Iranium ConFUSION Part 2: What we Know, What we Know we Don’t Know, and What we Wish we Knew

by · Published · Updated

Iranium ConFUSION Part 2: What we Know, What we Know we Don’t Know, and What we Wish we Knew by David Haggith for The Great Recession

If you’re a Trump supporter, you’re going to hate this article and love it; likewise, if you are a Trump hater. I am going to lay out evidence that Trump is either the biggest moron of a president the US has ever had but also my own 4-D chess explanation that would make him cunning if true. Which is true, I have no idea; but I will lay out equally strong arguments for either view, and you can decide for yourself.

First, let’s start with what we do know because Iran and the US both agree on these points.

Here are the facts we know:

Merchant oil tankers were attacked. By all appearances, there was no intention of sinking them because the mines (or missiles depending on whose story you accept) were targeted above the ships’ waterlines, and damage to the ships was minor.

Iran shot down a US drone. Both Iran and the US agree that Iran shot down a US drone. Iran claims it could have shot down a more-than-fully-crewed anti-submarine Poseidon P-8 aircraft but chose for humanitarian reasons to only shoot down the drone. The US does not disagree with that. According to Iran, the Poseidon was the original target.

The value of the drone given in the press has ranged from about $150,000,000 to a quarter of a billion. The difference may be the base cost of the drone versus that cost plus the cost of all the equipment this particular drone was outfitted with. Either way, it was a pricy target.. These drones normally fly so high they are not easy to shoot down, giving some evidence of Iranian takedown capability. The drone was similar to a 737 in wing span.

After shooting down the drone, Iran warned it would severely attack the US if any military counterstrike was launched against it:

“Firing one bullet towards Iran will set fire to the interests of America and its allies” … armed forces general staff spokesman Brigadier General Abolfazl Shekarchi told Tasnim News Agency. “The Islamic Republic has never and will never start any wars,” Shekarchi added, and threatened further, “if the enemy commits the smallest of mistakes, it will face the biggest revolutionary reaction from Iran in Central and West Asia, and it will certainly not survive the battle.”

Trump chose to retaliate, regardless of Iran’s threats, with a military strike against Iran but then called the strike off. Neither side disagrees with this.

“We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it,” Trump tweeted on Friday morning.

Vox

Trump originally claimed Iran might have acted by accident or mistake as his justification for avoiding any response to Iran’s takedown of the US drone, but Iran chose to make it clear that its aim was intentional so as not to allow Trump that excuse for backing down and to make clear it will not hesitate to defend itself or retaliate for US actions, whether US actions are a mistake in crossing over a line or intentional provocation. No IRGC officer was too quick to the trigger. Iran says it intentionally fired at the drone after it failed to respond to hails to leave Iranian airspace and shut off its GPS and navigational/marker lights.

No US ally has come to the United States’ side on this. No one has even supported the US view about where the drone was located. However, Russia has clearly sided with Iran’s view of the events. No US ally, other than Iran’s enemies, has supported the US on its sanctions against Iran either.

Continue Reading / The Great Recession>>>

 

Sharing is caring!

David Haggith

Knave Dave — vigilante against the false profits of The Great Recession Too many criminal CEOs still fill their porky bellies with the biggest taxpayer bailouts in the history of the world. These bailouts protect their reputations, saving them from the fall they should have taken. They continue to receive bonuses for having done an unparalleled job of destroying their companies! Many of their companies wouldn’t be making any profit at all if not for the interest they’re making off of nearly free government bailouts. Just this week Hewlett-Packard fired its CEO, but is still paying him a bonus of millions of dollars in exchange for a year of corporate wandering in the wilderness. Netflix’s CEO cost his company hundreds of thousands of subscribers and had to reverse his decision. Bank of America’s CEO launched a debit-card fee plan that was immediately stupid in the eyes of many, but greed an arrogance led him to think he could pass it by his customers, and he lost customers in droves and had to reverse his decision, as did the many major banks that followed him. Since these corporate leaders do things most of us can immediately see as being dumb, why are they rewarded with salaries a thousand times greater than many of us make?