George Galloway has warned the US and its allies in the Gulf that if they were to start "World War III" with an attack on Iran they will live to regret it because, unlike Iraq in 2003, they are capable of fighting back.

The Scottish firebrand, who famously took US lawmakers to task over the Iraq war when he testified in front of the senate in 2005, has given his take on the recent ratcheting-up of tension in the Gulf region after Iran shot down a US drone, which, it says, had entered its airspace.

Washington maintains its UAV was shot down while patrolling over international waters in an "unprovoked attack." On Friday President Donald Trump took to Twitter to claim the US were 10 minutes away from bombing three Iranian sites, before calling off the strikes. Galloway believes that many Iranians would see it as a great "pleasure to fight the United States and its allies in the region."

In a stark warning to US allies such as Qatar, the UAE and Saudia Arabia, Galloway insisted that any country that allows "its land to be used for the launching for an American attack on Iran will itself be immediately in flames."

The former Labour MP concludes his passionate message to the world by declaring: No more war. No more war in the Gulf. No war on Iran.

Violent protests in Tbilisi are a 'Russophobic provocation' which raises serious concerns in Moscow due to Georgia being a popular destination for Russian tourists, the Kremlin has said.

Tensions between Tbilisi and Moscow spiked after the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy (IAO), which took place at the Georgian Parliament in the capital on Thursday.

IAO President and head of the Russian delegation, Sergei Gavrilov, delivered an opening speech at the summit, but several Georgian opposition MPs were offended with Gavrilov doing so from the parliament speaker's seat. During a break those MPs occupied the speaker's podium and prevented the session from continuing.

The opposition then called on people to take to the streets and by nightfall some 5,000 people had gathered outside the parliament building to chant anti-Russian slogans and denounce Gavrilov's behavior as offensive. There were also calls for local officials, who allowed the visit, to resign.

In a matter of hours, the demonstration turned into a full-scale anti-government rally, with police in full riot gear deployed to site. Latest reports state that some 240 people were injured in the clashes that followed, as police resorted to tear gas and rubber bullets to prevent the rioters from storming the parliament.

"What happened in Georgia yesterday is nothing, but a Russophobic provocation," Dmitri Peskov, a Kremlin spokesperson said, adding that "aggressive manifestations against the Russian nationals" is a source for serious concern.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a decree prohibiting Russian airlines from transporting Russian citizens to Georgia from July 8. The decision comes after anti-government and anti-Russian protests in Tbilisi.

"Starting from July 8, Russian carriers are temporarily forbidden from undertaking air transportation of citizens from the territory of Russia to Georgia," the decree reads.

It also advised tour operators and travel agents to refrain from sending Russian tourists to the neighboring state while the ban is place. The restrictions were introduced in order to "ensure the national security of Russia [and] to protect Russian citizens from criminal and other unlawful actions."

The Russian government was also tasked with assuring the safe return of Russian citizens. Earlier on Friday, Russia's Foreign Ministry also issued a warning urging Russian citizens to refrain from traveling to Georgia "for their own security."

US lawmakers want its military to challenge Russia and China on the high seas by finding one or more locations for a port that would help feed Washington's growing appetite for Arctic oil and other natural riches.

The National Defense Authorization Act 2020 (NDAA) suggests that the Coast Guard and other branches of the US military should identify and designate a new strategic port in the Arctic. It openly states that the move is meant to counter Russia's presence in the polar region.

Naturally, the bill - which will be voted on next week - stokes fears of Russia's military expansion at the world's northernmost region. Moscow, it points out, has around 40 icebreakers (whereas the US has just one) and "has made significant investments" in the creation of a new Arctic Command. It is also building or renovating 19 deep-water ports and 14 airfields in the region.

Another section of the bill warns that Russia has teamed up with China in exploring gas reserves in the Arctic, and here is where the proposal gets to the point. "The economic significance of the Arctic continues to grow as countries around the globe begin to understand the potential for maritime transportation through, and economic and trade development in, the region."

Ahead of this weekend's ASEAN summit, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte warned China that it should be wary over claiming contested waters for fear it would inspire others, including the US.

Speaking to media in Manilla on Friday, Duterte said he planned to talk "lengthily" about the issue of disputed waters in the South China Sea during the summit which will see southeast Asian economies descend on the Thai capital of Bangkok. However, before leaving, he said China should be careful about claiming entire bodies of water.

"My question to China, we're friends, but... is it correct for China to declare ownership of an ocean?" Duterte asked. He said that if this was the case, Manilla would happily do the same to other nearby seas and there was nothing to stop others from doing so. "Now I'm thinking of claiming the Sulu Sea as ours and you can't pass by there without permission from me."

"That is the danger," Duterte added, noting that the US could claim half the Pacific Ocean and other nations could equally claim various waters for their own.

President Trump called off a planned retaliatory strike against Iranian forces about ten minutes before it was supposed to begin. The reason ought to make everyone following this story pay attention. The American President thought that it was wrong to kill 150 people over the loss of an unmanned drone.

Fox News ran a piece on this, as did CNN, who oddly enough, reported this accurately. In fact, CNN's piece actually hit it out of the park, at least with this section of their piece:

Iran is pushing US President Donald Trump to the edge of the abyss, raising the level of tensions to new heights in the Middle East. After the sabotage of four tankers at al-Fujairah and the attack on the Aramco pipeline a month ago, and last week's attack on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC - now categorized by the USA as a terrorist body) yesterday shot down a US Navy drone, sending two clear messages. The first message is that Iran is ready for an all-out war, no matter what the consequences. The second message is that Iran is aware that the US President has cornered himself; the embarrassing attack came a week after Trump launched his electoral campaign.

According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence - made via a third party - that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.

Iran is not inclined to help Trump come down from the tree he has climbed and would rather keep him confused and cornered. Furthermore, Iran would love to see Trump fail to win a second term, and will do everything to help oust him from the White House at the end of his mandate in 2020.

It has been a lively June so far in light of Washington's apparent zeal to remake the world in its own image. There is considerable buzz among those networking in ex- or current government circles that the White House is preparing to "do something" about Iran. The recent incidents involving alleged attacks on Norwegian and Japanese tankers in the Gulf of Oman were immediately attributed to Iran by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with so little regard for evidence that even the compliant American media was left gasping. In its initial coverage of the story The New York Times inevitably echoed the administration's claims, but if one went to the readers' comments on the story fully 90% of those bothering to express an opinion decided that the tale was not credible for any number of reasons.

Several commenters brought up the completely phony Gulf of Tonkin incident of 1964 that led to the escalation of American involvement in Vietnam, a view that was expressed frequently in readers' comments both in the mainstream and alternative media. Others recalled instead the fake intelligence linking Iraq's Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 conspirators as well as the bogus reports of an Iraqi secret nuclear program and huge gliders capable to delivering biological weapons across the Atlantic Ocean.

The Trump administration has released a range of photographic and video evidence in support of its claim that intelligence proves how Iran attacked a Japanese-owned oil tanker near the Strait of Hormuz. But a Canadian military analyst and former Navy officer for nearly twenty years has called the evidence into question, highlighting unresolved anomalies in the US version of events. His reservations are backed by Japanese government sources. A number of other states - the US, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Israel - as well as other jihadist groups and even a rogue hardline faction of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, have been flagged as potential culprits in the attacks that could pave the way for a wider war fitting into the Trump administration's new plan for 'American Energy Dominance'.

The US government says that the evidence, including fragments of an exploded weapon and a magnet from an unexploded device, indicates that limpet mines were attached to the side of the oil tankers. The statement of a US Navy explosives expert that the mines bear "a striking resemblance" to similar mines used by Iran has been widely reported.

US intelligence: an incoherent story

But the claim is challenged by the analysis of another former Naval oficer. According to Dr Gwynne Dyer who has served as a Reserve Naval Officer in the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve, US Naval Reserve, and British Royal Navy Reserve for a total of 17 years, alleged US intelligence about the incident does not add up. Dr Dyer, despite believing that on balance Iran is "probably" behind the series of Gulf oil tanker attacks, concedes that "The evidence is far from conclusive."

His analysis coheres with that of the private US intelligence firm Stratfor, which notes of the spate of recent attacks that while Iran would have reason to "harass" vessels around its territory "to send a message of resolve in the face of Washington's punishing economic and military pressure.... On the other hand, it doesn't make strategic sense for Iran to target European vessels at a time when it is desperately seeking to retain the Continent's political and economic support."

Strafor suggests that other culprits might include al-Qaeda, other regional jihadist outfits that have a similar modus operandi of targeting oil tankers, or even a breakaway faction of Iran's Revolutionary Guards that is unhappy with official Iranian government diplomacy.

Occasionally, a revelatory, and profoundly alarming, article passes almost unnoticed, even when published on the front page of The New York Times.

Such was the case with reporting by David E. Sanger and Nicole Perlroth, bearing the Strangelovian title "U.S. Buries Digital Land Mines to Menace Russia's Power Grid," which appeared in the print edition on June 16. The article contained two revelations.

First, according to Sanger and Perlroth, with my ellipses duly noted, "The United States is stepping up digital incursions into Russia's electric power grid... Advocates of the more aggressive strategy said it was long overdue..." The operation "carries significant risk of escalating the daily digital Cold War between Washington and Moscow." Though under way at least since 2012, "now the American strategy has shifted more toward offense... with the placement of potentially crippling malware inside the Russian system at a depth and with an aggressiveness that had never been tried before." At this point, the Times reporters add an Orwellian touch. The head of the U.S. Cyber Command characterizes the assault on Russia's grid, which affects everything from the country's water supply, medical services, and transportation to control over its nuclear weapons, as "the need to 'defend forward,'" because "they don't fear us."

Nowhere do Sanger and Perlroth seem alarmed by the implicit risks of this "defend forward" attack on the infrastructure of the other nuclear superpower. Indeed, they wonder, "Whether it would be possible to plunge Russia into darkness..." And toward the end, they quote an American lawyer and former Obama official, whose expertise on the matter is unclear, to assure readers sanguinely, "We might have to risk taking some broken bones of our own from a counter response... Sometimes you have to take a bloody nose to not take a bullet in the head down the road." The "broken bones," "bloody nose," and "bullet" are, of course, metaphorical references to the potential consequences of nuclear war.