By Brandon Smith
After 9/11, the concept of the “false flag attack” gained prominence in American culture and ever since more and more people are starting to question the official narrative whenever new events occur. It is possible that this is why there has not been another attack in the U.S. on the scale of 9/11 since 2001; not because the government is doing a better job with security (there was ample security in operation on 9/11 that for some reason was not utilized), but because it’s harder for government agencies to get away with more complex and fabricated disasters.
That said, sometimes governments don’t need to create a false flag from scratch. Sometimes events not of a government’s making can be turned into false flags, as long as they can pin the blame on the target they most want to attack.
The elites only need to get away with one major false flag every couple of decades to push the populace into a war or a cultural crisis which can be exploited. This was essentially the strategy outlined by the “Project For A New American Century“, a foreign policy think tank in the 1990s made up of Neo-Cons and ghouls from the Council On Foreign Relations which called for a “new Pearl Harbor” that would give the U.S. a rationale to enter the Middle East militarily and change the entire political landscape. As Rahm Emanuel once said, “You never want a serious crisis go to waste…”
Of course, they got their Pearl Harbor, but I think it’s wrong to assume that the PNAC was designed to open the door to American hegemony. Rather, I think the intention was to cause the opposite — the eventual fall of American geopolitical influence. After all, what happened to the Soviet Union after they bungled into a land war in Afghanistan? Only a long and costly quagmire that ultimately contributed to their economic downfall. This is exactly what is happening to the U.S. today. Are we to believe the elites were completely unaware of this outcome?
To put it another way, perhaps the real goal of efforts toward American hegemony is to undermine the U.S. image over time, as well as sink it into bankruptcy? But let’s examine the underlying factors a little further…
U.S. involvement in the Middle East thus far has led to nothing but disaster. While total financial costs are often debated, general estimates of the combined costs of U.S. involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan are in the area of $5 trillion (a conservative estimate in my opinion). The civilian body count from the Iraq War alone stands at around 208,000 people according to Iraqbodycount.org. U.S., Israeli and Saudi Arabian covert agencies involved in Libya and Syria trained, funded and armed the same militants that would eventually give rise to ISIS under a program called Timber Sycamore. And though we continually hear about Trump’s intentions to pull U.S. troops out of the region, tens of thousands of soldiers and private contractors remain in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria to this day.
No person in their right mind could claim that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been successful. In fact, the U.S. has lost considerable face and economic stability during these conflicts, which have been perpetuated by both Republican and Democratic administrations. And now, the potential for a war in Iran is rising; a war that could devastate the U.S. economy once and for all.
John Bolton, a primary advocate of the PNAC, was the National Security Adviser to Donald Trump until only a few days ago. I hardly find it coincidental that Iran, one of the final targets of the PNAC plan, is now being blamed for the latest attack on Saudi Arabian oil production right after Bolton exits the White House. It is often the case that elitsts within an administration will jump ship right before their agendas are implemented so that they can redirect any blame for the consequences.
Needless to say, just because John Bolton has left the building doesn’t mean his schemes are gone, or that the supposed “disagreement” between al-qaTrump and Bolton was even real. Bolton is but one of many puppeteers controlling the Trump administration…
Wars are not always started through Pearl Harbor-like ambushes on the American people — sometimes they are started through alliances and engineered confrontations on the other side of the world designed to draw the American people into conflict. The attack on Saudi Aramco’s oil processing plants, the largest processing plants in the world, stands as another potential “linchpin” as RAND Corporation would call it; an event that sets a domino effect in motion that leads to a global crisis. In this case, it is probably a linchpin that is being exploited as a crisis of opportunity. Or to put it another way, it is a linchpin because the establishment is making it into a linchpin.
Initial reports of the attack indicated that it was launched by Yemeni Houthi rebels using drones. The Houthis have publicly accepted responsibility for the attacks. The Houthi rebellion started out as a protest movement against the hard line Yemeni government, which has long been a proxy for Saudi interests in the region. The Houthis demanded free speech rights and greater representation in government. The government responded by trying to imprison the protesters and killing their leadership.
This is not to say that I agree with the Houthi ideology, but I can see the reasoning in their revolt. The Saudi and U.S. drone strikes and bombings in Yemen against the Houthis have been relentless and go widely unreported by the mainstream media. U.S. officials claim that the strikes are aimed at “fighting Al-Qaeda”, but Al-Qaeda is used as a convenient label for just about any group that stands against U.S. interests or allies.
U.S. strikes on the Houthis accelerated under the Obama administration after a supposed “failed missile attack” on the destroyer USS Mason. The Houthis denied any involvement in the attack, saying it did not originate from their area of control. U.S. strikes in Yemen have continued under Trump.
Political opponents in Yemen and the Saudis have consistently accused the Houthis of being proxies for Iran, and while Iran has publicly supported the Houthi rebellion, the Houthis have ignored Iranian advice on numerous occasions, indicating they are not as controlled as some would like the Western public to believe. I would note that the same media outlets that are screaming today about Iran as the villainous mastermind behind the Houthi insurgency were arguing against the same claim only a couple years ago.
The narrative of “state controlled” insurgents is a common one for governments to use when faced with a rebellion they cannot defeat outright. In the war of propaganda, the last thing any establishment controlled dictatorship wants is for the public to view the rebels fighting them as common people and “heroic underdogs.” So, they conjure a story in which the rebellion is actually an evil conspiracy forged by a foreign power. Many conservatives and liberty activists might be able to relate to this, as numerous leftist media outlets have recently accused us of being nothing more than an “astro turf” movement created by the Russians, or at the very least, unwitting dupes manipulated by the Russians.
One of the most important aspects of a rebellion against the establishment is the ability to raise public awareness of the establishment’s crimes, but once they are successfully pigeon-holed as a proxy controlled by a foreign power, few in the public will listen to what they have to say no matter how factual it may be.
Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have been exposed for funding and training militants (ISIS) in Syria to start a violent revolution against Bashar al-Assad, so it is a bit hypocritical of them to demonize Iran for any influence they may have with the Houthis. Last I checked, at least the Houthis aren’t guilty of committing genocide and eating the internal organs of murdered civilians, nor are they guilty of rampant attacks on civilian targets. Frankly, if they were responsible for the attack on Saudi oil production as they claim, this represents a strike against a legitimate military target, not a terror attack.
But the real point here is that it does not matter if the Houthis are legitimate, or that they have real grievances against Saudi Arabia, or that they take full credit for the attack on Saudi Aramco — the establishment is going to rewrite the narrative to fit their agenda anyway.
Currently, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has named Iran directly as being the culprit behind the strikes on Saudi Arabia (still no hard evidence available to verify this). Even though the Saudis stated right after the attack that 10 drones were used, this story is being quickly “adjusted.” Now, U.S. officials claim that the attack was accomplished with 17 or more “cruise missiles” that originated from the direction of Iran. How the Saudis were able to confuse cruise missiles for drones remains a mystery.
Clearly, the goal of this narrative is to create a rationale that allows the Trump administration to commit to a war with Iran, probably starting with limited airstrikes and escalating from there. It was only a matter of time. With the heavy influence of globalists in Trump’s cabinet, every major event in the region has been somehow tied to Iran, from attacks on random oil tankers to Palestinian and Lebanese opposition to Israel and so on. Trump could not use a downed drone to start a war, that was not enough to convince the American public. Those people who applauded Trump as some kind of peacemaker for not initiating strikes on Iran for a single downed drone missed the bigger picture. War with Iran is baked into the cake; it is simply the matter of finding the right trigger.
Perhaps skyrocketing oil prices in the face of “Iranian sponsored terrorism” might be exactly what the globalists needed.
Is it coincidence that this event is being hyped by the establishment as an Iranian agenda right after John Bolton leaves the White House? Is it a coincidence that it is being hyped after Russia recently warned that oil might drop to $25 a barrel on falling global demand? Is it a coincidence that it is being hyped right after Iran announced it was utilizing advanced Uranium centrifuges? Is it a coincidence that Trump no longer needs to reopen negotiations on Iran sanctions?
And, as noted at the beginning of this article, if you believe as I do that the globalists are seeking to completely destabilize the U.S. with Donald Trump at the helm in order to destroy the image of the conservative movement and sovereignty activists by association, then a war with Iran would surely do the trick.
As covered in my article ‘Globalists Only Need One More Major Event To Finish Sabotaging The Economy‘, published in May, a conflict with Iran would be a perfect catalyst for a final plunge in U.S. markets in the midst of trade war tensions and tight Fed liquidity. Also, a war in Iran would inevitably lead to a shut down of the Strait of Hormuz through which around 30 percent of the global oil supply flows, increasing oil prices exponentially along with international anger at the U.S. It would further galvanize China and most of the world to decouple from the U.S. economically and eventually, dump U.S. Treasurys and the dollar as the world reserve currency.
At the same time, the globalists will have effectively exploited the Trump administration, which they may not intend to remain in office after 2020 anyway, as a tool for launching a war they have long wanted but could not trick the American public into supporting. Now, it doesn’t matter if the American public agrees or not.
This is the true strategic brilliance of using Trump as a puppet president. Under Trump, the globalists can take actions they have always wanted to pursue and then lay all blame at the feet of conservatives. Under Trump, it’s irrelevant if he loses face. He has been built up as a “populist” and anti-globalist, therefore any disaster he oversees will become the fault of populists and anti-globalists. This is why people should expect war in Iran in the near term. The temptation for the globalists to light the fuse with Trump as president must be overwhelming.
While OPEC may benefit from higher oil prices in the face of dwindling global demand, and the Neo-Cons may benefit from seeing their PNAC plans for destabilizing the Middle East come to fruition, it is truly the globalists that have the most to gain by linking Iran to the Saudi Aramco attack and plunging the U.S. into a war it cannot survive economically.
Simply put, they see crisis and chaos as the fastest stimulants of fear, and the most useful engines for global change. They are seeking to kill two birds with one stone — break down the old world order to make way for the new world order while wrapping the negative effects around the necks of their biggest ideological enemies.
