US Intelligence Shows No Iranian Threat Exists
by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org - Home - Stephen Lendman)
Claims by Trump regime hardliners about an Iranian threat lack credibility. No evidence suggests the Islamic Republic threatens any nations — not the US, Israel, its imperial partners, or any others.
Following a closed-door Tuesday congressional briefing on the Islamic Republic, Pompeo slammed Iranian "malign activity" that doesn't exist, nor "40 years of terrorist activity — how the US and its imperial partners operate, not Tehran.
Trump's acting war secretary Patrick Shanahan turned truth on its head, claiming "we received credible intelligence about threats to our interests in the Middle East and to American forces (sic)" by Iran, adding:
"That intelligence has borne out in attacks (sic), and I would say it's also deterred attacks (sic). We have deterred attacks based on our re-posturing of assets, deterred attacks against American forces (sic)."
No such actions occurred because no Iranian threats exist to deter.
After Bolton briefed congressional members Monday on Iran, hawkish GOP Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted:
"It is clear that over the last several weeks Iran has attacked pipelines and ships of other nations (sic) and created threat streams against American interests in Iraq (sic)," adding:
"If the Iranian threats against American personnel and interests are activated, we must deliver an overwhelming military response."
Congressional briefings on Monday and Tuesday failed to convince Dems. Senator Chris Murphy said the following:
"I'm listening to Republicans twist the Iran intel to make it sound like Iran is taking unprovoked, offensive measures against the US and our allies," adding:
"I've read the (same) intel, and let me be clear: That's not what the intel says." There's nothing in it about an Iranian threat, just the opposite, indicating no Iranian threat exists.
Rep. Ruben Gallego made similar remarks, saying: "Lindsey and I get the same intel. That is not what is being said. This is total information bias to draw the conclusion he wants for himself and the media."
Rep. Adam Smith said "(w)e still don't know what the (Trump's) objectives are," adding he "does not anticipate" military action against Iran," adding:
"What our 'maximum pressure' campaign has done in terms of achieving our objections, I have not seen."
Speaker Pelosi said the White House has "no business" moving toward confrontation with Iran without congressional approval, adding:
"We have to avoid any war with Iran…The very idea that they would say that they would use the authorization of the use of military force that is 18 years old is not appropriate in terms of its scope, its geography, its timing for any actions they might take."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called information gotten from Trump regime officials about an Iranian threat "inadequate."
Ranking Dem Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Bob Menendez said "Congress has not authorized war with Iran." The White House has not provided any information to this committee on the intelligence behind their" their accusations against Tehran.
Former senior State Department official involved in negotiating the JCPOA Wendy Sherman warned against making reckless accusations against Iran, undermining the credibility of its claimants.
Rep. Abigail Spanberger called Trump regime remarks about Iran "deeply troubling." House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff said he wants to know what Trump's "strategy is…to keep us out of war" with Iran.
For weeks, Trump regime officials failed to provide evidence of Iranian "malign activities" or threats to US or Israeli regional interests.
The claim about Iran intending to attack US forces is utter rubbish. Not a shred of evidence supports it. What possible benefit could Iran get by taking this action — with everything to lose and nothing to gain by going this far.
Weeks earlier, John Bolton falsely accused Iran of "troubling and escalatory" activities. At the time, a fake news NYT report claimed "intelligence (shows) Iran or its proxies were preparing to attack American troops in Iraq and Syria," citing unnamed Trump regime officials — no evidence cited because none exists.
In early May, citing unnamed Trump regime officials, NBC News claimed intelligence showed Iran and/or its "proxies…could go after American military targets in the region," adding:
Attacks could come from "small ships…Iranian-trained Shiite militia groups, and…against US ships by the Houthi rebels in Yemen" — no evidence cited backing the clearly fabricated claims.
In mid May, the NYT falsely claimed "communication intercepts and imagery indicated that Iran was building up its proxy forces' readiness to fight" — again no evidence presented. Accusations and allegations without it are baseless.
Last week, the Pentagon put its forces in Iraq on high alert over a nonexistent Iranian threat. The State Department ordered all non-emergency personnel to depart the country.
Iraqi officials said they're unaware of any threat to US or other foreign personnel from Iran. UK General Chris Ghika, Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve deputy commander, expressed a similar view, saying:
"There's been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces" in Iraq or regionally. "We monitor them along with a whole range of others because that's the environment we're in. If the threat level…go(es) up then we'll raise our force protection measures accordingly," adding:
"As of now, "coalition forces observed no change in (the posture of Iran and its allies) since the recent exchange between the US and (Tehran), and we hope and expect (this) will continue…We don't see an increased threat from them at this stage" because there is none.
A CENTCOM statement shot back, repeating the falsified claim of an Iranian threat without providing a shred of evidence proving it.
If a legitimate Iranian threat existed, the US and its "coalition" partners would agree, not disagree on the issue.
Germany's Defense Ministry spokesman Jens Flosdorff agreed with Ghika, saying "there is no concrete threat" from Iran to the US or its regional allies.
Claims about Iranian responsibility for sabotage to Saudi and UAE tankers, as well as against Saudi pumping stations, were and remain willful disinformation.
The Trump regime is waging war on Iran by other means, aiming to make its economy scream through harsh illegal sanctions and other hostile actions.
Its plan to drive Iranian oil exports to zero is doomed to fail. China remains a key buyer, in April purchasing about 800,000 barrels a day of Iranian crude, according to customs data.
Its Sinopec and China National Petroleum Corp invested billions of dollars in Iran's oil fields, recouping their investment by importing large amounts of Iranian oil monthly, what's highly unlikely to stop.
Its Foreign Ministry denounced US anti-Iranian actions. Both countries maintain normal political, economic, and trade relations. The same goes for Russia, Turkey and other nations.
War winds are blowing way short of gale force. Going this far against Iran is opposed by the world community and leading Dems. Even some establishment media are skeptical in recent articles and commentaries.
The usually hawkish Washington Post raised concerns, saying "war with Iran would be the mother of all quagmires."
"A conflict with Iran would not be like the Iraq War. It would be worse…Trump is barreling toward war with Iran. Congress must act to stop him…The Iran threat is being exaggerated by GOP hawks."
A NYT opinion piece headlined: "Don't Fight Iran." A separate one headlined: "How to Stop the March to War With Iran."
Last Friday, the Times headlined: "War With Iran? Count US Out, Europe Says." In its latest edition, the Times said Trump officials haven't convinced skeptical Dems about supporting war on Iran.
WaPo today headlined a similar remark. The Wall Street Journal quoted Trump regime acting war secretary Patrick Shanahan, saying the "Iran threat" (sic) has been put "on hold."
Separately, the Journal said "Intel suggests (the) US (and) Iran misread each other, stoking tensions."
Trump appears wary of war on Iran. John Bolton's rage for attacking the country gained traction among hawkish Republicans, not Dems.
As long as the world community and Dem leadership oppose going this far, attacking Iran most likely will be restricted to waging war by other means — short of military intervention.
Note: According to a newly released Reuters/Ipsos poll, 60% of Americans oppose US war on Iran. Only 12% support it.
Proving propaganda works as intented, 53% of respondents said they believe the Islamic Republic is a "serious (or) imminent" threat — polar opposite reality.
VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home - Stephen Lendman). Contact at email@example.com.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."