4 Times the US Threatened to Stage an Attack and Blame it on Iran

by | Jun 18, 2019 | Videos | 33 comments

Watch this video on BitChute / YouTube

The US has threatened to stage an attack and blame it on Iran over and over in the last few years. Don’t let a war based on false pretenses happen again. Please share this video.



CLAWSON: I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough and it’s very hard for me to see how the United States president can get us to war with Iran. Which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming, that the traditional way of America gets to war is what would be best for US interests.

Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War II. As David mentioned, you may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. Some people might think Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War I. You may recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think that Mr. Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam. You may recall they had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. We didn’t go to war with Spain until the USS Maine exploded. And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing would the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.

So if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.


I would just like to suggest that one can combine other means of pressure with
sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure. I mean, look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down. Someday one of them might not come up. Who would know why? We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. I’m not advocating that, but I’m just suggesting that this is not an either-or proposition of, you know, it’s just sanctions has to succeed or other things. We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier at that.

SOURCE: Patrick Clawson Responds to Questions, Full Video – 9/21/2012


BRZEZINSKI: A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the bench marks followed by accusations of the Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the United States blamed on Iran culminating in a “defensive” US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

SOURCE: Zbigniew Brzezinski The Senate Foreign Relations Committee


WE ARE CHANGE: Yes, you recently wrote a letter to the President of Iran in which you urge them to study the gulf of tonkin incident which we now know is a staged event used to justify war in Vietnam andyou also raise the question “Does America provoke provocations?” Sir, was this not an . . I have the letter right here sir if you want to read it I have it on me right here Oh sir I mean that’s mainstream media has been published in many publications do you deny writing that letter sir you say I can read it to you right now okay you said on presuming that you are not actually ignorant enough to desire war with the United States you might you might be well advised to read the history of the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor in 1998 and the history of the gulf of gulf of tonkin

HART: I’m sorry that was a blog or nothing to most I did not literally write a letter it was a mock letter read failed in doublespeak that the United States could stage an event to go to war with Iran no no then well what I was come in cheek saying was that we have an administration in Washington that is dying for a reason to bomb Iran and so in a mock blog letter to the Iranian government not the president of the Iranian government I just simply said if unless you people want to be bombed you better be careful about cross border incursions and I think I explicitly said keep the Republican Guard and revolutionary whatever it’s called away from the Iraqi border I was trying to communicate to the American people what our own government was trying to plan and that was to find a reason for bombing Iran and I was simply saying in effect to the American people through this mock letter be very careful about this administration creating a USS Maine incident or a Gulf of Tonkin incident that would justify popping around that’s all

SOURCE: Gary Hart WARNING – WeAreChange


FAIZ SHAKIR: There’s a bit at the end of this latest article that you wrote that I found actually most interesting. And the article hasn’t got that much attention but I want to get your take on this. And this relates to a stray or an incident that happened a couple months ago. Many of you remember. It was in the Strait of Hormuz. There was an incident where an American carrier almost blew a couple of Iranian speedboats out of the water and perhaps would have started the next war against Iran or potentially a World War III. And it was averted, thankfully, at the last second. We later learned that there was really nothing to be terribly concerned about—the incident was overblown—and that there was a vice admiral in charge of the fleet in the Strait of Hormuz who said basically there was no concern there. That it was overblown.

HERSH: But yeah, the second part basically. He was concerned but they were never a threat.

SHAKIR: They were never a threat. And you talked about—this his name is Kevin cosgrove and in article you write:

Nonetheless, Cosgriff’s demeanor angered Cheney, according to the former senior intelligence official. But a lesson was learned in the incident: The public had supported the idea of retaliation, and was even asking why the US didn’t do more. The former official said that, a few weeks later, a meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. “The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,” he said.

What you’re writing there is that Cheney—there was a meeting in the White House where Cheney presided over looking to cook up the next war. A false war based on false intelligence.

HERSH: My oldest son is a lawyer and when I sent him this story before it was published—basically in a final form, just a day—and he he wrote back and he said “You really buried the lead in this one,” about casus belli. Um, how many press are here?

Anyway, there was a meeting. Among the items among the items considered and rejected—which is why The New Yorker did not publish it, on grounds that it wasn’t accepted—one of the items was why not . . . There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger war. The one that interested me the most was: Why don’t we build in our shipyard—build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats, put navy seals on them with a lot of arms and the next time what about those goes through the Straits of Hormuz start a shoot up. Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. But that’s the kind of that’s the level of stuff we were talking about: provocation.

But that was rejected so I could understand the argument of not writing something that was rejected. Maybe. I, basically—my attitude always towards editors is they’re mice training to be rats. But the point is jejune, if you know what that means. Silly, maybe, but potentially very lethal. Because one of the things they learned in the incident was the American public—if you get the right incident, the American public will support, you know, bang bang kiss kiss. You know, we’re into it.

SOURCE Dick Cheney’s false flag attack idea to start the war with Iran

MIKE POMPEO: But in terms of how you think about problem sets, I – when I was a cadet, what’s the first – what’s the cadet motto at West Point? You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do. I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. (Laughter.) It’s – it was like – we had entire training courses. (Applause.)

SOURCE: Secretary Pompeo Participates in Q&A Discussion at Texas A&M University

POMPEO: Good afternoon. It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today. This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.

SOURCE: Secretary Pompeo Delivers Remarks to the Media


  1. Extremely timely video!
    (i.e. “Attacks” on two oil tankers in the Gulf last week and a further four last month.)

    Interestingly, Trump recently had an ABC interview.
    President Trump says he knows who was behind the September 11, 2001 attacks, telling ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos “Iraq did not knock down the World Trade Center,” adding “It were other people. And I think I know who the other people were. And you might also.”

  2. Huffington Post via Yahoo – June 14 or 15, 2019
    Oil Tanker Owner Contradicts Trump Administration On Explosive In Mideast Ship Attack

    The company that owns one of the two oil tankers attacked Thursday near the Strait of Hormuz contradicted Trump administration and U.S. military reports linking the incident to an Iranian sea mine.

    U.S. Central Command said that the Norwegian-owned MT Front Altair and the Japanese Kokula Courageous were attacked Thursday by a limpet mine, which is attached to ships below the water line. The military released a video that officials claimed showed an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps patrol boat removing an unexploded mine from the 560-foot Courageous.

    But an official of the company that owns the Courageous said Friday that the vessel appeared to be struck in the Gulf of Oman by something that “flew towards the ship,” NBC reported.

    “We received reports that something flew towards the ship,” Yutaka Katada, president of Kokaku Sangyo Co., said at a press conference, according to NBC. “The place where the projectile landed was significantly higher than the water level, so we are absolutely sure that this wasn’t a torpedo. I do not think there was a time bomb or an object attached to the side of the ship.”

    …Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had traveled Wednesday to Iran in a bid to improve deteriorating relations between Washington and Tehran. He left Thursday as the oil tankers burned.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin met Friday with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Kyrgyzstan and praised the relationship between the two nations….

  3. I think it is interesting Mr. Clawson’s comment that “we had to wait for Pearl Harbor”…as if the American Joe-Sixpack was itching to put on a soldier’s uniform and head to war. These psychopaths warmongering and bloodthirstiness seems to know no bounds.

  4. I’m not so tuned into today’s music, so apart from last year’s truth music playlist, I don’t know of any anti-war songs, but the world sure would benefit from another wave. Along the lines of laughing at tyrants, I was curious about the story behind The Beatles song “Bungalow Bill”. Such a brilliant, cutting piece that, according to wikipedia, so humiliated and shamed the subject to never hunt again. Today’s warmongers have too thick a skin and I believe that only a series of fronts (video, music, writing) shaming with the brilliance of ridicule is the only thing that could make them blink.

    Here’s a good one from the 80s, same game, different players:


    • To clarify, the 80s song is a good anti-war song, not an example of brilliant ridicule, which seems to have died with John Lennon.

      • Oops meant to reply to you. See my comment below.

  5. There still is anti-war music. If you are a fan of bluegrass type music listen to Sturgil Simpson – Call To Arms live on SNL in 2017. He is also a vet of the terror wars.

    I done Syria, Afghanistan,Iraq and Iran
    North Korea, tell me where does it end
    Well the bodies keep piling up with everyday
    How many more of them they’re gonna send
    Well they sent their sons and daughters off to die
    for some war to control the heroin
    Well, son I hope you don’t grow up
    Believin’ that you’ve got to be a puppet to be a man

    Well they cut off your hair and put a badge on your arm
    Strip you off your identity
    Tell you to keep your mouth shut boy and get in the line
    Meet your maker overseas
    Wearin’ that Kim Jong-il hat while your grandma is selling pills stat
    Meanwhile I’m wearing ‘can’t pay my fucking bills’ hat

    Nobody is lookin’ up to care about a drone
    All too busy lookin’ down at our phone
    Our ego’s begging for a food like a dog from our feed
    Refresing obsessively until iur eyes start to bleed
    They serve up distractions and we eat them with fries
    Until the bombs fall out of our fucking skies

    Turn off the TV
    Turn off the news
    Nothin’ to see here
    They’re serving the blues

    Bullshit on my TV
    Bullshit on my radio
    The Hollywood telling me how to be me
    The bullshit’s got to go

    • Very encouraging, scpat. Those are some powerful lyrics! How on earth did he get to do that on NBC’s SNL? Did some hack drop the ball?

    • As Pearl says: “Those are some powerful lyrics!”

      I love brass in bands like these.
      It adds an exhilarating dimension.

      • Well said, scpat, Pearl & HRS.

        I saw a great, funny comment below their YT video:

        “I have a feeling Sturgill told the band that we probably ain’t ever gonna be invited back to SNL so let’s just go out and burn the whole damn place down”.

        And they did.


        • I saw that one too and had a laugh. Might not be too far off of what he really said. Hard to imagine SNL promoting anything anti-establishment.

    • Yah, great! Got any more played as mainstream as SNL?

  6. I wonder if smothering tankers in the Strait of Hormuz is giving Japan second thoughts on mothballing their nuclear program. Granted Fukushima is a world class screw up, they might use lessons learned to get back in the game.

  7. Stronghorse,

    The Dollar Domination

    At one time, I had the idea that the dollar may ‘soon’ collapse.
    Now, I don’t think so.

    I think that…
    …the U.S. will do anything to maintain its power and dominance.
    Part of that dominance comes from the dollar as the international currency.
    The U.S. will do what it can to suppress any threat to the dollar dominance.

    Currently, I get the impression that there is a shortage of dollars for some foreign countries. China seems to have a shortage. Being short of dollars can make international trade tough.

    There is an interesting audio podcast about the dollar shortage here…

  8. What percentage of the US population is open to the idea that US wars are mostly “cooked up?” I hear that and find some evidence for it, but then again I don’t. Take my family for instance, all highly educated liberals that read Halberstam & claim hearts that still bleed for Obama & Clinton as great men. They don’t believe that the republican and democrat leaders, who they still see as fundamentally different, are leading us to the exact same future: (fill in the blank with your best iteration of a NWO). They still think conspiracies can’t exist. By my count, every war since 2001 was “cooked up” & or signed off on in a backroom somewhere by Neocons (modern day non-conservative “conservatives”) or globalists (modern day democrats), and Halberstam explained in plain english quite a cooked up few wars & CIA coups predating 2001. So , ARE we waking up as Americans?

    • Thanks for the response Stronghorse. I’ve been reading your posts & you’re prolific. This is my first comment on a Corbett thread & that man gives me faith. … ok… upping the ante on my last q: My .org that has a mission to get 9/11 truth going grassroots worldwide. What potential do you think there is for us to succeed in achieving a new, REAL indy investigation? (Familiar with the special grand jury, that’s actually who my group is based out of) Specifically, you mentioned more loss of rights as a gross measure of what it might take to accomplish some sort of critical mass/sea change. I agree, but at what point is it too late? If that point is “boiling,” will the frog have jumped out of the pot by then? I believe core knowledge of 9/11 truth is an “achilles heel” because the implications challenge all fundamental credibility of the US/World Order. With critical mass of the US pop existing firmly in that reality, I see revolutionary change, the fall of it all. Can we do it?

      • Thanks again for the response! “We need our own media”: That is certainly what The 9/11 Truth Action Project is about; it’s one of our objectives. I’d love to enlist support/endorsement/anything from Corbett, but I pause as we’re getting our sea-legs right now.
        “planning large marches”: Obstacles I see: 1) “learned helplessness”: for so many advocates of a new investigation, isolation and what I call “perception of impossibility” is hard to refashion into belief/activism vs. more endless research. “How in the world can I make a difference? I’m just one person.” -To this I say: Check the laws/constitution that still exist; they’re still set up to even the playing field between the tyranny of the majority and the minority of “truthers.” Accepting impossibility is shirking responsibility and perhaps the most un-American thing you can do. Go visit Edmund Pettis bridge! If you’re a fan of MLK, then you should know that he would act for 9/11 truth today. There are millions of us! “Kick the office chair!” 2) Organizing the truth movement is seen as “herding cats” or even “herding feral cats.” I guess since the truth movement has been typified as individual research in a setting where one is isolated and doesn’t have to work well with others, many truthers are set in their ways. There are squabbles, division and thus obstacles to mass organization in the biggest 9/11 groups in america. We need to drop our differences at the door, period. If not, then why spend so much time on something just to argue and not accomplish anything? Again, democracy functions when people work with people they can’t stand in any way but for the mission itself. On another issue of working together, we fight over which theory to believe. We demonize and call “schill” on anyone with a different opinion! This topic is a bit tougher though, as there are theories out there that don’t hold water and would hurt our ability to spread the message. How do we incorporate the people power of incompatible views? That problem is a bitch! But I think the majority of people are more in line with AE and LCfor911inquiry. I think the more we organize the core, those on the outskirts of truth will come in contact with better arguments. If we get so much as 100,000 to march on the Capitol, those with any theory will want to join, and at that moment, we’d be happy they came.
        “16th/FED”: 9/11 TAP sees that using/education of other issues builds the bridge across cognitive dissonance towards a context that can stomach pure hard science of 9/11 truth.
        I myself focus on sharpening things “NYC/WTC,” and I’m forming what I call “The 9/11 Experiment.” Basically I’m building a logical/hypothetical environment that would completely bypass cognitive diss. The “subject” of the test would sign a written statement pledging to use reason and without exception, NOT one’s beliefs. The hypothetical staging in the experiment would be the entirety of basis for answers to a few specific questions. The whole experiment is based on A) the notion that there is absolutely enough fact to warrant a new investigation, and that this fact is demonstrable, otherwise we wouldn’t have a movement 20 years later. B) If the subject is asked to answer a question based on purely the contents of the question itself, I can get them to answer positively for a new investigation.
        Control question: “If 2 = 3, then what is the answer to 2+ 2?” There is no other answer than, “6.”
        Test Question: “If there is absolute proof that 1, 2 & 7 WTC were brought down with controlled demolition, and the buildings weren’t rigged by any terrorist organization, would it be 100% important to America to find out who did it?”
        … The subject is forced to answer yes. From there, I build the most succinct presentation of only the evidence needed to 100% prove that we need a new investigation. That part may be only enough to completely compel, without coverting the test taker, but that’s fine. There’s more, but you get the gist. Whadd’ya think?

  9. What percentage of Americans are at least open to the idea that most US wars are “cooked up” conspiracies? I keep hearing people claim that more and more Americans are “waking up?” I gather petitions for a new independent investigation of 9/11 and find some credence to this claim in the public, while on the other hand I don’t in a major way. Take my family for instance: all highly educated liberals that read Halberstam at some point in their lives and still claim hearts that bleed for Obama and Clinton. They see the leaders of Democrats (globalists) and Republicans (Neocons (globalists) posing as conservatives) as fundamentally different, instead of ultimately leading us to the exact same place: (Fill in the blank with your best iteration of the coming new world order). They do not believe in conspiracies, nor that they can exist, even when Halberstam explained many. They read The Times, watch Morning Joe and listen to NPR which sometimes reveal parts of conspiracies, only to coax them back into a false sense of trust. Is America in any substantial way, “waking up?”

    • “…They do not believe in conspiracies, nor that they can exist, even when Halberstam explained many…”
      People believe, it just hurts and frightens them to think that a bunch of people really can be that evil, and WORSE knowing would mean they would have to do or say something which will cost them some small comfort or status.
      Its easy to be blind when it pays you to be blind.
      As Jon Ronson points out in the ‘psychopath test’ the psychopaths in corporations are just doing what they do because the share holders let them in return for the dividends.

      • Thanks Duck. I agree, it does hurt & frighten. Even mildly acknowledging the possibility of the evidence threatens economic & social status. Stronghorse makes a good point as well: “The population of America is still too comfortable though, and cognitive dissonance is still rampant. I don’t know how uncomfortable, or how much of their liberties they will have to loose to awaken the majority, but we are not there yet.” I think the best understanding of 9/11 truth reluctance is complex, multifaceted and unique to the individual. Reactions range from instinctual disapproval that sidesteps contemplation & scary emotions to real emotionally charged denial. To get the message across to the general public may take a different strategy for different people. Some may react well to the science backed by experts. Some respond well to motive, whether money or geo-strategic pattern. Some respond to reason, some not. Without understanding what I believe are obvious implications to 9/11 truth (if so, then not al Qaeda & thus forces on the inside), many say, “What does it matter? It’s 20 years later.” Yet I think it’s reasonable to assume that if every major lame-stream media came out one day and fully advocated 9/11 truth that most people would come to the table, reality nightmare or not. I seek communication methods towards opening the door/expanding the doorway. Talk, video, ads, art, demonstrations, direct, indirect etc.

  10. Great compliation of the focal point, James. I will share widely.

    Clawson: “I’m NOT advocating that.” WTF, then, why is your mouth moving, asshole?

    Shakir: “…might cost some lives, but…” Really, who cares about killing people if you can start a war with Iran and no one can finger you afterward? What a DICK among DICKS. His “Bang-bang, kiss-kiss.” comment makes Normies a stat the neocons can always depend upon exploiting through naivete, ignorance or stupidity. Normies will pull the trigger, as long as the Narrative gives them permission. Talk about slaves and with what ease he states the objectives.

    • Truly erie and yet the deeper you go into the world of the think tanks, CFRs, military industrial complex, intelligence, government etc., whether blatantly offensive or subtly housed in acceptable terms & logic, it seems this kind of talk is not just commonplace, but the essence of related discussion.

  11. Very pertinent to the current situation.

    • January 3rd – U.S. Time

      matt.mewis says:
      “Very pertinent to the current situation.”

      Headlines on Zero Hedge…
      Iran’s Top Military Commander, Qasem Suleimani, Assassinated In US Airstrike

      China Urges ‘Calm And Restraint’ After US Kills Top Iranian General
      Iran Deploys F-14 Fighter Jets, Places Ballistic Missile Bases On ‘High Alert’
      Futures Tumble, Oil, VIX And Gold Soar As Markets Brace For Iran’s “Severe Retaliation”
      New York, Los Angeles Ramp Up Security After US Kills Top Iranian Commander
      US To Deploy 3,500 Troops To Middle East After Soleimani Killing
      ‘World War III’ Is Trending On Twitter As Iran Hawks Rejoice
      CapEcon: If Iran Closes The Strait Of Hormuz, Crude Would Jump To $150
      Ayatollah Vows “Severe Retaliation” Against “Criminals” Responsible For Killing Iranian General
      Iranians And Iraqis Celebrate, Thank Trump For Airstrike That Killed Ruthless Military General
      Round Two: US Drone Airstrikes Kill Six Pro-Iran Militia Commanders

  12. I’m guessing James has something in the works but I would find an unpacking of the latest events with the supposed rocket attack from Kataib Hezbollah, riots and murder of Qassem Soleimani very helpful. Things seem to be escalating quickly.

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member