Hours ago, the New York Times tried and failed to kick-start an American intervention in Iran. In their piece, they lied, misrepresented the official position of the US president, and then imagined that Trump had ‘reversed’ his position.
We should expect another false flag very soon, pinned on Iran
Remarkably, The Daily Mail UK and the AFP reported on it, this way. <— link, and see below. Please take note of the lack of quotes from Trump himself saying they were going to attack Iran by 7pm June 20th, or definitively at any time. As it will be undeniably established in the below, the NYT imagines and then ‘quotes’ an anonymous source official. This official, who likely does not exist, would be in violation of high crimes punishable with long-term imprisonment for leaking US military plans to the press, before they were carried out.
FRN previously, on June 19th, clearly and accurately reported Trump’s actual and final position on ‘attacking Iran’:
MAJOR: Trump Opposes Pompeo, Bolton On Iran – Says Military Intervention ‘Not A Consideration’ In Apparent Reversal
Derivative similar pieces to the NYT fake news piece are now trending across mainstream western media, which is a chain of Fake News misinformation outlets.
“President ‘approved military strike against Iran in retaliation for downing US drone but PULLED BACK last minute – AGAINST the advice of aides – as planes were in air and battleships in position’“
- Officials were said to be expecting a strike as late as 7pm on Thursday
- But following a Situation Room briefing and amid increasing fears of open conflict Mitch McConnell said ‘measured responses’ would be coming
- Those in favor of a military response reportedly included Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, national security adviser John R. Bolton and CIA director Gina Haspel
- Pentagon officials are said to have warned against escalation
- Newly released Pentagon video shows a smoke trail from the downed aircraft
- The high-altitude, high-endurance Naval drone was brought down Wednesday
- It was denounced as an ‘unprovoked attack’ in international air space by the US
- But Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Thursday that parts of the drone had been recovered in Iranian territorial waters
- In a letter addressed to the UN Iran called it a ‘dangerous and provocative’ act
- President Donald Trump had initially labeled the a missile strike a ‘big mistake’
- He then moved to dial tensions down, suggesting it may have been shot in error
- United Airlines suspended flights from Newark to Mumbai after a safety review
- And the FAA issued an emergency order prohibiting all US flights in overwater area of Tehran-controlled airspace above Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman
In point one above, this is in reference to a NYTimes claim that is unverified and by definition, unverifiable. The whole story that Trump approved a strike and then ‘reversed’ it as their headline claims, is based on an ‘unnamed source’. The history of the NYTimes working with the CIA and intelligence to do yellow journalism is long established.
The NYT claim and headline was the below, also link here, and following that we’ve pulled some of the relevant parts of the text that reveal their disinformation, misinformation, etc., misleading framing, the ‘anonymous source’ which may not even exist as a human being, and then ‘mitigating’ information embedded much later in the article which exposes elements of the truth, that Trump cannot be confirmed to have authorized strikes. We’ve put red on the outright lies, bizarre claims, and obvious distortions, and green on the text which tacitly exposes these as such.
Also, watch this video where Trump says ‘You’ll soon find out”, and then compare that to the below NYT distortion where they claim his words were“Let’s see what happens.” Commentary on that after the citation below.
As the NYT has a paywall now, a good thing, we have to reproduce the entire relevant section, and doing due diligence, we will not sentence parse or edit anything from the block of text in question.
“Trump Approves Strikes on Iran, but Then Abruptly Pulls Back”
WASHINGTON — President Trump approved military strikes against Iran in retaliation for downing an American surveillance drone, but pulled back from launching them on Thursday night after a day of escalating tensions. As late as 7 p.m., military and diplomatic officials were expecting a strike, after intense discussions and debate at the White House among the president’s top national security officials and congressional leaders, according to multiple senior administration officials involved in or briefed on the deliberations. Officials said the president had initially approved attacks on a handful of Iranian targets, like radar and missile batteries. The operation was underway in its early stages when it was called off, a senior administration official said. Planes were in the air and ships were in position, but no missiles had been fired when word came to stand down, the official said.The abrupt reversal put a halt to what would have been the president’s third military action against targets in the Middle East. Mr. Trump had struck twice at targets in Syria, in 2017 and 2018. It was not clear whether Mr. Trump simply changed his mind on the strikes or whether the administration altered course because of logistics or strategy. It was also not clear whether the attacks might still go forward.
Asked about the plans for a strike and the decision to hold back, the White House declined to comment, as did Pentagon officials. No government officials asked The New York Times to withhold the article. [??? – Flores]The retaliation plan was intended as a response to the shooting down of the unmanned, $130 million surveillance drone, which was struck Thursday morning by an Iranian surface-to-air missile, according to a senior administration official who was briefed on the military planning and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential plans.
The strike was set to take place just before dawn Friday in Iran to minimize risk to the Iranian military and civilians. But military officials received word a short time later that the strike was off, at least temporarily.The possibility of a retaliatory strike hung over Washington for much of the day. Officials in both countries traded accusations about the location of the drone when it was destroyed by a surface-to-air missile launched from the Iranian coast along the Gulf of Oman.Mr. Trump’s national security advisers split about whether to respond militarily. Senior administration officials said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; John R. Bolton, the national security adviser; and Gina Haspel, the C.I.A. director, had favored a military response. But top Pentagon officials cautioned that such an action could result in a spiraling escalation with risks for American forces in the region. Congressional leaders were briefed by administration officials in the Situation Room. The destruction of the drone underscored the already tense relations between the two countries after Mr. Trump’s recent accusations that Iran is to blame for explosions last week that damaged oil tankers traveling through the strait, the vital waterway for much of the world’s oil. Iran has denied that accusation.Iran’s announcement this week that it would soon breach one of the key limits it had agreed to in a 2015 pact intended to limit its nuclear program has also fueled tensions. Mr. Trump, who pulled the United States out of the 2015 pact, has vowed that he will not allow Tehran to build a nuclear weapon. On Thursday, Mr. Trump insisted that the United States’ unmanned surveillance aircraft was flying over international waters when it was taken down by an Iranian missile.“This drone was in international waters, clearly,” the president told reporters on Thursday afternoon at the White House as he began a meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada. “We have it all documented. It’s documented scientifically, not just words.” Asked what would come next, Mr. Trump said, “Let’s see what happens.”
The NYT has no real credibility among thinking people, and is not a paper of record. It is designed for middle-management aspirant individuals who have a certain submitted personality type, are lacking in several areas of critical thinking and introspection, and are of course entirely missing larger ‘point of existence’ questions – but that’s neither here nor there. The obvious lies and war mongering by the NYT are evident here in this piece.
The NYT in saying Trump approved military strikes without an attributable source, and the subsequent lack of a military strike – the lack thereof being consistent with his actual statements which FRN covered over the past 24 hours – helps proves the lie.
One of the outright lies was the false quote attribution – maybe folks will reach out to the editors of the NYT for a correction/retraction of that false quote. “You’ll soon find out” and “Let’s see what happens” are not close, one the latter is not a paraphrase of the former, it’s pointless even to point out further that this was put in quotes and not as a paraphrase, so the malice is there. It’s there also because “You’ll soon find out” means essentially “I know what I’m doing, but not telling you. You’ll see from my actions”.
“Let’s see what happens” on the other hand means essentially “I’m open to anything, based on what happens, I haven’t made up my mind yet”, the implication being that he is prone to vacillation and the very ‘reversal of course’ which comprises both the false NYT headline, and the crux of their overt lies and distortions in their article.
The media establishment either wants the strikes, or wants Trump to ‘eat one’ under any pretext, even if that means lying and saying he ‘changed his mind’ and ‘reversed course’. Does ‘the‘ deep state wants the strikes? Well, the Zionists want the strikes, and no this is not meant as some anti-semitic trope/code for ‘Jews’, we mean here the literal leaders of Israel whose official and stated ideology is called Zionism.
One reason that the media establishment itself may not want strikes is that the western side of the Trans-Atlanticists who are more on the side of Trump’s opposition, that is, not ‘New’ Europe (Eastern Europe), do not want strikes. Trump is pulled several directions, and there are several contradictory forces moving all at once. There are Zionists pulling at Trump and Trump’s need to juggle with and play those demands forward in a way that works enough for him. There are Zionists in the media who want war with Iran for Israel’s interests, but for the US to do the fighting and exposing the vulnerability.
Here, Israel and the EU are on vastly different pages. The EU and the Trans-Atlanticists strategy on Iran is to build Iran’s interdependence into western markets, to build up the very social class in Iran which Rouhani exists to both placate and redirect, known in general terms as the Green Movement. It’s not unwise for Iran to at least indicate in this direction, as otherwise their ability to have as many allies as possible is reduced primarily to having to connect to global markets by way of Russia and China – limiting for Iran and beneficial more for Russia first, and China second.
But it is unwise for Iran to do so in a way that undermines its sovereignty, or too soon or too heavily increases the social weight of the bourgeoisie in Iran; a bourgeoisie eager to integrate further into western economies.
Such would have a cataclysmic outcome on the Iranian revolution and its sovereign culture. Which is why Israel in some twist of fate, works to save Iran from western integration. This is not some Safavid plot of course, but rather because Israel believes it can curtail Iran’s influence in Iraq, and allow it to further influence politics and resource economies of Iraq – an economic version of ‘Greater Israel’ without the cost of occupation, war, or holding territory outright.
Israel’s aims are to weaken Iran’s regional hegemonic power in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Israel and Iran are on divergent paths as powers – Iran on the rise, Israel on the decline. That means that Israel sees its chances dwindling, and wants action now. The reality is that Israel is too far in decline already, and Iran already too powerful, but catching up to this reality is not the policy of Netanyahu.
Russia has the same ‘5th column’ problem, albeit with a different history. The tendencies of capital, however, are universal.
On the other hand, Zionist influence in establishment media in the US is fairly strong as well, and the Zionists legitimately do want strikes on Iran, and they are not too much related to concerns over the viability, success, or proneness of US military interests in the region that would follow from that.
The New York Times and media in general was handed free license to lie about a public official, their statements, their positions, unless actual malice (a far higher standard) can be established. That was the outcome of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
One strategy here is to put words in Trump’s mouth, get the media and public and machinations going in the direction of a strike against Iran, and then feign surprise and imply a weakness in leadership by way of a tendency to vacillate, and make it look like he reversed his position.
That’s the effect. Another possible goal was to push him into that position, without it being his position just like the real goal was to push Clinton into office be simply declaring she was winning and was going to win.
Finally, we can surmise also the possibility that the NYTimes created this story, or that the leak was true, but in order to make this strike impossible. Giving the target country, Iran, a very serious warning and heads-up would be enough to make the strike catastrophically more expensive in terms of losses.
Bear in mind that all possibilities can simultaneously be taking place, concurrently, and towards multiple possible, equally realizable, even if conflicting ends. Everything is manageable and everything can be leveraged multiple and varying ways, in real time, simultaneously. So this ‘leak’ can help Trump prevent a war and work against the war hawks, while simultaneously making him look weak and indecisive, and can also have the effect of getting him, pushing him, to in fact take some type of action against Iran, either militarily or of another kind, or in another field.
The NYT is absolutely anti-Trump, but they supported his very limited two strikes on Syria, and oppose him when he threatened to cut funding to the war effort. The NYT at the same time may be in line, wholly or partly, with a change of tack we’ve seen among Democrats who, trying to align better with the EU side (as trilateralism historically has done), who do not want war with Iran.
But all that taken into consideration, and weighing the chances and risks, it appears more likely than anything that the NYT is goading Trump for not attacking Iran, and would please Israel tremendously if such reportage pressured Trump to make an actual reversal, and attack Iran in some way.
We should expect another false flag very soon, pinned on Iran.
While its interesting to know why the NYTimes lies to its readers, and there may well be several reasons operating concurrently as there often are, it’s sufficient here to show that lying is what they have done, this time as well as many other times.