(ANTIMEDIA) In January of this year, former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev warned that the whole world is preparing for war. There are many indicators that back up Gorbachev’s assertion, but to discuss them in their entirety would take a dissertation or two. Instead, we have put together a list of the five most obvious signs of impending war currently being overlooked by the media. As a result of these oversights, the public is also missing them.
1. Travel Ban
The Trump administration’s travel ban, which targeted seven majority-Muslim nations, makes little sense in the context of fighting international terrorism. A Department of Homeland Security report already found no evidence of any extra threat posed by the nations on the travel ban. Conversely, a Saudi official has admitted Saudi Arabia’s longstanding practice of supporting terrorism as a political tool, yet Saudi Arabia managed to escape the list. So did Turkey, a country that has extensively aided ISIS fighters; Qatar, which has spent immense amounts of money arming fanatical jihadists; the United Arab Emirates (where the majority of the funding for the 9/11 attacks passed through), and the list goes on.
Instead, the travel ban was purely political. With help from the anti-Trump media establishment, the ban worked wonders separating the American public between those who oppose Trump’s every move and those who support him wholeheartedly in his quest to “make America great again.” But little attention was paid to the reality of the ban.
We're revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.
Six of the seven countries on Trump’s travel ban were featured in a memo that was adopted shortly after 9/11 that detailed how the U.S. was going to topple the governments of seven countries, as exposed by four-star General Wesley Clark. The countries featured on Clark’s list were Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Iran.
Any accusations that Clark’s list is a conspiracy theory are completely debunked by the events of the last two decades. Iraq was invaded in 2003, and the U.S. has been backing warlords in Somalia and bombing the country for some time now. The Pentagon is reportedly considering expanding U.S. involvement in the African nation. Israel was eager to take out Lebanon in 2006 but failed to do so, though Israel warned just last year that the next encounter with Lebanon will be “ferocious” and “terrible.” U.S. troops are on the ground in Sudan. Libya was destroyed in 2011, which paved the way for the transfer of weapons and fighters into Syria, a country bound to Iran by a mutual defense agreement.
In the context of Trump’s travel ban, Lebanon is replaced by Yemen, the latest addition to the playbook amid fears that an insurgency within Yemen could place an Iranian-aligned government on Saudi Arabia’s border.
Including Iran in the travel ban — despite the fact Iran is not currently embroiled in a major civil conflict of its own, is not currently bombing any other countries, and is one of the major partners in the fight against ISIS — demonstrates something more sinister at play than mere concerns regarding international terrorism.
2. Trump’s anti-Iran rhetoric
The Obama administration, having successfully taken out Libya in 2011, was tasked with finishing the job in Syria and toppling the Assad regime. Overwhelming support for Syrian rebels battling the Syrian government was replaced by urgent calls to intervene directly in 2013, but Obama failed to gain international and public support for airstrikes on the Syrian government. Russia diplomatically put its hand up to offer a different proposal altogether, also warning that “[they] have [their] plans” should the American military decide to strike Syria as Obama intended. Any speculation that the real focus of the Syrian war was aimed at Iran was proven to be not just mere conjecture; Obama immediately thereafter warned Iran that just because the U.S. did not attack Syria did not mean the U.S. wouldn’t still strike Iran over its alleged nuclear program.
The Russian military intervened overtly in Syria in 2015, which only further foiled Washington’s plans for regime change in the country, as admitted by former Secretary of State John Kerry in a leaked audio recording.
As such, the Trump administration has appeared to move the focus away from Syria and directly back to Iran, in line George W. Bush’s approach when he was in office.
Trump has assembled a team that is “obsessed with Iran” and has accused Iran of being the biggest state sponsor of terrorism. Theresa May, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, also stated that pushing back on “Iran’s aggressive efforts” to increase its “arc of influence from Tehran through to the Mediterranean” was a “priority.” Trump was likely thrilled by these statements, as May successfully secured 100 percent support for NATO from Trump the next day.
Following an Iranian missile launch, the Trump administration officially put “Iran on notice.” The U.S. government wanted to make sure the Iranians “understood we are not going to sit by and not act on their actions.”
Just this past month, Trump warned in a tweet that Iran was “playing with fire,” and he vowed he would not be anywhere near as “kind” as his predecessor was to Iran. This is important because Trump has accused Iran of breaching its obligations under the nuclear agreement, though the nuclear agreement does not prohibit non-nuclear tests.
The nuclear deal reached in 2015 was viewed as one of Obama’s greatest diplomatic achievements, but in reality, it was doomed to fail right from the start. In the same way Libya was coaxed out of rapidly advancing its weapons programs before being bombed back into the Middle Ages in 2011, it may be the case that this diplomatic approach to Iran was always a smokescreen to give the United States more ‘reasoned’ leverage when attempting to convince the international arena that a strike on Iran was justified.
As outlined in the book “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran”:
“For those who favor regime change or a military attack on Iran (either by the United States or Israel), there is a strong argument to be made for trying this option first. Inciting regime change in Iran would be greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only bring ruin on the country. The ideal scenario in this case would be that the United States and the international community present a package of positive inducements so enticing that the Iranian citizenry would support the deal, only to have the regime reject it. In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context – both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer – one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down.” [emphasis added]
By claiming that through its missile tests Iran is violating a deal that Trump never supported to begin with, he can lay the groundwork for an all-out confrontation with Iran that could garner support from the international community, as well as the misinformed American public.
3. Iran dumps dollar
Currency is a major driving factor behind the wars of our generation. Iraq reportedly gave up the U.S. dollar in 2000 for the euro and netted a “handsome profit” for doing so. The U.S. military invaded in 2003 and immediately switched oil sales in Iraq from the euro back to the dollar. Iraq was also under heavy U.S. sanctions that spanned the course of at least a decade prior to the invasion.
Comparatively, in response to Trump’s anti-Iran rhetoric and the travel ban, Iran officially dumped the U.S. dollar. Iran has also been on the receiving end of sanctions since the Bush administration, and Trump has slapped fresh sanctions on Iran over the missile tests.
In the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, our television sets were rife with an unprecedented amount of disinformation regarding Iraq’s nuclear program and the threat it posed to the world. Conversely, Israel has been crying wolf over Iran’s nuclear program for at least two decades, yet no actual evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program has been produced.
The Trump administration also accused Iran of attacking a U.S. navy vessel – an attack that never took place.
Make no mistake. The Trump administration is laying the groundwork for a war with Iran by sowing the anti-Iranian seeds necessary to take the American public into another dangerous war in the Middle East.
While Trump appeared at first to have heralded a new approach to the Syrian conflict, namely that Assad should be left alone and the real focus of American foreign policy should be on defeating ISIS, the Trump administration is stepping up its Syria operation behind the curtains. Trump is reportedly planning to send troops to Syria, and he is not the only external power doing so. Iran’s regional arch-rival Saudi Arabia, which has incessantly accused Tehran of backing rebels in neighboring Yemen without producing any real evidence, is also reportedly sending troops into Syria.
Iranian-backed regime troops will not look favorably on any foreign invading force, particularly Saudi troops. Saudi Arabia has already made it clear that it intends to liberate areas of Syria from ISIS and will be on the ground to ensure that “liberated areas [do] not fall under the control of Hizballah, Iran or the regime.”
How far will they go to ensure this? Not to mention, how can one country go into another and say that they want to ensure that the land does not fall back into the hands of the people governing that country?
5. Military drills and military alliances
The United States and the United Kingdom have already begun military drills that simulate a potential conflict with Iran. As reported by Russian-state owned news site RT, Iran has staged a “massive” military drill of its own, spanning 2 million square kilometers.
This preparation for war can be seen across the globe. Russia is also holding military drills as NATO troops and tanks encroach upon its border. Iran is seeking even closer military relations with Russia and North Korea. The Baltic states that border Russia are running drills, too, supposedly out of fear that the Kremlin will invade. Russia’s longstanding ally, China, is also currently running drills for its own geostrategic purposes.
Germany is reportedly seeking to increase its troop numbers to 200,000 troops even though such a move may put its neighbors on edge. The Philippines, having decided to give the political middle finger to the United States and instead forge closer relations with Russia and China, welcomed Russian warships to its shores in January of this year.
Looking at these military drills and alliances in the context of the above developments paints a very grim picture for where humanity is headed.
War with Iran: too unthinkable?
The only rational criticism pundits have given regarding Anti-Media’s previous warnings of war is that because a war with Iran would be so unthinkable, the Trump administration would never be so reckless as to pursue it. Critics who hold such a view always neglect two very important points: firstly, the United States under the Obama administration was vehemently opposed to the Assad regime in Syria. The previous U.S. administration resorted to directly targeting Syrian troops in the middle of what was supposed to be a peace process, all with full knowledge that the Assad regime is bound to Iran by a mutual defense agreement. Secondly, America’s Middle Eastern power, Israel, has also attacked Syria multiple times since 2011, targeting Iranian military personnel and their proxies.
Those who think a war with Iran is unthinkable cannot answer the question: what if Iran were to respond directly?
Think of it like the current to and fro between Floyd Mayweather and UFC champion Conor McGregor. The two sides talk tough and attempt to provoke each other to set the mood for the current conflict. Plenty of speculation occurs about whether one side is bluffing and whether or not the fight could possibly occur in the near future. There is even the idea that such a fight would be so disastrous for one of the sides (or both) that there is nothing to gain from pursuing it.
But all it takes is one wrong move; one reckless, cowardly, ill-advised decision from either side and the entire Middle Eastern powder keg could explode.
Trump ordered a raid on Yemen that even war hawk Barack Obama disapproved of because it was deemed too risky, and the raid was an instant failure that killed multiple civilians. This is the same president who turns down dinners because he cannot face the torment of the liberal media and instead forms his opinions from Fox News before taking to Twitter.
It is not unreasonable to expect the worst.