinhart that was later made into a movie. When a U.S. president name pops up in an alleged sex scandal, White House media operatives hire a Hollywood producer to create a fake war with Albania as a diversion while the president was campaigning for reelection.
The book and the movie inspired a new political phrase, "wag the dog" to describe the use of diversionary tactics such as creating a fake war to take the heat off the president in extremely embarrassing and politically damaging situations. In fact, President Bill Clinton was accused of using that diversion in 1998 when, during the Lewinsky scandal, he launched massive missile strikes against terrorist compounds in Afghanistan and Sudan.
So is this another false flag or wag the dog operation or, perhaps, a variation on that theme whereby the U.S., together with Israel, are looking for another villain in the Middle East that can be presented as a major threat to the world? Saddam Hussein played that role two times in the not too distant past. The first time was during Operation Desert Storm when the elder Bush invaded and attacked Iraq in 1991. That was followed by G.W. Bush and the invasion and attack on Iraq and Saddam in 2003. Is this latest alleged plot a means to go after another villain/bogeyman in the Middle East, namely Ahmoud Ahmadinejad? Are we going to go down that road again?
Remember the presidential campaign of 2008, during the debates between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, when they were discussing Iran? At that time I recall that candidate Obama insisted that he would meet with the president of Iran even without preliminary discussions by subordinates. Well, that promise was never fulfilled as he quickly came under the influence of the U.S. military and, yes, the government of Israel. From then on there has been no more talk of discussions but "every option", code for potential war, has remained on the table.
This president and this government should think deeply before going forward with any kind of direct attack on Iran unless they have solid evidence of involvement by the Iranian government. It is accurate to say that Iran could not possibly stand up against the power of the U.S. military. However, with a standing army of over 500,000 and a formidable arsenal of numerous types of deadly missiles, including some that could reach Israel, Iran could do massive damage.
In fact, such an attack on Iran, with or without involvement of Israel, has the potential to set the Middle East on fire. Some time ago I read of a U.S. intelligence war game in which the conclusion was basically the same; in a war, Iran could not win but they could bring great destruction to various U.S. installations in the Middle East and rain missiles on Israel. It was also concluded that Iran, by using untold numbers of sophisticated missiles and high-speed attack vessels, would turn the Strait of Hormuz, many oil tankers, and U.S. warships into an inferno. The supply of petroleum to the U.S. and the world would be devastated and the price of oil would go out of sight.
Monitoring Iran's activities and keeping it at bay is highly necessary; that's what should have been done with Saddam and Iraq instead of the ill-advised attack. But an attack on Iran, unless it is unequivocally justified, should "not be on the table." This U.S. government must learn from its mistakes and use the best judgment rather than a pre-emptive action. Now would be a good time to start.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
