The strangeness around the recent Iranian "hostage"( event appears to be growing almost daily. You'll recall that in last Thursday's News and Views I speculated on the possibility that perhaps the whole thing was some covert operation gone wrong, or intercepted, by the Iranian government and military, or even that perhaps it was a covert operation deliberately designed to be intercepted by the Iranians. Whichever the case may have been, Tehran wisely decided not to play the "world war three brinksmanship game," and quickly released the captives (which, you'll note, hardly makes the incident a "hostage" incident as it has been reported in the west). Subsequently, of course, came the story from Tehran, repeated by Russia's Novorossiya, that an ISIS commander was on board one of the US Navy riverboats. Whatever the truth or lack thereof on that score may be(and I'm personally inclined for the present to be skeptical of that claim), the story does appear to have the kernel of truth to it.
In that context, then, consider this interesting story from The Saker shared by Mr. D.K.:
Now, consider carefully the chain of argument here:
On Friday January 15th, 2016 less than 24 hours after the meeting between Sergey Lavrov and John Kerry in Zurich on January 20, 2016 was announced, and just a day before the sanctions on Iran were scheduled to be lifted, a plane carrying Victoria Nuland, an Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, took a sudden turn on its way from Vilnius to Berlin and landed on a Russian airbase near Kaliningrad. Earlier Nuland out of blue called Kremlin and urgently demanded that president Putin meet with her personally. Putin refused to see her, but sent his “influential” assistant Surkov to see what she wanted.
Surkov had arrived at Kaliningrad on Thursday January 14th. Nuland’s plane landed on the military base near Kaliningrad on Friday January 15th. Surkov and Nuland had a four hour talk behind closed doors. No one knows what exactly they talked about. The officially released version states that they talked about the implementation of the Minsk II agreement, the changes in Ukraine’s constitution, and the upcoming elections in Donetsk and Lugansk People’s republics.
Unofficial versions vary.
It’s being reported by some experts from the French AgoraVox who sincerely think that Nuland came to “prevent an inevitable NATO strike on Russia,” and that she came in attempt to “prevent world war.”
According to the witnesses of Nuland’s arrival, she was in and “extremely agitated” state of mind. She was repeating over and over: “War is coming! War is at our gates!” She was also heard saying that Russia “has not fulfilled its promises,” and now “everybody is going to pay for this.”
Also being reported that she has been very agitated recently because Barack Obama is “cleaning” the White House and that she herself might be on a chopping block.
The same day, Friday January 15th at 16:20PM Putin held an emergency briefing session with permanent members of the Security Council in his Novo-Ogaryovo residence.
Taking part in the meeting were Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, Speaker of the Federation Council Valentina Matviyenko, Speaker of the State Duma Sergei Naryshkin, Secretary of the Security Council Nikolai Patrushev, Interior Minister Vladimir Kolokoltsev, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, Director of the Federal Security Service Alexander Bortnikov, Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service Mikhail Fradkov, Deputy Secretary of the Security Council Rashid Nurgaliyev, and permanent member of the Security Council Boris Gryzlov.
So, before proceeding, note what we have: Victoria "F*** the EU" Nuland, in all her ladylike demeanor and diction, is alleged to have made a sudden detour to Kaliningrad - that's the former Koenigsberg, East Prussia by the way - where she requested to see President Putin himself, who presumably was supposed to drop everything, quit running Russia, and rush to be by Victoria's side. On top of this, she apparently came to warn archenemy Russia that NATO was planning a strike against Russia. Meanwhile, President Putin is in conference with just about every important minister in his security council. Subject? unknown.
Now I don't for a moment believe that NATO itself was plotting any such thing. I don't see any anti-Russian war fever in the major NATO capitals, not in Rome, not in Paris, Madrid, or even in Berlin, where Mama Merkel's domestic and foreign policies seem not only to be increasingly surreal but increasingly detached from Germans themselves, (who, incidentally, appear to be less free to speak their own mind in their own country than the waves of refugees Mama Merkel has inundated that country with). But I have no doubt that there are enough nuts in NATO, and the West, for that matter, that would contemplate such insanity, and that even Victoria "F*** the EU" Nuland was worried about it.
To continue with The Saker's take on things:
What had propelled Vikki Nuland, a Washington unelected apparatchik, whose life long efforts are universally understood as being directed towards the destruction of Russia, what propelled her to rush to warn Russia about the alleged imminent NATO strike? Shouldn’t she keep her mouth shut until the happy day of the NATO nukes taking a flight into the country that Nuland hates with so much vigor?
To find an answer to this question we have to go way way back.
On Tuesday January 12th, 2016 CNN first reported Jane Psaki’s announcement about “Iran holding 10 US sailors.”
And here's where the analysis and speculation gets interesting:
Some people now say that the boats were on a suicide mission, willingly or unwillingly. There are credible reports of an Israeli submarine positioned nearby that was allegedly ready to sink the vessels while in Iranian waters, as a prerequisite for a political fury of sanctions and armed whatnots against Iran over an “attack on the US vessels.”
Had the marines understood what their fate might be we don’t know. However, the Iranians say that the US marines cried while being detained, that’s how scared they were, until they were told that they won’t be killed, tortured, or imprisoned, as they knew the US would have done to Iranians if the situation was somehow reversed.
Somebody must had warned Iranians about this false flag attack. Could it be someone from the US Navy? From NATO? Just like the American diplomat working in Moscow warned about the plot to kill the President of Russia in March 2015. According to the plan Putin was supposed to be killed on a helicopter. Remember, The Economist magazine’s “mysterious” cover for 2015? Putin in black and white and, wearing sunglasses and an orange helicopter in front of him? Orange as in “orange revolution.” Because, as we all know, they are all geniuses over there, and we are just country pumpkins. That was it. Fifth columnists, NGO grant eaters, and other liberal rats were running around the Kremlin with cameras because they were told to watch service helicopters with a promise that something big was about to happen.
An American diplomat reported this plan to the Russia’s authorities and the plan was foiled. Rumor has it, the guy moved to Crimea and got baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church. It’s a beautiful ceremony, I must admit, and to experience it is worth saving the life of a president. (EMphasis added)
So, add to this mix (1) a foiled assassination plot against President Putin, (2) which was caused by a defection of an American diplomat (which, if true, raises yet another problem, for when was this reported in the western media, and by whom?), (3) some sort of possible covert operation which, on The Saker's reading, was a suicide mission cut short by the Iranians to the apparent relief of the American sailors, and (4) an Israeli submarine was in the area.
It's that Israeli submarine that prompts a question: was this an actual "designed and built in Israel" submarine, or was it one of those special Dolphin class U-Boats built for Israel in (you guessed it) Germany, which can launch nuclear cruise missiles underwater. (And why is Germany even building such things?)
Now, I have to agree with The Saker here, for as I implied in last Thursday's News and Views, someone had to have warned the Iranians, and since the incident involved the US Navy and some probable covert operation, the warning most likely came from within the American command structure. After all, Israel is implacably worried about an Iranian nuclear bomb and is unlikely to warn their "most favorite enemy" about such an operation.
So what's my high octane speculation here?
Well, first of all, the whole thing reeks of some "third player" involved in the mix, for if warnings are coming to Russia and Iran from inside the US command structure and Nuland herself no less, then someone and something else is an actor in the mix, and to my nose, it smells a lot like that Fascist International I've spent so much time writing and warning about. It's that Israeli, possibly German-built, submarine supposedly in the area that smells a bit too conventient.
But more importantly than any speculations about possible third players, are the indications of warnings coming from within the American command apparatus itself, both to Tehran, and to Moscow. This, to my mind, is an indicator that the deep devision - factional infighting I've been calling it for a number of years - within the American deep state is now deepening and widening. In this context, recall that RT article from a few weeks ago, that intimated that the Russian government is having difficulty identifying just who is really in charge in Washington. Recall, also, Sergei Glazyev's remark that Russia's main problem was not the Nazis in Kiev, but the Nazis in Washington.
What does all of this high octane speculation portend? If my belief that a covert op was under way, then the most recent Iranian "hostage" crisis means we can expect that this is not the end of such incidents, but their beginning.
See you on the flip side...