by Harley Schlanger, LaRouche Organization:
Update: After the article below was completed, the Israeli Air Force launched a massive series of strikes against Iran. The heavy bombing was focused on Iran’s nuclear sites and research facilities; there were also targeted assassinations of military officials and nuclear scientists. In a hearing before the United Nations Security Council on June 14, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the U.N., Vassily Nebenzia, suggested that there was a British hand in Israel’s actions.
Nebenzia stated, “In the context of Israel’s current strikes there is something that merits our particular attention. I refer to reported possible coordination of actions between Israel and British special services – immediately after the Israeli strikes on Iran the British sheltered the Israeli aircraft involved in the operation at their base in Cyprus.”
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
In responding to Nebenzia’s charge of British collaboration with Israel against Iran, investigative journalist Kit Klarenberg went further on the British role, citing similarities between tactics employed by Israel against Iran to those of the British-directed drone attacks on Russia. In a post on X, he wrote “Given Ukraine’s British-run ‘Operation Spiderweb’ was virtually identical to the smuggling of Israeli drones into Iran, this is very likely to be true.”
Russia’s UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia. Credit: UNGA
In the immediate aftermath of the Israeli assault, the confusing and often-contradictory comments from President Trump concerning whether he had foreknowledge of Israel’s attack, or had approved it, have again raised the question addressed in the article below: Was Trump aware of and perhaps supportive of the attack, or was he kept in the dark? And if the latter were true, is there a British-directed coup against Trump underway, run by the same Anglo-American “Deep-State” intelligence networks behind the fraudulent Russiagate story? Whether these questions can be answered in time may determine whether the human race can avoid the tragedy of a nuclear Armageddon.
It is likely that these questions came up in a phone conversation between Trump and Putin on June 14.
***
The drone assault against Russian airfields and attacks on infrastructure on June 1, hailed by a chorus of lunatics as a “breakthrough” for Ukraine in NATO’s proxy war against Russia, pushed the world ever closer to nuclear war. As tensions heightened and nerves frayed, the question kept coming up: Was President Trump in the loop? If he had been briefed before the attacks, it means his claim that he was unaware in advance of the attack was not true, and would destroy his credibility as one leading negotiators to end the fighting. If it is discovered that he had not been briefed, meaning that it was done without his knowledge, it raises a perhaps even more troubling question: Who is making these decisions in the west?
This raises a further question: If the operation was run without Trump’s knowledge, might that imply there is a coup underway, to remove Trump, to prevent the normalization of ties between the U.S. and Russia which he is supporting? Such a hypothesis was first raised by Lyndon LaRouche twenty-four years ago in an article about the terror attack against the U.S. on September 11, 2001, to explain what appeared to have been an inexplicable failure of counter-terror security and intelligence measures. The article was published in the Executive Intelligence Review on January 11, 2002 under the title, “Zbigniew Brzezinski and September 11.”
LaRouche writes:
For those who are able and willing to accept the way in which history actually works, the evidence provided by the U.S. events of Sept. 11th permitted but one concise conclusion: The crucial developments inside the U.S.A., between the bookends of approximately 08:45 and 11:00 EDT, were a reflection of an attempted military coup d’état against the U.S. government of President George W. Bush.
He elaborates, identifying what he calls the only two “available…alternative explanations.” First, that “pre-established security safeguards, which had been instituted earlier against such types of contingencies, had, previously, simply been allowed to deteriorate to virtual non-relevance, that itself a very dangerous state of national security, or, the second, more likely possibility, was that some top-ranking U.S. military personnel ‘at the switch,’ turned off a significant part of those standing security pre-arrangements which would have been sufficient, at a minimum, to defeat, at the least, the attack upon the Pentagon itself.”
A view of the Pentagon after being struck on Sep. 11, 2001.
In the absence of a definitive statement from relevant U.S. authorities today, of Trump’s foreknowledge or ignorance of the attack on Russia, many in the anti-Trump blogosphere are putting forward rumors and suppositions to smear his character, designed to undermine his authority, if not remove him from office. Such attacks are highly reminiscent of the Russiagate assault on Trump which began in late summer 2016, once he had won the Republican nomination for President and, which like the present assault, pointed to British intelligence as the instigators of the operations.
“Strategic Ambiguity”
In this kind of crisis, “strategic ambiguity” as an approach designed to keep one’s adversaries “in the dark”—while praised by some as a legitimate part of hybrid warfare—is irresponsible and dangerous, especially if one engaged in such deceptions is in the middle of negotiations, as Trump is. Transparency is necessary, to build trust in the leader with whom you are engaged in diplomacy. Employing strategic ambiguity as a means of keeping your opponents off balance may serve to buy time, but can have dangerous consequences.
Read More @ LaRoucheOrganization.com
