Iran Sending Warships to Atlantic Ocean Amid Massive New Military Buildup

[Babak]

Iran is preparing to send a flotilla of warships to the Atlantic Ocean following the announcement of a massive $500 million investment in war spending, according to Iranian leaders, who say the military moves are in response to recent efforts by the United States to impose a package of new economic sanctions on Tehran.

The military investment and buildup comes following weeks of tense interactions between Iran and the United States in regional waters, where Iranian military ships have carried out a series of dangerous maneuvers near U.S. vessels. The interactions have roiled U.S. military leaders and prompted tough talk from the Trump administration, which is currently examining potential ways to leave the landmark nuclear deal.

Iran's increasingly hostile behavior also follows a little-noticed United Nations report disclosing that Iran has repeatedly violated international accords banning ballistic missile work. Lawmakers in the U.S. Congress and some policy experts also believe that Iran has been violating some provisions in the nuclear agreement governing nuclear-related materials.

With tensions over sanctions and Iran's compliance with the nuclear agreement growing, Iranian parliamentary members voted to increase war spending by more than $500 million. This is at least the second recent cash influx to Iran's military since the landmark nuclear deal that unfroze billions in Iranian assets and saw the United States awarding Tehran millions in cash.

Iranian lawmakers reportedly shouted "death to America" as they passed the measure, which boosts spending to Iran's contested missile programs by around $260 million.

The bill also imposes sanctions on U.S. military officials in the region. Additionally, Iranian officials are moving to set up courts to prosecute the United States for the recent sanctions, which Iran claims are in violation of the nuclear deal.

Meanwhile, following several aggressive encounters with U.S. military vessels in the Persian Gulf, Iranian military leaders announced that they would be leading a flotilla of warships into the Atlantic Ocean.

"No military official in the world thought that we can go round Africa to the Atlantic Ocean through the Suez Canal but we did it as we had declared that we would go to the Atlantic and its Western waters," Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari was quoted as saying over the weekend.

"We moved into the Atlantic and will go to its Western waters in the near future," Sayyari said.

U.S. military officials reported Monday yet another "unsafe" encounter with an Iranian drone that was shadowing a U.S. carrier in the Persian Gulf region and reportedly came close enough to an American F-18 jet to risk the pilot's life.

As with other similar encounters during the past months, the Iranian craft did not respond to repeated radio calls by the United States. While the drone is said to have been unarmed, it is capable of carrying missiles.

Iranian leaders have been adamant that the country will not halt its work on ballistic missile technology, which could be used to carry nuclear weapons.

The United States has issued several new packages of sanctions as a result of this behavior, but U.N. members have yet to address the issue, despite recent reporting that found Iran is violating international accords barring such behavior.

"Little-noticed biannual reporting by the UN Secretary General alleges that Iran is repeatedly violating these non-nuclear provisions," Iran Watch, a nuclear watchdog group, reported on Monday.

"Thus far, the United States has responded to such violations with sanctions and designations of Iranian and foreign entities supporting Tehran's ballistic missile development," the organization found. "However, the U.N. and its member states have not responded. More must be done to investigate allegations of noncompliance and to punish violations of the resolution."

Rep. Sean Duffy (R., Wis.), a proponent of a more forceful policy on Iranian intransigence in the region, told the Free Beacon that the Trump administration must make it a priority to address Tehran's increasingly bold military activity.

"Iran was emboldened to flex its military muscle after eight years of President Obama’s passivity and his delivery of cold, hard cash to the regime, but they should make no mistake: President Trump was elected to put a stop to rogue regimes pushing America around, and the American people know he will address the world’s lead sponsor of terrorism with resolve," Duffy told the Free Beacon.

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser and expert on rogue regimes, said that Iran's recent behavior shows the regime has not moderated since the nuclear deal was implemented. The Obama administration sold the deal in part on promises that it could help bring Tehran into the community of nations.

"Every time the Islamic Republic has cash, it chooses guns over butter," Rubin told the Washington Free Beacon. "What the [nuclear deal] and subsequent hostage ransom did was fill Iran's coffers, and now we see the result of that."

"What [former President Barack] Obama and [former Secretary of State John] Kerry essentially did was gamble that if they funded a mad scientist's lab, the scientist would rather make unicorns rather than nukes," Rubin said. "News flash for the echo chamber: Iranian reformist are just hardliners who smile more. Neither their basic philosophy nor their commitment to terrorism have changed."

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-sending-warships-atlantic-ocean-amid-massive-new-military-buildup/

[Babak]

its just getting worst and worst lol

[N1019]

And the CIA said the Shah was a brilliant megalomaniac. These guys... well... they were just seen (wrongly) as a better alternative to communists and Mossadeghs...

Oh well... it's their choice. They might as well keep going and give the warhawks what they want. They have nothing else in their playbook.

[Babak]

And the CIA said the Shah was a brilliant megalomaniac. These guys... well... they were just seen (wrongly) as a better alternative to communists and Mossadeghs...

Oh well... it's their choice. They might as well keep going and give the warhawks what they want. They have nothing else in their playbook.

What else do you expect from low IQ stinky raghead faggots?

[N1019]

What else do you expect from low IQ stinky raghead faggots?

Of course there are bound to be people defending Iran's right to do these things, but that's not the problem.

Just because we can, and are allowed to do certain things doesn't mean we should, and it doesn't mean others aren't allowed to/won't respond. And of course in the case of world powers, they don't care about the rules. They just do what they want. For weaker countries, that's a very dangerous game to get involved in.

It's all about choices. Time and again, we have seen middle eastern leaders make awful choices that have contributed to unending misery, and often to their own deaths.

[zarzian]

The Mollahs are the pawns of the Illuminati you idiots, this is all scripted. Everything in the Geopolitics is scripted and ultimately controlled directly from the one square mile city of London.

[Babak]

Of course there are bound to be people defending Iran's right to do these things, but that's not the problem.

Just because we can, and are allowed to do certain things doesn't mean we should, and it doesn't mean others aren't allowed to/won't respond. And of course in the case of world powers, they don't care about the rules. They just do what they want. For weaker countries, that's a very dangerous game to get involved in.

It's all about choices. Time and again, we have seen middle eastern leaders make awful choices that have contributed to unending misery, and often to their own deaths.

Well it doesnt look like the right choices have been made then. Its just stupid for Iran to do anything anyway with the leaders it has. Mullahs have always been degenerates from day one.

[N1019]

The Mollahs are the pawns of the Illuminati you idiots, this is all scripted. Everything in the Geopolitics is scripted and ultimately controlled directly from the one square mile city of London.

We have considered that possibility, but call us idiots if you like. The thing is, war can also be also scripted, and there's some major scripting going on for the lead up to "Iranian regime change". Some people have the view that since things are scripted, the mullahs were put there by the CIA etc. that there will be no war, which simply isn't true.

[zarzian]

We have considered that possibility, but call us idiots if you like. The thing is, war can also be also scripted, and there's some major scripting going on for the lead up to "Iranian regime change". Some people have the view that since things are scripted, the mullahs were put there by the CIA etc. that there will be no war, which simply isn't true.

Lol the Illuminati doesn't want regime change in Iran bevause the Mollahs are doing exactly what they were put there to do, which is to economically and socially destroy Iran and set them back 50 years from the glory days of Shahs reign and to act as a boogyman.

[Kamal900]

Lol the Illuminati doesn't want regime change in Iran bevause the Mollahs are doing exactly what they were put there to do, which is to economically and socially destroy Iran and set them back 50 years from the glory days of Shahs reign and to act as a boogyman.

No. The Illuminati or whatever doesn't even exist. It's the (((chosen ones))) that are controlling most western countries through proxy, and they demand war against Iran and it's allies for their beloved state of Israel to have total hegemony in the middle east. Pahlavi was a puppet placed by the Americans via CIA backed coup in the 1950's against the real Shah of Iran, but he was showing signs of rebellion against the Zionist west in his later years though.

[N1019]

Lol the Illuminati doesn't want regime change in Iran bevause the Mollahs are doing exactly what they were put there to do, which is to economically and socially destroy Iran and set them back 50 years from the glory days of Shahs reign and to act as a boogyman.

I have to say that my cynical mind always found this theory appealing, and I first heard it years ago. But ultimately, I think it's a creative form of wishful thinking from people who believe Iran is the exception to the rule. Everyone else who opposes the Anglo-Zionists is being cut down, but somehow, Iran won't be touched, just because the Anglo-American empire was involved in putting the mullahs in power. Boogymen like the mullahs with their fake revolution and ISIS can have their uses, but they don't last forever. The imperial powers are king makers and king breakers. They get rid of the same people they put in power when they feel like it.

The mullahs were backed in 1979 because they were seen as the least worst option compared to communists, which were unacceptable in the cold war, and the democratic/secular nationalists who were too much like the rogue Shah or Mossadegh. My suspicion is that they were not supposed to survive the Iran-Iraq War, and that both Iraq and Iran were meant to be pretty much destroyed by it, obviating the need for a major American war commitment against two problematic countries. Furthermore, at the time it was thought that Iran's oil production would soon go into steep decline leading to financial ruin for the country, followed by dangerous acts of desperation from the Shah/government in the 1980s/90s. They really thought it would be better to have the mullahs there when that happened rather than the Shah/Mossadegh types. Iraq has now been ruined, but Iran is still standing, for now.



No. The Illuminati or whatever doesn't even exist. It's the (((chosen ones))) that are controlling most western countries through proxy, and they demand war against Iran and it's allies for their beloved state of Israel to have total hegemony in the middle east. Pahlavi was a puppet placed by the Americans via CIA backed coup in the 1950's against the real Shah of Iran, but he was showing signs of rebellion against the Zionist west in his later years though.

The last Shah is a good example of how kings are made and broken. He was put there by the British after they removed his father in 1941. The British asserted their right to remove him later if necessary. When the nationalists tried to keep more Iranian oil wealth for themselves in the early 50s, the Shah was supported by the British and Americans. But by the mid 70s he started to go rogue and was dying of cancer. His time was up. The trouble is, there were no good replacements.

[zarzian]

No. The Illuminati or whatever doesn't even exist. It's the (((chosen ones))) that are controlling most western countries through proxy, and they demand war against Iran and it's allies for their beloved state of Israel to have total hegemony in the middle east. Pahlavi was a puppet placed by the Americans via CIA backed coup in the 1950's against the real Shah of Iran, but he was showing signs of rebellion against the Zionist west in his later years though.

Im kind of saying Illuminati tongue in cheek but countless (Mostly Jewish) banking dynasties , European Royals and American Families do run the world though they most likely don't refer to themselves as the Illuminati. And to assume that the world is ran exclusively by the Jews who are pushing a Jewish Agenda is simply not the case, if it was the case then they wouldn't have sacrificed millions of Jews in WW2 just to establish Israel. Dont get me wrong, I do admit that many, if not the majority of the powerbrokers rulling the world have jewish ancestry but they ultimately serve Satan and not Yahweh and they could care less about the common jew. The Rothschields, for example, are Satanists first and Jewish second. Zionism is a right wing creation of the same elites which created the complete opposite communism and every other movement or political dogma.




I have to say that my cynical mind always found this theory appealing, and I first heard it years ago. But ultimately, I think it's a creative form of wishful thinking from people who believe Iran is the exception to the rule. Everyone else who opposes the Anglo-Zionists is being cut down, but somehow, Iran won't be touched, just because the Anglo-American empire was involved in putting the mullahs in power. Boogymen like the mullahs with their fake revolution and ISIS can have their uses, but they don't last forever. The imperial powers are king makers and king breakers. They get rid of the same people they put in power when they feel like it.

The mullahs were backed in 1979 because they were seen as the least worst option compared to communists, which were unacceptable in the cold war, and the democratic/secular nationalists who were too much like the rogue Shah or Mossadegh. My suspicion is that they were not supposed to survive the Iran-Iraq War, and that both Iraq and Iran were meant to be pretty much destroyed by it, obviating the need for a major American war commitment against two problematic countries. Furthermore, at the time it was thought that Iran's oil production would soon go into steep decline leading to financial ruin for the country, followed by dangerous acts of desperation from the Shah/government in the 1980s/90s. They really thought it would be better to have the mullahs there when that happened rather than the Shah/Mossadegh types. Iraq has now been ruined, but Iran is still standing, for now.




The last Shah is a good example of how kings are made and broken. He was put there by the British after they removed his father in 1941. The British asserted their right to remove him later if necessary. When the nationalists tried to keep more Iranian oil wealth for themselves in the early 50s, the Shah was supported by the British and Americans. But by the mid 70s he started to go rogue and was dying of cancer. His time was up. The trouble is, there were no good replacements.

I 100% agree with you that as easy as they put anyone in power, they could and do just as easily destroy them. My point isn't that Iran is special and that it can never be invaded or the mollahs are untouchable by the west, infact given enough time, it probably will be invaded because thats the way the Western powerbrokers operate, Sadam Husein and Ghaddafi are perfect examples. But my point is that these war games and war of words are just for show, the US has no intention of regime change in Iran because it doesnt get them anything. Contrary to what you might hear as a reason for Iranian regime change being the oppening of the Iranian market to American goods, I say thats chump change and they dont need the few extra billions of dollars, instead they need Iran in power, atleast for the foreseeable future to push other bigger agendas.

[Egyptian]

the iranian fleet is old , very old except for 80 or 90s two kilo class submarines.

[Pahli]

the iranian fleet is old , very old except for 80 or 90s two kilo class submarines.

Yes, their fleet is utter shit now because they cannot buy any new ships, they have to build their own that is made from older technology.

[Kamal900]

Im kind of saying Illuminati tongue in cheek but countless (Mostly Jewish) banking dynasties , European Royals and American Families do run the world though they most likely don't refer to themselves as the Illuminati. And to assume that the world is ran exclusively by the Jews who are pushing a Jewish Agenda is simply not the case, if it was the case then they wouldn't have sacrificed millions of Jews in WW2 just to establish Israel. Dont get me wrong, I do admit that many, if not the majority of the powerbrokers rulling the world have jewish ancestry but they ultimately serve Satan and not Yahweh and they could care less about the common jew. The Rothschields, for example, are Satanists first and Jewish second. Zionism is a right wing creation of the same elites which created the complete opposite communism and every other movement or political dogma.





I 100% agree with you that as easy as they put anyone in power, they could and do just as easily destroy them. My point isn't that Iran is special and that it can never be invaded or the mollahs are untouchable by the west, infact given enough time, it probably will be invaded because thats the way the Western powerbrokers operate, Sadam Husein and Ghaddafi are perfect examples. But my point is that these war games and war of words are just for show, the US has no intention of regime change in Iran because it doesnt get them anything. Contrary to what you might hear as a reason for Iranian regime change being the oppening of the Iranian market to American goods, I say thats chump change and they dont need the few extra billions of dollars, instead they need Iran in power, atleast for the foreseeable future to push other bigger agendas.

Nobody's saying that every Jew is part of this conspiracy, and Jewish Americans were far more opposed to the war in Iraq than their White American counterparts. However, that doesn't mean that the elite that are ruling the western world aren't Zionist Jewry who they regard themselves as Israeli firsters which is true to their gentile pets as well. Bro, Communism wasn't an extreme egalitarian movement as we know today, and the ones that spread communism in the beginning of the 20th century were Jewish like Lazar Kegonovich, Trotsky AKA Lev Bronstein, Jacob Stverlov, Walach and many others.

[zarzian]

Nobody's saying that every Jew is part of this conspiracy, and Jewish Americans were far more opposed to the war in Iraq than their White American counterparts. However, that doesn't mean that the elite that are ruling the western world aren't Zionist Jewry who they regard themselves as Israeli firsters which is true to their gentile pets as well. Bro, Communism wasn't an extreme egalitarian movement as we know today, and the ones that spread communism in the beginning of the 20th century were Jewish like Lazar Kegonovich, Trotsky AKA Lev Bronstein, Jacob Stverlov, Walach and many others.

I'm fully aware that the revolutionary movement was started by mostly New York jews, but the point is that it wasn't to fulfill plans to promote Jewish interests.

[Babak]

Iran is basically a tool for the U.S to stay in power to say the least. Cant get anymore factual than that.

[N1019]

But my point is that these war games and war of words are just for show, the US has no intention of regime change in Iran because it doesnt get them anything.

Nothing at all? I'm not so sure about that, and you could have said the same thing about the other countries the US destroyed. You could have said destroying Iraq wouldn't get them anything, but they went ahead and did it anyway. Unfortunately, I think the US stands to gain more from the destruction of Iran than it could ever get from destroying Iraq.

Firstly, the US would be looking at unfettered access to Iranian oil and gas, which would only be sold in US dollars as opposed to a basket of competing currencies or even gold.

They would also be looking to keep Russia and China away from the Persian Gulf.

There's the nuclear programme, which I believe is a lesser reason.

Then, the US is always talking about Iran's "malign activities" - things it does outside its borders. I've thought about whether those malign activities are also Anglo-Zionist supported stunts, like a series of neverending false flags, but in the end I concluded they can't be. If they were stunts, I just can't see Iran ever pushing as far as it has. And look what happens when they push too far - they actually get attacked. Whenever a car with an Iranian officer goes anywhere near the Israeli border in Syria, the Israelis fire missiles at it. When Iran sends high ranking officers to Syria, almost all of them end up dead. When Iran mined the Persian Gulf and it damaged an American ship, the Americans launched Operation Praying Mantis leading to dozens of Iranian fatalities, a major loss of ships and oil platforms in one day. When the hostage crisis began, the Americans sent helicopters in on an ill-fated mission to rescue the hostages. The Americans pushed a war with Iraq that killed at least half a million Iranians. The downing of Iran Air 655 may have been deliberate, too, as a means of applying pressure to Iran to end the Iran-Iraq War when it had failed to achieve its objective. The Iranians have lost over a thousand men and probably even more foreign militiamen opposing the American axis in Syria. It just doesn't seem like an act to me.

It's pretty clear to me that the arguments in favour of destroying Iraq were weaker than the above reasons for taking out Iran.



Contrary to what you might hear as a reason for Iranian regime change being the oppening of the Iranian market to American goods, I say thats chump change and they dont need the few extra billions of dollars, instead they need Iran in power, atleast for the foreseeable future to push other bigger agendas.

No, I never thought it was about selling manufactured goods to Iranian consumers. As far as I'm concerned, the 80 million Iranian population is a problem for the Anglo-Americans, not a cash cow. The people are irrelevant to their needs, likely to get in the way and cause problems. It's what's beneath the soil and the Persian Gulf that counts, because the global economy is dependent on it. That's why American businesses by and large are content to stay out of Iran. Looking at the banks, the nuclear sanctions are lifted, but they are still very reluctant to do business in Iran. They have risk assessment departments aimed at protecting their bottom line, which have advised against it. Why? I wonder... it must be because they expect to lose their money somehow, perhaps by means of a squadron of B-52s.

What are those even bigger agendas the US needs Iran to remain intact for?

[Loki]

This news report states this as if it is something significant. It isn't. $500 million? Well... the US military budget is more than a thousand times that amount. Yes, I didn't make a typo.

[N1019]

This news report states this as if it is something significant. It isn't. $500 million? Well... the US military budget is more than a thousand times that amount. Yes, I didn't make a typo.

When the enemy boosts its military, it always rates a mention, even if that enemy is far smaller and weaker.

[Babak]

When the enemy boosts its military, it always rates a mention, even if that enemy is far smaller and weaker.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-rouhani-idUSKCN1AV0LW

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran could abandon its nuclear agreement with world powers "within hours" if the United States imposes any more new sanctions, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Tuesday.

"If America wants to go back to the experience (of imposing sanctions), Iran would certainly return in a short time - not a week or a month but within hours - to conditions more advanced than before the start of negotiations," Rouhani told a session of parliament broadcast live on state television.

Iran says new U.S. sanctions breach the agreement it reached in 2015 with the United States, Russia, China and three European powers in which it agreed to curb its nuclear work in return for the lifting of most sanctions.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said the new U.S. sanctions were unrelated to the Iran nuclear deal and that Iran must be held responsible for "its missile launches, support for terrorism, disregard for human rights, and violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions."

"Iran cannot be allowed to use the nuclear deal to hold the world hostage ... The nuclear deal must not become 'too big to fail'," Haley said in a statement on Tuesday, responding to Rouhani.

Haley will travel to Vienna next week to discuss Iran's nuclear activities with U.N. atomic watchdog officials as part of Washington's review of Tehran's compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres "considers the (Iran nuclear deal) to be one of the utmost diplomatic achievements in our collective search for peace and security," U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters.

"We need to do whatever we can to preserve it," Dujarric said.

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on six Iranian firms in late July for their role in the development of a ballistic missile program after Tehran launched a rocket capable of putting a satellite into orbit.

In early August, U.S. President Donald Trump signed into law new sanctions on Iran, Russia and North Korea passed by the U.S. Congress. The sanctions in that bill also target Iran's missile programs as well as human rights abuses.

The United States imposed unilateral sanctions after saying Iran's ballistic missile tests violated a U.N. resolution, which endorsed the nuclear deal and called upon Tehran not to undertake activities related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such technology.

It stopped short of explicitly barring such activity.

Iran denies its missile development breaches the resolution, saying its missiles are not designed to carry nuclear weapons.

"The world has clearly seen that under Trump, America has ignored international agreements and, in addition to undermining the (nuclear deal), has broken its word on the Paris agreement and the Cuba accord ... and that the United States is not a good partner or a reliable negotiator," Rouhani said.

Trump said last week he did not believe that Iran was living up to the spirit of the nuclear deal.

[N1019]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-rouhani-idUSKCN1AV0LW

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran could abandon its nuclear agreement with world powers "within hours" if the United States imposes any more new sanctions, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Tuesday.

"If America wants to go back to the experience (of imposing sanctions), Iran would certainly return in a short time - not a week or a month but within hours - to conditions more advanced than before the start of negotiations," Rouhani told a session of parliament broadcast live on state television.

Iran says new U.S. sanctions breach the agreement it reached in 2015 with the United States, Russia, China and three European powers in which it agreed to curb its nuclear work in return for the lifting of most sanctions.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said the new U.S. sanctions were unrelated to the Iran nuclear deal and that Iran must be held responsible for "its missile launches, support for terrorism, disregard for human rights, and violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions."

"Iran cannot be allowed to use the nuclear deal to hold the world hostage ... The nuclear deal must not become 'too big to fail'," Haley said in a statement on Tuesday, responding to Rouhani.

Haley will travel to Vienna next week to discuss Iran's nuclear activities with U.N. atomic watchdog officials as part of Washington's review of Tehran's compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres "considers the (Iran nuclear deal) to be one of the utmost diplomatic achievements in our collective search for peace and security," U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters.

"We need to do whatever we can to preserve it," Dujarric said.

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on six Iranian firms in late July for their role in the development of a ballistic missile program after Tehran launched a rocket capable of putting a satellite into orbit.

In early August, U.S. President Donald Trump signed into law new sanctions on Iran, Russia and North Korea passed by the U.S. Congress. The sanctions in that bill also target Iran's missile programs as well as human rights abuses.

The United States imposed unilateral sanctions after saying Iran's ballistic missile tests violated a U.N. resolution, which endorsed the nuclear deal and called upon Tehran not to undertake activities related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such technology.

It stopped short of explicitly barring such activity.

Iran denies its missile development breaches the resolution, saying its missiles are not designed to carry nuclear weapons.

"The world has clearly seen that under Trump, America has ignored international agreements and, in addition to undermining the (nuclear deal), has broken its word on the Paris agreement and the Cuba accord ... and that the United States is not a good partner or a reliable negotiator," Rouhani said.

Trump said last week he did not believe that Iran was living up to the spirit of the nuclear deal.

Hahaha... it's hard to believe.

As I see it, the Iranians wanted the JCPOA and also know the American play. They know that the Americans want the Iranians to be the ones to "nuke" the deal, because the US could then portray Iran as the bad guy, deserving of punishment, while the US would theoretically come out smelling of roses.

Either the US will push Iran to formally end the deal, which I find doubtful, or the US will false flag it, producing evidence of some serious offence like secret progress towards nukes, they might blow shit up and blame it on Iran, sink an American ship and blame it on Iran, whatever the deep state decides to do. They're set up for these options.

Following either outcome, we have H.J. Res 10, ready to go to authorize US military action against Iran.

Have you seen any mainstream media coverage of H.J. Res 10? I haven't. I've only seen it in very alternative media. I wonder why. Could it be that if more people knew about it, the real plans of the deep state would become obvious?

[Autrigón]

WWIII

[N1019]

WWIII

Russia doesn't love Iran enough to directly fight America over. Russia and Iran do not have a mutual defence pact and probably never will, because it would be too dangerous for Russia to enter into such an arrangement. It would be more like another Syria/Iraq, but I concede that the conflict could lead elsewhere, into something bigger.