Suspicious Timing and Media Collaboration

In July 2018, just as Trump is set to meet with Putin in Helsinki, suddenly Maria Butina is arrested in the United States. The story was a sensation as Butina was painted as a 'Red Sparrow' in reference to the movie that had been released just months before in which a Russian spy uses seduction as a means of gaining intelligence. Western media reported that Butina was just such an agent and in light of the movie and television shows like 'The Americans', the story caused a sensation.

The breaking story was used as fuel to criticise Trump and his summit with Vladimir Putin and played a part in sabotaging any 'gains' that might have been made. While the media has been dishonest (on multiple fronts) in their coverage of Trump and Russia, the story effectively poured fuel on the fire.

Later, the story all but collapsed. Butina was not a 'Sparrow' and as her plea deal reveals, she clearly wasn't even a spy, as many will now admit.

Was she someone on FBI radar, someone convenient that they decided to go after and utilise in order to fulfill a larger political agenda? Such an assertion suggests there are Deep State forces that have the power to 'pull' such triggers.

Or perhaps it was just a mistake and the timing a coincidence.

In February 2019 a mysterious raid takes place in Spain. A shadowy group which seems to have at least some connections to the CIA, raids the North Korean embassy in Madrid. This occurred just days before the failed Trump-Kim summit in Hanoi. Was there a direct connection between the raid and the summit's failure? Officially the answer is no and the story didn't really break into the media until weeks later but certainly both Kim and Trump knew about it and it had to play a role in diminishing the degree of trust between them.

We still don't know the full story of the raid, nor the nature of the materials that were taken.

But for anyone who wanted to sabotage the summit and derail the peace talks, the raid was a gift. Was the timing a coincidence? I find that hard to believe. Even if the Free Joseon group acted independently (which is doubtful) the timing seems deliberate. This doesn't mean that Deep State forces were coordinating these events. Indeed Free Joseon may have acted alone. But again, the timing and the nature of Free Joseon is certainly suspicious.

In June 2019, just as Shinzo Abe is in Tehran reaching out (as a Western ally and intermediary) to the Islamic regime, two tankers are attacked in the Gulf of Oman. One of them was Japanese owned. The West has attempted to spin this as Iran's means of insulting Japanese efforts at diplomacy as Washington insists the attacks were sponsored by the Iranians.

Even Western allies clearly doubt the story. It makes little sense from Tehran's standpoint and the timing was very suspicious as indeed many within the Trump administration and other elements within the US Establishment do not want peace with Iran. Rather they are pushing for war.

In response the United States released a grainy inconclusive video which purports to show Iranians removing an unexploded magnetic mine from the hull of the tanker, ostensibly to remove any evidence of their involvement. This narrative is less than credible on multiple fronts and given that the US government and US intelligence now have a long and established track record of prevarication and fabricated evidence used to justify war... everyone should take their 'proof' with a grain of salt.

The truth is there were many in the Trump administration and the larger military-intelligence communities that didn't want Abe to visit Tehran and don't want a peace deal. They want regime change. Would they be willing to stage a 'false flag' attack in order to realise this policy?

Well, that depends on your understanding of history and whether these things have happened in the past. I would argue there is considerable precedent.

It's interesting because even some mainstream outlets aren't accepting the Pompeo-Trump administration narrative. There are clearly elements and factions within the Establishment that don't want to see a war with Iran. I was struck listening to the BBC when Newshour invited an ex-CIA analyst to comment. He did say that the circumstantial evidence pointed to Iran but was quick to note that other states might have pulled this off. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Israel all have the capability and all possess a motive to do so.

Of course the notion that the United States itself was involved wasn't on the table. However it must also be noted that even if the Saudis or Israel did it, it hardly means that it was done independently.

The Japanese tanker captain and crew have contradicted the American narrative and insist the damage was not the result of a mine or internal explosion. They insist they saw something airborne, something like a drone. If this bears out, the Pompeo video of Iranians removing a limpet mine collapses... as does the Trump administration's credibility.

Clearly there are different factions within the US that are engaged in these struggles. Some want to focus the US military colossus in the direction of Moscow, others toward Beijing and others toward Tehran. And, these categories are not mutually exclusive. There's some overlap to be sure. And of course there are other parties that don't want to see any further war at this time. Their warranted fear is that another Eurasian or Middle Eastern war has the potential to quickly escalate and turn into a Third World War... the consequences of which are potentially unthinkable.

But there can be no doubt as to the views of Pompeo, Bolton and others within the administration. They want a shooting war with Iran and in keeping with the Neo-Con agenda revealed during the Bush years, Iran is slated for regime change. They want the oil and they want the geostrategic advantage of controlling it and the potential access to Central Asia.

I have no difficulty in believing they are both capable and willing to stage a Gulf of Tonkin type incident in order to foment a war. The world will not be taken in again by an appeal to WMD's, though their alarmism with regard to Tehran's nuclear programme is reminiscent of what we heard back in 2002-2003. They need something more poignant, not a crisis that builds momentum but something that explodes, something that requires a reaction.

Some have evoked the Tanker War of the 1980's and indeed that scenario (if repeated) may fall short of a full-scale war. But few would doubt that the Trump people wouldn't use such a scenario as a stepping stone toward wider conflagration.

We can hope that Trump himself may step in and shut down the efforts of the warmongers in his administration. In some ways he's the most dangerous of all with his ignorance and his temper, however if the right people get to him and he believes he's being manipulated (which he is) he might intervene. For all his bluster it would seem he's not actually all that keen on starting a war. He won't want to lose face but if war can be avoided this episode may (hopefully) lead to the downfall of both Pompeo and Bolton. The world would be a safer place were that to occur.

Finally I found it a little suspicious that back in February 2019, just as the Yellow Vest (Gilets Jaunes) movement was starting to re-kindle and Macron was facing serious political difficulties... suddenly the movement took a bizarre turn and was (via the media) re-cast in dark tones. Macron had launched his 'Great National Debate' but the effort was largely rejected and met with scorn. Macron was at a particularly low ebb and then suddenly the Yellow Vests took a huge hit in the media.

I'm referring to the episode (fully caught on camera) of the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut being harassed with anti-Semitic slurs and threats. Suddenly the discussion shifted away from the economic aims and protests of the movement to a discussion of Right-wing dangers and recurrent anti-Semitism.

One of the harassers was later connected to Salafism which is interesting. In one sense it vindicates the Yellow Vest movement as there have been no suggestions of Islamism in connection with their protests. In other words the anti-Semitic attack had nothing to do with them. Opponents of the movement could use the Salafi angle to paint the movement as dangerous, a clearing-house for social radicals, the Right and even jihadis.

In addition to finding the timing interesting the fact that it was a Salafi who attacked Finkielkraut made me raise my eyebrows because time and again European Salafis (and their attacks) reveal connections to the intelligence agencies. Groups like the BND and DGSE have been repeatedly demonstrated to have agents and assets within Islamic terrorist and paramilitary cells. There are layers to this story and the phenomenon has seen multiple incarnations but the most recent set of relationships were established in connection to Western support and fomentation of the Syrian Civil War. The networks, fighters and even the arms all seem to be entangled with Western intelligence agencies.

Is it possible that some Islamic extremists jumped on the Yellow Vest bandwagon and started shouting at a prominent Jewish academic? Yes, it's possible but again, the timing is suspicious and one can't help but wonder if there isn't more to the story.

Is this just wild conspiratorial thinking?

Some might think so, but one needs only to consider the phony and manufactured 'Incubator Baby' testimony that helped garner American public support for the Gulf War, the shenanigans surrounding Iraqi WMD's or law enforcement's penetration of the Anti-war movement during Vietnam, not to mention the many accusations surrounding the Years of Lead in Italy and the machinations of US intelligence with regard to French, German, British and Australian politics. Those who immediately decry such discussions or suggestions as wild speculation or conspiratorial thinking expose their own ignorance and conformist mindset.