False flags or true signals?

February 28, 2007

False flags or true signals?


STRANGE as it may sound, the expectation propagated by many in the international media is that there would soon be an attack targeting American individuals/interests that would be traced to Tehran. The attack, which has to be of a scale and nature that would make an immediate international impact, would be used as the pretext for the US to launch military action against Iran along the same lines as the Sept.11 2001 suicide hijackings set the ground for the invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq.
Israel is an expert in false-flag operations. We have seen over the decades how Israeli agents have carried out deceptive operations in Arab countries, Europe and indeed the US, leaving accusing fingers pointing at Arabs. It could be the Israelis who would carry out the false-flag operation to set the ground for military action against Iraq. It could be American agents. Or it could be a group or groups whose strings are pulled from behind the scene by Israel or the US. This is the expert opinion making the rounds through the media today.
There could be an added sense of urgency for American/Israeli military action against Iran because there is a possibility that the theological Iranian leadership headed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could step in to defuse the nuclear crisis by offering to suspend nuclear enrichment and engage in dialogue to solve the dispute despite opposition by President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and his hard-line supporters. If that happens, then the rug is pulled from under the feet of the American/Israeli argument for military action against Iran.
While the US invasion of Iraq was indeed expected, the launch of the US-led war against that country came at a time when the world was getting increasingly worried about the strength of Washington's contention that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was producing more by the tonnes. At that point, the US had to act fast lest it would be established that it did not have a real cause for war against Iraq, and we saw how the Bush administration withdrew all motions presented to the UN and launched the war against Iraq in 72 hours.
Somewhere along similar lines, powers from within Iran could foil the Israeli-engineered American plans for military action against Iran.
Reports from Tehran indicate a growing restlessness against Ahmedinejdad's rhetoric that seems designed to invite military action against the country in the name of its controversial nuclear programme.
Critics of the Iranian president have taken up particular issue with his recent comment that "the train of the Iranian nation is without brakes and a rear gear ... We dismantled the reverse gear and brakes of the train and threw them away some time ago."
The comment has drawn criticism not only from reformists who have long opposed Ahmadinejad, but also from conservatives who once backed the president but who now fear that he is provoking the West into military confrontation.
Indicative of the trend was a comment by the reformist daily Etemad-e-Melli, which asked:
"Why are you speaking a language that causes a person to be ashamed? A train's brakes are needed to reach its destination safely. You represent the voters of the great Iranian nation. Speak equal to the name and dignity of this nation."
Another was the conservative daily Resalat, which chided Ahmadinejad, saying "neither weakness nor unnecessarily offensive language is acceptable in foreign policy."
"Our foreign policy must reflect the ancient Iranian civilisation and rich Islamic culture of the Iranian nation. Therefore, delicacy ... rich diplomatic language and non-primitive policies must be part of a calculated combination to work," it said.
These comments should be seen coupled with the criticism levelled against Ahmedinejad by none other than Khamenei himself although in the context of government performance.
The overall picture that is gaining contours is that of an unexpected Iranian move to defuse the nuclear crisis and remove all justifications for any military action. We in this region would definitely welcome that development since it could also be used in a different context to address some of the other basic concerns of the Gulf region.
The key questions here are several:
What are the points that the Bush administration has taken from the criticism levelled against Ahmedinejad?
Do those points include optimism for a non-military solution to the nuclear crisis?
Is Washington prepared — in a long-term strategical context — to accept a peaceful resolution of the crisis with Iran, which the US sees as its worst opponent in the Middle East?
Will Israel keep to itself and watch from the sidelines as its grand designs for military action against Iran fade away?