Inverting reality – blockading the Persian Gulf

David Macilwain

When trying to understand the way that the Skripal hoax was effected, I found it useful to consider “the conspirators’ view”. Simply detailing all the evidence that the Salisbury poisonings were not the work of Russian agents and that claims were fabricated by some other parties was easy but insufficient, as the crime committed by the actual perpetrators was infinitely more serious and reprehensible; one could call it a war crime for the lethal acts it facilitated.

Similar reasoning can now be applied to the latest conspiracies being effected by the same “Team West” against the “Resistance”. I’m thinking primarily of the series of provocations in the Persian Gulf, but including associated actions in and over Syria. The number and extent of those acts of deception has ballooned, while the evidence that they are fabrications is now insurmountable.

This is because certain occurrences, such as leaking of the OPCW engineers’ report on Douma, have betrayed a whole series of criminal acts planned and executed by a covert system of actors for Team West.

We may not yet know who they are, but “we know where they live”, and it’s not in Damascus, Tehran or Moscow.

In the case of the Skripal conspiracy, despite an overwhelming collection of clues, it was evidence of their foreknowledge of what occurred on March 4th that implicated particular individuals as perpetrators or collaborators in the operation.

It must of course be the case that for all sudden and unexpected events that are not accidents, only the perpetrators have such foreknowledge, at least of what they expect and intend to happen.

As a consequence, the prime focus of the conspirators before the event has to be on absolute secrecy, but also on preparing false evidence of their victims’ alleged responsibility and foreknowledge.

Examples of this deflection of attention spring to mind, as recordings of phone conversations or messages, which have been put forward as a smoking gun by the real perpetrators. In the false flag Sarin attack on Ghouta in 2013, conversations tapped by Israel allegedly between Syrian commanders were quickly shown to be fabricated and later to be implausible, as the Syrian military bases were too far away to have been the source of the Sarin-filled missiles.

Similarly it was conversations between commanders of the separatists in Ukraine that were used as prime evidence of their supposed guilt for shooting down MH17. These recordings were most recently demonstrated to have been cut and stitched up by Ukraine’s SBU in advance of the event. There are two inferences one can make here, that diminish Separatist responsibility for the disaster but increase that of Kiev-allied forces.

Given the Separatists dramatic loss from the downing of MH17, it can be said with certainty that had they been responsible it would have been a tragic accident, and certainly not something for which Russia might be held somehow responsible. But had the Ukrainian army been responsible, it could hardly have been an accident given the Separatists had no targets for BUK missiles.

That the Ukrainian army had several BUK systems deployed in the area adds to the suspicion the targeting of a jetliner was intentional. There were several airliners over Ukraine at that time, yet MH17 seems to have been diverted towards the battle zone.

So much attention has been focused on “Russian guilt” for the MH17 atrocity, or on the lack of it by Russia’s supporters, that the implications for the alternative have been barely considered despite their enormity. Yet how can we accept – even as a possibility – that “our side” or the party we choose to side with, could commit such a terrible crime, and all the time blaming and punishing the victim?

But to turn to the Persian Gulf, and the string of provocations which began back in May and which we can now see were all part of a grand plan. Just as the truth of the Skripal hoax was revealed by Nurse McCourt’s presence and actions at the scene of the crime – an unlikely presence already concealed for nine months, so the most recent events in the Straits of Hormuz have revealed the planning of those behind them.

It may be necessary to join some dots that are a little far apart, but if the conclusion makes sense of something otherwise uncertain then this is useful. And nothing has yet emerged to challenge such a conclusion.

The simple detail that revealed the deception over Iran’s seizure of the Stena Impero was the distant presence of the HMS Montrose. Following Iran’s interception of the tanker, which was sailing in the wrong lane, had no transponder operating and had collided with an Iranian fishing boat, the UK government declared that the Montrose had been “too far away to prevent the tanker’s seizure”.

This was not the case when the Montrose escorted the empty British Heritage out of the Gulf a week earlier, allegedly fending off an attempt by the IRGC to intercept it that the IRGC denied and the Royal Navy refused to substantiate with any video.

As the BBC reports, that little piece of theatre took place the day after the UK issued a warning to shipping in the Gulf, and a week after the UK’s intentionally provocative act of piracy on Grace 1 in the Straits of Gibraltar which had made the warning necessary. But now we can conclude that the intent of the UK in pirating Iran’s tanker on a false and illegal basis was to provoke Iran into reciprocating its action in the Straits of Hormuz.

The seizing of the Grace 1 was evidently planned some time in advance – possibly even to the extent of forcing it to go through the Straits of Gibraltar where the UK could claim some rights. But it appears that the BP owned British Heritage’s movements were also planned before July 4th.

Whether the presence of the former head of MI6 and Russophobe John Sawers on the board of BP played a role in this action “is unclear” – as they like to say, but Sawers certainly has form in the region, having favoured forming a rebel force of 100,000 to overthrow Syria’s President Assad before 2013.

But Iran didn’t take the bait, so the UK contrived another scheme. Arrange for a suitable tanker to behave in a lawless fashion in the straits so that Iran would be obliged to react, and likely take advantage of the opportunity to gain a bargaining chip over the detention of the Grace 1 – which had unexpectedly just been ordered to remain in detention for another 30 days.

This time it worked like a dream for the UK, whose grip over Western media narratives through the BBC ensured that the realities of the two tanker seizures would be reversed.

The Grace 1, carrying desperately needed oil to Syria, hijacked at night in internationally protected straits by UK commandos, was said to be legitimately detained, while Iran’s detention of the Stena Impero entering the Gulf under suspicious circumstances while shadowed by a UK warship was “hijacking” and must cease immediately.

But the tit for tat tanker war was evidently just a side show in Team West’s war games with the Resistance, in which pre-empting Iran’s primary response to aggression – blockading the Straits of Hormuz – was a clever opening gambit.

The idea that the Western powers would dare to seize control of the vital oil highway without the slightest justification seemed outrageous at first, yet now Germany is berated for refusing to join “Operation Sentinel” by the US, and without a word of protest or opposition from the Western world.

The pretext has been created and the Western media has sold the lies to its ignorant publics.

It’s worth reflecting on just how this has happened – has been enabled, as well as what may be the result in terms of Iran’s ability to strike back at further aggressive actions in the Persian Gulf.

Part of the facilitation of the perverse blockading of Iran’s own oil trade has undoubtedly been through the parallel developments over the JCPOA and US sanctions on Iran. Such were the rivers of fake news over Iran’s nuclear activities, including monstrous claims that Iran could build a bomb “within months”, that the steady development of the “naval protection force” was barely noticed.

Astonishingly, Australia’s possible collaboration in such a force has still had no official mention, leave alone public discussion. And this is despite Mike Pompeo’s presence here for “Ausmin” talks with foreign minister Marise Payne this week. Perhaps they just talked about the weather.

So again we must join the dots. Last week, coinciding with the “successful” conclusion of the massive Talisman Sabre war games in Queensland, the US announced plans to spend $300 million on building a new US base near Darwin, though work had already begun.

The new base would enable giant amphibious ships like the one seen recently entering the Persian Gulf to dock in Australia, improving the “force posture” of the Imperial warmonger in our region and against our chief trading partner. Such plans were denied two months ago, when the ABC revealed that a new road had already been constructed – “to serve the local fishing industry” they said.

But perhaps spiked by the government’s recent intimidation tactics against investigative journalists and whistleblowers, the ABC has uncovered another piece of the Middle Eastern jigsaw puzzle.

Thanks to an insider with a smartphone it was demonstrated that shipments of remotely operated weapons to the UAE were consigned to its armed forces, and so might be involved in the committing of war crimes in Yemen, contrary to export licences. Perhaps because the UAE just declared it is pulling out of Yemen this story simply disappeared, but must lead to another question; if not Yemen, where next?

By chance while investigating leads for this article, I chanced on this astonishing report on a closely related story about British collaboration with the Saudis, which appears to have gone under the radar since publication in mid-June. As author Arron Merat, former Tehran correspondent for the Economist describes it:

Saudi Arabia has in effect contracted out vital parts of its war against Yemen’s Houthi movement to the US and the UK. Britain does not merely supply weapons for this war: it provides the personnel and expertise required to keep the war going. The British government has deployed RAF personnel to work as engineers, and to train Saudi pilots and targeteers – while an even larger role is played by BAE Systems, Britain’s biggest arms company, which the government has subcontracted to provide weapons, maintenance and engineers inside Saudi Arabia.

“They couldn’t do it without us.” A BAE employee recently put it more plainly to Channel 4’s Dispatches: “If we weren’t there, in seven to 14 days there wouldn’t be a jet in the sky.”

[This is because] around 6,300 British contractors are stationed at forward operating bases in Saudi Arabia. There, they train Saudi pilots and conduct essential maintenance night and day on planes worn out from flying thousands of miles across the Saudi desert to their targets in Yemen. They also supervise Saudi soldiers to load bombs on to planes and set their fuses for their intended targets.

While the UK government naturally denies it, the presence of RAF “liaison officers” inside the command-and-control centre from where targets in Yemen are selected suggests that the war on the Yemeni national resistance is as much a project of the UK and US as their local partners, and has absolutely nothing to do with supporting the “Internationally recognised government” of  Mansour Hadi, that even the UAE is opposed to.

In the light of the UK’s direct and covert involvement in the illegitimate war on Yemen, and collaboration in the humanitarian siege that has devastated the population, do we really think that the UK’s cooperation with the same local allies – Saudi Arabia, Israel and the UAE – in the Persian Gulf is “to protect commercial shipping” from Iran? And as the Emirati forces are withdrawing from Yemen, where do we think they will now be deploying their Australian remote targeting systems?

All of which seems to confirm the impression that “Team West” is determined to achieve its objectives for control and domination of the whole region, regardless of consequences. There is just one proviso – that the Western electorates must believe their governments are only and always responding to hostile attacks.