Home | About | Donate

Iran's Game

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/06/16/irans-game

On balance Gwynne Dyer probably is a mouthpiece of the some aspect of the Military Industrial Complex.

So, let’s do some research on this journalist…

Didn’t have to go far, just his article right here on CD, to discover he’s a reliable repeater of the offical CIA narrative over and over. He’s spouted the garbage that Maduro is the problem in Venezuela and wasn’t elected fairly.

For a Historian, it is pretty strange for him to start the History of the US and Iran with the Iraq-Iran War.


lol yeah, this entry was special.
“I’m sure Iran did it because I’m scared if they didn’t. Ergo Iran probably did it.”

A few other gems, but that was the highlight.


The captain and crew were interviewed. They said that they saw a flying object hit the ship just before the explosion. But of course, that story contradicts the official narrative. After the non-existing WMD that was the pretext for the US invasion and occupation of Iraq (which led to the rise of ISIS btw), I don’t know why anybody would believe anything the US government says about other countries’ so called belligerent behavior.


Very disappointing… CD runs another MSM BS article.


I’m not sure Donald Trump doesn’t want a war. What would make anyone think he wouldn’t want a war as a distraction from his other pressing problems? Trump has on multiple occasions done something to change the focus of the dialogue. Not to mention the success Bush II had in his “trumped” up war with Iraq. Obama made a huge mistake in not prosecuting the Iraq war criminals in that he set the stage for future Presidents to do the same without fear of significant repercussions. The only issue is timing, which is right on schedule. A war with Iran six months before the 2020 election? Surely the groundwork is being laid.


Dear Gwynne, what if it’s Israel’s black flag?


Wtf are you talking about?!! Obviously it’s a fucking false flag… why the hell would Iran attack a Japanese vessel while the Japanese Prime Minister is visiting Iran??! Gulf of Oman is Gulf of Tonkin part 2. Thought at least commondreams wouldn’t espouse such bullshit propaganda.


True to form for her, Gabbard has weighted in on this subject.



I for one, tend to agree with Gwynne’s assumption that if it’s a Saudi and UAE false-flag operation, with or without the tacit collaboration of Bolton and Pompeo (or maybe even Netanyahu), then the region really is headed for war. Whether it is due to some warmongers’ wet dreams, a pre-election distraction, investors in oil futures, or for purely corporate profit motives.

The more important question to ask in these scenarios is: Who gains to benefit from such an action?

1 Like

So let’s see, first it was missiles. Then torpedos. Then mines.
It’s amazing that, here in 2019, the boys in the smoke filled room just don’t seem to be trying anymore. Of course they have every right to be lazy and mail this in as false flags like this one have worked nearly every time since the end of WWII, so why waste too much money and effort on concocting an even remotely feasible “incident” as the average Joe six Pack American is too busy working too jobs to stay afloat these days and/or just doesn’t give a shit.
This is what happens when a nation has been at war for over 50 years. We are now three generations in to a society that has never known a time when we weren’t at war. We are at war with Eastasia, as we have always been at war with Eastasia.
And all too many Americans now just feel like Slim Pickens in Dr Strangelove, riding the bomb down to ground zero, whopping it up the whole way. We feel like there’s nothing we can do to stop any of it, so we may as well enjoy the ride.


Here’s a take on the trading in dollars (petro-dollar), it may not look like it on the surface, but I believe it ties into the article, and maybe accounts for the desperation amongst the hawks with Iran.



Correction: “weighted”, should read “weighed”.

Obviously, a few readers here at CD are unfamiliar with Dyer’s work.

Dyer writes about human conflict–war, as most people are wont to say, but mostly about the stupidity that brings about these conflicts. Dyer is every bit as savvy as Andrew Bacevich (who appears on CD somewhat regularly) in discussing the diplomatic bull rushes all too common in the run-up to wars.

He’s more anti-war than you think.


we should hope that they are right and that Iran is behind the attacks, because that would be a stupid but quite genuine attempt to stave off a full-scale war. Really? Iran provoking US, Saudi Arabia, UAE is the WAY to stave off war?
Why not assume instead that Israel or US “allies” in the region are behind this? they are the ones who would gain from US bombarding Iran like the British and French bombarded Lybia.
To stave off war Iran is carefull to avoid provocation. Finally Trump said during Obama’s 1st term that he believed he’d satrta war in order to be re-elected. Trump TRUSTS that it is the way to a 2nd term – so why not?

1 Like

The party with the most to gain from an Iran war is, clearly, ISRAEL. And I find it “strange” that virtually no commentator even entertains the idea. Means, Motive and Opportunity.


Dyer’s info on “limpet mines” points toward player(s) other than Iran, while also ignoring one crews claims they saw “flying objects” hit their ship & explode…

“All six tankers that have been attacked sailed from ports in Saudi Arabia or the UAE.” - in the Persian Gulf, passed thru the Strait of Hormuz, and “attacked” or devices exploded heading out of the Gulf of Oman;the latest suffered damage on their starboard sides - facing away from Iranian territory, whatever that’s worth.


The Japanese ships crew reportedly saw an object attached to the hull - "“The Dutch vessel reported to the Master an unusual object on the Starboard side, mid-ship, of the KOKUKA. The crew looked over the side and noticed an object they believed to be an explosive” - the crew left aboard the Dutch ship.

" All six tankers attacked sailed from ports in Saudi Arabia or the UAE. - “all (attacks) reportedly been carried out using using limpet mines, which cling to ships’ hulls by magnetic force but have to be placed by hand. That means they were probably placed while the ships were in port.

" It’s almost impossible to place a limpet mine once a ship is underway. Other boats cannot come close enough without being spotted, and swimmers (including scuba divers) cannot keep up. So is security in Saudi and UAE ports so lax, even after the first attacks in May, that foreign agents can plant limpet mines on tankers before they sail?

" even the aerial video ‘evidence’ of a small Iranian boat allegedly removing an unexploded limpet mine from one of the tankers makes little sense. Limpet mines are generally fitted with ‘anti-handling devices’ (i.e. they explode when you try to remove them), and yet everybody on that boat crowded onto the bow as if to get as close to the explosion as possible."

"But of course, if it’s an Iranian mine, maybe they knew that it had no anti-handling device. You can get dizzy trying to figure this stuff out, and be no closer to the truth at the end. "

I generally subscribe to the fomenting war by the “axis of evil” view of follow the money and potential gain, or diversion by players (whether insane or not) being the US and trump, Israel, the Saudis and UAE - all apparently would like war against Iran for varying reasons.

If I have an issue with this article, it’s the lack of emphasis on how many effin times the US has bullshitted the public into believing lies about going to war. Damn, yo, it’s obvious they’re doing it again.


Dyer is correct that evidence is inconclusive. After that, his analysis gets loose.

Decisions will happen before any of us much knows what has gone down, so it’s worth a better look. “Hoping that Iran is the culprit” does not get us anywhere but lost.

If it were Iran that attacked the shipping, “Iran’s game” would be far from obvious. Iran’s in the game and playing because Washington will not let it quit. Given that Washington is screwing up the pressure to produce a misstep, it is not impossible that Iran would have to take some sort of action at one moment or another. But dismissing the motives as “obvious” shortcircuits any consideration of what they might have been and what might be plausible. Reminding the most destructive military in history that they are a potential inconvenience is past bizarre. At best it needs some sort of analysis of the edgemanship that would inevitably be involved.

If the attacks were carried out using limpet mines, and these were set in port, which would seem to follow, then that does not mean that this was necessarily done by agents of Saudi Arabia or the UAE, though these would certainly be possibilities worth investigating. If they were done by Saudi Arabia or the UAE, that in no way suggests that this was done without the foreknowledge of anybody in the United States.

The United States is at least easier to read from here than is Saudi Arabia or the UAE. After all, it has been engaged in unremitting and unprovoked aggression in the region for decades. It has had ongoing media campaigns softening the American people for the idea that there is some sort of humanitarian reason to destroy much of Iran, in much the same way that the same media ran the same sorts of stories about Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Omar Ghaddafi, and Assad. It has proceeded roughly along the path described by General Wesley Clark, and the endpoint of the process that he discusses is an invasion or at least destruction of Iran (https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166).

Neglecting decades of more and less direct evidence of this sort, Dyer tells us that Donald Trump “certainly does not want a war.” How is Dyer certain of what Donald Trump personally wants? He ought to give the rest of us some clue, really, since it is not the consistency or clarity of the tweets.

It might also be nice to hear what the significance of Donald Trump’s “simple” desires might be and why. While Trump might not be a John Bolton or a Hillary Clinton, neither does he appear to be any sort of pacifist. Donald Trump will do what he finds convenient, but there is no sign at this point that that involves picking fights with the MIC.

No, if it is a false flag operation, then the entity that “wears the false flag” is the entity that wants the war. That is how the false flag works. The entity that wants the war in this case need not be a particular nation per se, so Dyer is correct that the evidence remains inconclusive.

However, the entity pressing towards war is pressing towards a US attack on Iran and has enough influence to be using the US press to do so–quite possibly including Dyer.


With the mind-numbing amount of surveillance of the Gulf on land, sea and aloft, it’s not possible to drop a turd in those waters without explicit video detailing the deed. Just like the fake chemical attack in Syria, an invention by proxy to advance the lunatic chessboard goals of the ‘security’ state.

And where are the dems (besides Tulsi) standing against this burgeoning war crime? Same cowering place they were for the Iraq invasion, the Venezuela horseshit, Honduras coup and just about every other sin of empire. BTW, is Chuck Schumer still alive? I mean technically, because he does so little you can’t always tell by just looking at him.