Soaring tensions of the past nearly two weeks paving the way for a potential direct military clash in the Persian Gulf between the US and Iran could be de-escalating as rapidly as they began as the president attempts to reign in hawks in his own administration, per a new report in FT:

President Donald Trump said he hoped the US would not go to war with Iran, cooling tensions at the end of a week in which worries spiked over the risk of conflict between the US and the Islamic republic. As he stood outside the West Wing waiting to meet Swiss president Ueli Maurer on Thursday, Mr Trump was asked by a reporter whether the US was going to war with Iran. He replied: "I hope not."

This as the WSJ also reports Trump is fast reining in his two Iran hawk horsemen of the apocalypse Bolton and Pompeo: "There are sharply differing views within the Trump administration over the meaning of intelligence showing Iran and its proxies making military preparations, people familiar with the matter said," according to the report.

So Trump doesn't want war, and now with the Senate demanding it be given a comprehensive briefing on just what the increased Iran threat constitutes and the intelligence consensus behind it (or lack thereof), it looks like the war train could be grinding to a halt.

Bloomberg also agrees, per its latest report:

President Donald Trump is wary of drawing the U.S. into a war with Iran, in part out of concern that an armed conflict with the Islamic Republic would imperil his chances at winning a second term, according to people familiar with the matter. U.S.'s evidence of Iran threat readied for release by Pentagon.

But the Pentagon war machine's next move could hinge on what's been revealed as the initial key piece of intelligence "evidence" of Iran's "attack preparations" that got us here in the first place, starting with Bolton's May 5th announcement of a major Iranian threat escalation. The "smoking gun" that started it all apparently hinges on satellite photos showing Iranian paramilitary forces moving missiles on boats in the Persian Gulf (perhaps even in their own territorial waters!?).

The New York Times cited three defense officials who confirmed that,

"The intelligence that caused the White House to escalate its warnings about a threat from Iran came from photographs of missiles on small boats in the Persian Gulf that were put on board by Iranian paramilitary forces."

But crucially, according to US intelligence officials cited by the WSJ, the "missile movement" satellite photographs may have just been picking up on Iranian defensive measures that came in reaction to Tehran's belief that a US military attack was on the horizon.

"Intelligence collected by the U.S. government shows Iran's leaders believe the U.S. planned to attack them, prompting preparation by Tehran for possible counterstrikes, according to one interpretation of the information," reports The Wall Street Journal's Warren Strobel, Nancy Youssef, and Vivian Salama.

However, what was originally set in motion itself has momentum enough to spark confrontation, given on Thursday two Navy destroyers have entered the Persian Gulf as the American military continues to add to its assets in the region to head off any planned Iranian 'aggression', USNI reported.

The USS McFaul and USS Gonzalez traveled through the Strait of Hormuz Thursday afternoon without being challenged by IRGC forces. They joined the USS Abraham Lincoln, which is stationed in the Gulf of Oman, as well as a strike force that includes several B-52 bombers out of Qatar.

So there it is: formula for de-escalation; however, the chances of some "accident" happening which leads to clashes remains high and unpredictable, at which point the intelligence debate Congress is demanding could turn into a moot afterthought, as is the pattern with many US wars.

• Trump: Those connected with spying on my presidential campaign should be convicted of treason
• Barr's review of FBI 'spying' on the Trump campaign to be wide and encompassing
• Trump campaign staffer Caputo says he can prove Obama FBI spying on Trump organization in early 2016

"It's a real communications firm making money through the dissemination of fake news," said Graham Brookie, director of the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council, a think tank collaborating with Facebook to expose and explain disinformation campaigns.

He called Archimedes' commercialization of tactics more commonly tied to governments, like Russia, an emerging--and worrying--trend in the global spread of social media disinformation. "These efforts go well beyond what is acceptable in free and democratic societies," Brookie said.

Gleicher described the pages as conducting "coordinated inauthentic behavior," with accounts posting on behalf of certain political candidates, smearing their opponents and presenting as legitimate local news organizations peddling supposedly leaked information.

"Our team assessed that because this group is primarily organized to conduct deceptive behavior, we are removing them from the platform and blocking them from coming back," he added.

The activity appeared focused on ... what Brookie called a "staggering diversity of regions" that pointed to the group's sophistication. Thousands of people expressed interest in attending at least one of the nine events organized by those behind the pages. Facebook could not confirm whether any of the events actually occurred. Some 5,000 accounts joined one or more of the fake groups. The most significant audience engagement was generated in Malaysia, which has a vast media market and held a general election last year.

Facebook shared a few examples of the fake content, including one post mocking 2018 Congolese presidential candidate Martin Fayulu for crying foul play in the elections that vaulted Felix Tshisekedi to victory. Many governments and watchdog groups condemned the elections as rigged and declared Fayulu the rightful winner.

Given the geographical variety of Archimedes' operations, "it's impossible to determine a single ideological thread," said Brookie. "They weren't pushing exclusively far-right or anti-globalist content. It appears to be a clear-cut case of spreading disinformation through economic incentive."

He added that Archimedes-linked pages pulled from the playbook of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, with widely amplified yet tailored messages targeting potential voters and "creating a specter of leaked information." Most impostor accounts shared a key tactic: posing as a campaigner for a particular candidate and then sharing opinions that actual supporters would find offensive.

It is as yet unclear, who launched the projectiles and what the target was. Damascus has repeatedly accused Israel of targeting the Syrian territory in air raids and missile strikes. Tel Aviv, however, rarely admits responsibility for the attacks, usually keeping silent about such incidents altogether.

• No PACE cooperation in 2019 due to 'anti-Russian hysteria' - snr lawmaker
• Russia insists on reinstatement of full PACE participation rights - senator
• Russia will return to PACE assembly only after powers restored in full

• Peace at last? Kabul ready to talk with Taliban, without preconditions, discuss changes to Afghanistan constitution
• State Department 'ready for talks' with Taliban & Kabul
• European mindset will not strike bargain with the Taliban - Russian envoy to Afghanistan

May and Corbyn blame each other as Brexit talks collapse

The government and Labour have sought to blame each other after cross-party talks to find a compromise Brexit plan collapsed, leaving any remaining hopes of an imminent solution to the impasse in tatters.

While both sides insisted the discussions had taken place in good faith, Theresa May said a sticking point had been Labour splits over a second referendum.

Labour in turn said the government had been unwilling to compromise and that May's imminent departure from Downing Street meant there was no guarantee any promises would be kept by a successor such as Boris Johnson.

That's a reasonable assumption in politics.

Nick Boles, the former Conservative MP who helped spearhead efforts to prevent a no-deal Brexit in March, said he now feared such a departure was almost inevitable when the EU27's latest deadline of 31 October is reached.

"It's game over," he said. "We only won by one, and it's very unclear that we would have the same level of Tory support, and for that matter Labour support. We are absolutely convinced that parliament will not find a way to stop no-deal Brexit."

The conclusion to six weeks of intermittent talks, which had angered many Conservative and Labour MPs who feared the nature of the compromise that might result, came with the release of a letter from Jeremy Corbyn to May on Friday.

Despite praising the talks as constructive, the Labour leader wrote: "It has become clear that, while there are some areas where compromise has been possible, we have been unable to bridge important policy gaps between us.

"Even more crucially, the increasing weakness and instability of your government means there cannot be confidence in securing whatever might be agreed between us."

May's spokesman said the view was mutual: "It was clear to the government ... that the talks were not going to reach a successful conclusion."

Corbyn's letter cited examples of what he said was May's inability to carry her government on possible compromises, for example ministerial dissent over a possible customs union and the idea of allowing reduced food standards to secure a US trade deal.

Speaking in Bristol at a campaign event for next week's European elections, the prime minister said the negotiations had "made progress", but blamed Labour for the lack of an outcome.

"In particular, we haven't been able to overcome the fact that there isn't a common position in Labour about whether they want to deliver Brexit or have a second referendum and try to reverse it," she said.

[...]

Labour hit back at this narrative, with Starmer saying May was "trying to blame everyone but herself" for the collapse of the talks. He tweeted: "She knows the reality is she couldn't carry her own side or offer a realistic compromise. Any deal agreed wouldn't last a day under a new Tory leader."

The tortuous process of discussion, which saw occasional meetings between May and Corbyn and many more involving their frontbench teams and officials, had been widely predicted to come to an end, but the news was still enough to see the pound drop to its lowest level against the dollar since February.

Corbyn had come under mounting pressure from within the shadow cabinet to walk away from the talks, including from close allies who feared a stitch-up that would see Labour blamed as the facilitator of a "Tory Brexit".

Both sides stressed that some progress had been made, with the prime minister's chief Brexit negotiator, Ollie Robbins, in Brussels earlier this week to discuss a joint draft of proposed changes to the political declaration about Britain's future relationship with the EU27.

They're hardly going to admit that, together, they're wasting the public's time and money in order to avoid enacting the will of the people.

But while there were signs the two leaders were not miles apart, a number of Conservative MPs were agitated at the idea of a possible customs union, Corbyn's key demand, while many in Labour disliked the prospect of a plan not being endorsed by a second referendum.

The government intends to press ahead with holding a vote on the withdrawal agreement bill in the week beginning 3 June - but sources stressed it would include "new features that reflect some of the discussions", in the hope of winning over Labour MPs.

May also plans to resume talks with the Democratic Unionist party, with which she is in a confidence and supply partnership, about how it could be reassured that accepting the deal would not undermine the integrity of the UK.

Government sources also pointed to progress on considering "alternative arrangements" for the Northern Irish border - one of the central concerns of Brexiters who have held out against the deal.

Corbyn said Labour would "carefully consider" any new proposals, but added: "I should reiterate that, without significant changes, we will continue to oppose the government's deal as we do not believe it safeguards jobs, living standards and manufacturing industry in Britain."

• Still Confused About Brexit? It's Actually Pretty Simple...
• Brexit: A Political Farce Based on a Public Lie

• NewsReal #26: Globalization vs Nationalism - The Hidden Causes of The Yellow Vest Protests in France
• NewsReal: Yellow Vest Protests, Brexit Farce - Revolutionary Climate in Western Europe?