,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Who knows what happened here. But as it gets investigated, remember: Iran gets *no* benefit from provoking the U.S. with a silly, feckless attack, whereas Trump's allies MBZ, MBS, and Netanyahu strike the *jackpot* if this "attack" prompts a war with Iran. apnews.com/d67714ab8ac344…
1/ The analysis I just heard on CNN: this was likely Iran, as it has a STRONG interest in sending an UNAMBIGUOUS message to Trump about its CAPABILITIES.
I guess that explains why it DENIED having anything to do with this: because it sends a strong, unambiguous message of POWER.
I guess that explains why it DENIED having anything to do with this: because it sends a strong, unambiguous message of POWER.
2/ I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek there: of *course* a nation can do something and then deny it, knowing that its adversaries' intelligence agencies will confirm that it did, indeed, do it, thereby keeping the UN on its toes and its adversaries informed of its capabilities.
3/ But what made me nervous was that Admiral Kirby (on CNN) gave none of the context here: Trump's pullout from the Iran deal and attempt to send nuclear tech to Riyadh as part of a march to war against Iran; Netanyahu saying he wants war; ongoing Saudi/Emirati hoax operations...
4/ ...the ruthlessness and deceit of the four men who *so* want war with Iran (Trump, Netanyahu, MBS, and MBZ); the ease of making an Emirati attack look like an Iranian attack, especially when the UAE has basically an all-(foreign) mercenary army; Iran's current position as a...
5/ ...as a sympathetic figure because it's complying with the nuclear deal even after the US reneged on it—there are just *so many* reasons Iran would be stupid to do this and *so many* reasons it would benefit many other actors to do it. I don't like CNN not giving that context.
