THE TANKER INCIDENT: JAPAN SAYS NOT SO FAST…June 19, 2019
If you're following the story about the attacks on the tankers in the Persian Gulf, then you'll want to read today's story, and the article from the Saker linked in today's "Tidbits", for there appear to be more holes in the story than in the ships themselves. The US-based narrative is saying that the attacks were caused by mines.
But Japan is saying "not so fast" according to this story from Zero Hedge shared by G.B.:
What's interesting here is to compare this story to the picture of the "mine" which appears in The Saker article linked in the Tidbit, which pictures a "triangular" shaped object allegedly the "mine", and clearly this is above the waterline. I suppose one could "nitpick" here and call any explosive device attached to an object a "mine", but in conventional usage, a mine is indeed an underwater object designed to detonate below a ship's waterline. But even that is not what Japan is saying:
For a moment on Thursday, it appeared that the US Navy had produced the 'smoking gun' to which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had alluded during his statement from earlier in the day: CENTCOM footage which the Navy said purported to show Iran's IRGC 'caught in the act' of trying to remove an unexploded mine from the Kokuka Courageous, one of the two tankers damaged in Thursday's attacks.
CENTCOM said the video it released showed the IRGC removing an unexploded limpet mine from the side of one of the tankers, suggesting Tehran had sought to remove evidence from the scene.
After the video's release, Iran continued to deny any involvement in the attacks. And perhaps now we know why.
In comments that cast the entire narrative promulgated by the US in doubt, Yutaka Katada, the president of Kokuka Sangyo, the owner and operator of the Kokuka Courageous, said Friday that he doesn't completely believe Washington's version of events.
Instead, he said the vessel wasn't damaged by a mine, but by some kind of projectile, like, say, a torpedo. He called reports of a mine attack "false." One reason is because a mine doesn't damage a ship above sea level, like what was seen with the Courageous.
"A mine doesn’t damage a ship above sea level," said Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo, the owner and operator of the vessel. "We aren’t sure exactly what hit, but it was something flying towards the ship," he said. (Italicized emphasis added)
So, the owner of the Japanese tanker that was hit in last week's attacks is stating that it was a flying projectile of some sort, not a mine, and that implies an artillery projectile, a missile, or a drone.
So, look what we have: (1) a claim by the owner of the Japanese tanker, and its crew, that some sort of projectile hit the ship, not a mine, contradicting the American version of events, and (2) the unlikelihood that Iran would conduct an attack on a Japanese tanker while the Japanese premier was on an official visit to Tehran. Thus, if we're to believe the "narrative" coming out of the USA, Iran fired "something" at the tanker while Japan's premier was on a diplomatic visit to that country.
The problem with that whole picture is, of course, that Iran would be running an extreme risk by attacking the ship of a nation - Japan - that is not even hostile to Iran while its premier is visiting, and that Japan would inevitably find out about the attack. If indeed Japan had even remotely suspected this scenario, then Tokyo would already have registered some sort of politely but firmly worded official protest with Tehran, which it has not done. So far, the silence, in other words, is deafening.
But I strongly suspect that with Yutaka Katada's comments, Tokyo has already signaled its response unofficially, for it is difficult to believe that in a government as tightly run as the Japanese, that Katada's remarks were not "cleared" beforehand. And in this instance, registering an unofficial objection to the American narrative via a private corporation rather than through "official channels" would be a very Japanese way of sending the message "we know the narrative is nonsense, but we're not going to embarrass you publicly by stating it officially."
For the moment, then, I am sticking with my high octane speculation that this event may have originated from elsewhere, and principally from rogue elements in The Swamp and their proxies in the region.
You know who I mean.
See you on the flip side...