...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it.
- Brookings Institution, "Which Path to Persia?" 2009For the second time since the United States unilaterally withdrew from the so-called Iran Nuclear Deal, Western reports of "suspected attacks" on oil tankers near the Stait of Hormuz have attempted to implicate Iran.
The London Guardian in an article titled, "Two oil tankers struck in suspected attacks in Gulf of Oman," would claim:
Two oil tankers have been hit in suspected attacks in the Gulf of Oman and the crews evacuated, a month after a similar incident in which four tankers in the region were struck.The article also claimed:
Gulf tensions have been close to boiling point for weeks as the US puts "maximum economic pressure" on Tehran in an attempt to force it to reopen talks about the 2015 nuclear deal, which the US pulled out of last year.The Guardian would admit that "investigations" into the previous alleged attacks in May carried out by the UAE found "sophisticated mines" were used, but fell short of implicating Iran as a culprit.
Iran has repeatedly said it has no knowledge of the incidents and did not instruct any surrogate forces to attack Gulf shipping, or Saudi oil installations.
The article would note US National Security Advisor John Bolton would - without evidence - claim that Iran "was almost certainly involved."
Comment: See also: