“The 1000 troops were a symbolic move. More important for the US was the headline grabbing, something that the Trump regime seems addicted to, having the news focus on its actions every day, a spin off from Trump’s successful use of the tactic during the election campaign,” Warren told IRNA in a written interview on Sunday.
He was referring to recent news about the Pentagon’s plan to send 1000 more troops to the Middle East amid increasing tensions between the United States and Iran.
Warren played down its imprtance, sayinng that those troops “were technical intelligence specialists, and not an unusual deployment during heightened tensions”.
He noted that the news could turn into a fake one “ if these tensions were a US coalition orchestrated event to stage Trump as the fearless commander”.
The managing editor of the American news portal that writes about US foreign policy and military issues went to heavily criticise the US “all options on the table” tagline, emphasising that it’s part of the Trump’s media hype policy.
“Someone needs to tell the Trump PR people, “Enough already on the all options are on the table” silliness. The term has been so overused as to be meaningless. All professional military and Intel people know this. “All options are on the table” is really just situation normal. It is just another headline grabbing tool to fool the public on Iran being a threat,” he told during the written interview.
Tensions between the US and Iran have escalated recently after Washington planned to send an international naval fleet to the Persian Gulf as well as recent attacks on several oil tankers that have been blamed on Tehran that rejects the allegation. No country has provided substantial proof about Iran’s role in the events except for a blurry video footage that shows an Iranian patrol boat removing an unexploded mine from one of the damaged vessels' hulls in the Gulf of Oman.
Warren calls its part of the US media pressure policy. “This is another media headline grabbing ploy,” he emphasised.
“Any Navy in a similar situation would have removed a mine like that after a ship attack for safety reasons. Such mines once planted can be set off via a number of methods including wireless detonation. The mine could have been a misfire, where moving it would have been very dangerous for the Iranian sailors,” he noted.
VT managing director went on to describe the footage as “fake news” aimed at diverting the world’s attention from the main question of who was behind the attack.
“Not a shred of proof has been presented by anyone. The Pentagon spun the mine removal story into evidence that Iran has put the mines on, but once again left out what would Iran’s motive be to do something like that?,” he asked rhetorically.
“A real terrorist attack would have used much more powerful explosives than limpet mines. I had editorialized after the first attacks that the minor damage was consistent with limpets being used to make a big bang on the international news stage,” Warren said in the interview with IRNA.
The analyst stressed the fake nature of the news and events, comparining it to the “Big Foot” story.
“It gave the US the increased threat environment as cover to do more heading grabbing over “the Iran threat”, which has become another “Big Foot” legend. People say the animal exists but no one has ever captured one,” he wrote.
The attacks on Japanese oil carriers in the Gulf of Oman took place at a time when Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was meeting Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei in Tehran two weeks ago.
“I think the bombings boomeranged on the US as the Shinzo visit was a success. Lesser known is that it was really part of a bigger mediation effort as a half dozen countries were acting as de-escalation emissaries between the US and Iran as sensible people understand the huge ripple effect of a Persian Gulf shooting war would have,” he said.
9218**1424
Follow us on Twitter @IrnaEnglish
Your Comment