Israel strikes Iran

[Ken]

Why does everything have to be a “false flag” operation or a conspiracy theory?

It doesn't in theory. But dragging the US into an actual war does require some actual casus belli and when there isn't a convenient one, politicians tend to invent one.

Do we not remember "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and the IRAQ war? And how much of the run-up to Bush's Iraq invasion was trying to convince Americans that Iraq was at fault for 9-11? They never explicitly said so, but I recall endless George Bush speeches where said things like "they attacked us so we are going to attack them" or words to those effect: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/9-11 ... a-tragedy/

Or for the previous generation it was the Gulf of Tonkin incident that precipitated US involvement in Vietnam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

If we do end up in an actual conventional war of some sort against Iran, I have no doubt the reasons will be largely manufactured through some combination of exaggeration and falsification just like these two previous wars were.

[JohnH]

Why does everything have to be a “false flag” operation or a conspiracy theory?

Because it’s extremely unlikely Iran would directly attack America, but such an attack would be quite beneficial to the goals of the neoconservatives.

[Ken]

Why does everything have to be a “false flag” operation or a conspiracy theory?

Because it’s extremely unlikely Iran would directly attack America, but such an attack would be quite beneficial to the goals of the neoconservatives.

And Israeli hardliners and their supporters in the US.

[JohnH]

Because it’s extremely unlikely Iran would directly attack America, but such an attack would be quite beneficial to the goals of the neoconservatives.

And Israeli hardliners and their supporters in the US.

Pretty much one and the same... although I suppose we could lump in the warhawks too, for whom they're happy with basically any war for any reason.

[Ken]

Because it’s extremely unlikely Iran would directly attack America, but such an attack would be quite beneficial to the goals of the neoconservatives.

And Israeli hardliners and their supporters in the US.

Pretty much one and the same... although I suppose we could lump in the warhawks too, for whom they're happy with basically any war for any reason.

There is a lot of overlap. But I view neocons as supporting war pretty much everywhere on the planet from the drug wars in Colombia and Mexico to interventions in sub-Saharan Africa. Or with Trump, Greenland, Panama, and Canada. Whereas the Israel hawks are pretty much centered on what advantages Israel's expansionist policies in its own neighborhood.

[JohnH]

There is a lot of overlap. But I view neocons as supporting war pretty much everywhere on the planet from the drug wars in Colombia and Mexico to interventions in sub-Saharan Africa. Or with Trump, Greenland, Panama, and Canada. Whereas the Israel hawks are pretty much centered on what advantages Israel's expansionist policies in its own neighborhood.

I don't want to veer too much into politics, but I don't think of Trump as a neoconservative at all.

[Szdfan]

Why does everything have to be a “false flag” operation or a conspiracy theory?

Because it’s extremely unlikely Iran would directly attack America, but such an attack would be quite beneficial to the goals of the neoconservatives.

And Israeli hardliners and their supporters in the US.

I can think of plenty of U.S. military actions — including full-scale wars — that didn’t rely on false flags. We’ve invaded or bombed countries for ideological reasons, geopolitical leverage, retaliatory strikes, protecting allies, or even just domestic political optics. None of that requires a conspiracy theory.

If someone wanted to justify a strike on Iran, they wouldn’t need to fake anything. There’s already a long list of provocations, real or perceived, that could be used as a pretext. That doesn’t mean the justifications are good, but they don’t need to be fabricated to be politically useful.

We should absolutely scrutinize motives and narratives. But not everything requires a false flag to be dangerous, misguided, or unjustified.

[Ken]

There is a lot of overlap. But I view neocons as supporting war pretty much everywhere on the planet from the drug wars in Colombia and Mexico to interventions in sub-Saharan Africa. Or with Trump, Greenland, Panama, and Canada. Whereas the Israel hawks are pretty much centered on what advantages Israel's expansionist policies in its own neighborhood.

I don't want to veer too much into politics, but I don't think of Trump as a neoconservative at all.

Well, the traditional neoconservatives of the Bush era like Cheney and Rumsfeld were focused on an aggressive foreign policy in the middle east and around the world combined with things like Reagan's missile defense (SDI) program. When 9-11 happened, The Bush neocons like Cheney and Rice were actually focused on missile defense rather than terrorism and then pivoted to their new "Global war on Terror". https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001-11 ... 11-attacks and the Bush Administration withdrew from the ABM treaty shortly after and never let go of their missile defense dreams.

Trump is less interventionist in the middle east to be sure. But he projecting an equivalently aggressive foreign policy here in our hemisphere including actual annexation of foreign nations. And I don't think it is a coincidence that he is revitalizing the Bush era obsession with missile defense. And proposing what will likely be a trillion dollar boondoggle with his "Golden Dome" which any independent physicist will tell you is physically and scientifically impossible to implement. But will provide and endless feeding trough for defense contractors so they will be eager to tell Trump and the American public that it can actually be done.

[Ken]

Because it’s extremely unlikely Iran would directly attack America, but such an attack would be quite beneficial to the goals of the neoconservatives.

And Israeli hardliners and their supporters in the US.

I can think of plenty of U.S. military actions — including full-scale wars — that didn’t rely on false flags. We’ve invaded or bombed countries for ideological reasons, geopolitical leverage, retaliatory strikes, protecting allies, or even just domestic political optics. None of that requires a conspiracy theory.

If someone wanted to justify a strike on Iran, they wouldn’t need to fake anything. There’s already a long list of provocations, real or perceived, that could be used as a pretext. That doesn’t mean the justifications are good, but they don’t need to be fabricated to be politically useful.

We should absolutely scrutinize motives and narratives. But not everything requires a false flag to be dangerous, misguided, or unjustified.

False flag is a very specific term. But I think the drive for war with Iran will be supported by wide range of justifications that will be exaggerated, distorted, or outright lied about. That could include false flag operations, but will more likely just involve lies and distortions like the famous Iraqi WMD that were never found.

[JohnH]

I must have missed current events - has any country been annexed in the Western hemisphere?