[url]https://ejmagnier.com/2019/06/21/iran-and-trump-on-the-edge-of-the-abyss[/url]
[quote]According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.[/quote]
Aw man, and all the US corporate media had already prepared special martial-music-overlain segments on how "today Donald Trump really became president", we-bombed-an-empty-airfield-in-Syria style.

The Onion on the as-farcical-as-it-is-dangerous brinkmanship in play here:

[url=https://www.theonion.com/bolton-argues-war-with-iran-only-way-to-avenge-american-1835704580]Bolton Argues War With Iran Only Way To Avenge Americans Killed In Upcoming War With Iran[/url]

[QUOTE=Till;519655]Trump knows that a little war could be handy at reelection times. This is only the buildup. Since Kim has become Donalds best buddy, the only options are Iran or Venezuela.


Btw. There are far too few wars going on to keep the US weapon industry growing. America first!!![/QUOTE]
Trump would just be the latest example of a US president making a war for political or commercial (or both) benefits. Wars of conquest have paid off on both fronts, for the US.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;519762]
[QUOTE]Note that the two articles require evidence of intention and premeditation to destroy and to kill. The conventional court standard for this evidence in Europe is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Yes, but in Dutch law we have a concept called "voorwaardelijk opzet" (literally "conditional intention") which your source is apparently unfamiliar with, or chooses to ignore.

Both sides will have the opportunity to present their case at the trial.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;519763][url]https://ejmagnier.com/2019/06/21/iran-and-trump-on-the-edge-of-the-abyss[/url][quote]According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.[/quote]
Aw man, and all the US corporate media had already prepared special martial-music-overlain segments on how "today Donald Trump really became president", we-bombed-an-empty-airfield-in-Syria style.
<snip>
[/QUOte][url=http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-06/22/c_138163205.htm]Iran denies receiving U.S. message via Oman[/url][quote]TEHRAN, June 21 (Xinhua) -- Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) on Friday denied that it has received U.S. President Donald Trump's message to Iran via Oman, state TV reported.

"The United States has sent no letter to Iran through Oman," SNSC spokesman Keivan Khosravi was quoted as saying.

"This issue is not true at all," he said.[/quote]

You've heard the saying, "never believe anything until there is an official denial"?

[i]Moon of Alabama[/i] has a good roundup of recent events, including both the reports by the Pentagon-narrative stenographers in the MSM and by several well-respected (in the sense that their counter-MSM takes have proven correct on numerous past occasions) independent bloggers, including Elijah Magnier whose blog I linked to above:

[url=https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/06/white-house-pushes-trump-pulled-back-story-he-likely-never-approved-to-strike-iran.html]White House Pushes 'Trump Pulled Back' Story - He Likely Never Approved To Strike Iran[/url]

That has some good examples of the asymmetric-warfare angle I highlighted previously, e.g. Iran-allied Yemeni Houthi rebels hitting Saudi desalination plants, which are hugely important infrastructure in that parched land. And on the Iranian "[url=https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/06/iran-shoots-down-strategic-us-drone-is-ready-for-war-puts-maximum-pressure-on-trump-.html]maximum pressure[/url]" campaign on Trump:
[quote]The recent Houthi hits on Saudi Arabia are notable escalations in their quality and extent. The Houthi have obviously received new weapons. Their actions are part of the Iranian campaign to put "maximum pressure" on Trump. As Abdel Bari Atwan writes:
[i]
The US’ Israeli and Gulf allies have been exploiting Trump’s stupidity to try to drag him into a war against Iran on their behalf. The Iranians are trying to impress on him that any such war would incur an exorbitant cost on the US, and also on those allies – Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has warned that any war would not be confined to Iran but set the entire region ablaze.

Even if there is no direct US attack, the Iranians will not simply sit back and wait to be starved into submission by Trump’s embargo and halting of their oil exports. That is another thing the US president does not understand. And he may never understand it until he sees the extent of their retaliation against his country’s forces, warships and bases, and his allies’ cities, airports, and power and desalination plants.
[/i]
Trump wages an economic war on Iran through sanctions on everything Iran exports or imports. Iran is doing its best to to push back against this by creating incidents that are plausibly deniable but put Trump under maximum pressure. But there are now signs that Trump is finally getting that.[/quote]
Lastly, the above 'maximum pressure' article has this crucial tidbit re. whether the [url=https://www.wired.com/story/iran-global-hawk-drone-surveillance/]shot-down US Global Hawk surveillance drone[/url] was or was not in international airspace:
[quote]There is no international airspace in the tightest, northern part of the Straits of Hormuz. There is only the national airspace of Iran and Oman. If what the CentCom map shows is the correct location of the drone, which had come from the south, it was in the mid of a blind alley of international airspace flying towards its end.
...
Iran says that the drone entered Iranian airspace. I find that to be likely correct. CentCom is not known for telling the truth and the list of proven hostile drone entries into Iranian air space is quite long.[/quote]
And note the crucial difference between navigation in the strait waterway and the airspace above it:

"The strait is an international waterway, but this freedom of navigation does not extend into the air. Likewise Russian warships are free to pass the Danish and the Turkish [straits] without needing or asking anyone for permission. Russian bombers cannot fly through the straits without Danish or Turkish permission."

IMO Iran likely permitted many such illegal drone flights in the past with a view to not doing anything excessively provocative. In this case the provocation was forced on them by the neocons in the Trump administration, so shooting down the drone was a calculated, clear message - "no one died this time, but if we can shoot down one of your precious highflying spy drones, consider what other defensive capabilities we might have."

[QUOTE=ewmayer;519843]You've heard the saying, "never believe anything until there is an official denial"?
<snip>[/quote]So, you're saying the Iranians are [i]lying?[/i]

[quote]Lastly, the above 'maximum pressure' article has this crucial tidbit re. whether the [url=https://www.wired.com/story/iran-global-hawk-drone-surveillance/]shot-down US Global Hawk surveillance drone[/url] was or was not in international airspace:

And note the crucial difference between navigation in the strait waterway and the airspace above it:

"The strait is an international waterway, but this freedom of navigation does not extend into the air. Likewise Russian warships are free to pass the Danish and the Turkish [straits] without needing or asking anyone for permission. Russian bombers cannot fly through the straits without Danish or Turkish permission."[/quote]Since the drone was shot down, I have suspected a definitional conflict between the US and Iran in what constitutes "Iranian airspace." But man oh man, I've had difficulty finding relevant maps, definitions, etc.

I have however found two distinct concepts regarding airspace. One is "sovereign airspace," whose boundaries are pretty much land borders and the limits of territorial waters. By that standard, airspace above international waters is "international airspace."

The other concept is "Flight Information Region" (FIR). This means, whose air-traffic controllers you'll be talking to when you're flying in a given region. And in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, you'll be in [i]somebody's[/i] FIR, whether it's in their sovereign airspace or not. The current FAA warning is for civilian aircraft entering Tehran's FIR.

The FIRs are geared to deal with [i]civilian[/i] air traffic. [b]Military[/b] aircraft entering a country's FIR are, I am sure, handled differently. Especially if they weren't invited, and they don't respond to an air-traffic controller's hail. And a Global Hawk doing surveillance would unquestionably be military, and uninvited. Civilian aircraft don't fly at 60,000 feet.[quote]IMO Iran likely permitted many such illegal drone flights in the past with a view to not doing anything excessively provocative. In this case the provocation was forced on them by the neocons in the Trump administration, so shooting down the drone was a calculated, clear message - "no one died this time, but if we can shoot down one of your precious highflying spy drones, consider what other defensive capabilities we might have."[/QUOTE]
We'll likely never know exactly how the Iranians reached the decision to shoot down the drone without first warning the US to keep their surveillance drones out of their FIR. Or perhaps they [i]had[/i] protested before, I don't know. Perhaps they decided that the US wasn't taking them seriously enough, and the best way to show the US that they [i]could[/i] shoot down a Global Hawk (and thereby [i]also[/i] telling the US to keep their spy drones out of their FIR), was by shooting one down. But I don't think that it was some hothead acting without authority as [i]Il Duce[/i] has suggested. I agree completely, this was Tehran whupping the Admin upside the head with a two-by-four.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;519883] Civilian aircraft don't fly at 60,000 feet.[/QUOTE]

[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde"]Not these days.[/URL]

The purported aim of [i]Il Duce[/i] & Co. WRT Iran -- to bring the Iranians to the bargaining table -- is at odds with its action of walking away from a deal already negotiated (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). It would be reasonable for the Iranians to say, "What's the point? If the current US president decides he doesn't like the deal after it's done, he'll just tear it up anyway." In other words, the Administration has put its [i]bona fides[/i] in serious doubt by renouncing the nuclear deal. The Iranians clearly said so when [i]Il Duce[/i] announced the USA was walking away from the nuclear deal. In a September 21, 2018 [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/iran-is-committed-to-honest-dialogue-is-trump/2018/09/21/7c1a2754-bdb4-11e8-be70-52bd11fe18af_story.html?noredirect=on]column[/url] in the [i]Washington Post[/i], Iran's President Rouhani said ([b]Note:[/b] UN Resolution 2231 is about the nuclear deal),[quote]Trump’s offer of direct talks with Iran is not honest or genuine. How can we be convinced of his sincerity while his secretary of state has gone so far as to set a long list of openly insulting pre-conditions for talks? Worse still, how can we trust the U.S. government now that it has officially reneged on its international commitments, most notably U.N. Security Council resolution 2231? How can Iran, and others, trust the United States while it is threatening to punish other countries for the implementation of the same U.N. resolution it sponsored and voted for?[/quote]
There is another consideration. The Admin's approach to gaining its stated objective is "all stick and no carrot." A campaign of coercion -- economic sanctions and military threats -- is more about delivering ultimatums than negotiating. The whole approach reminds me of Aesop's fable of [url=https://fablesofaesop.com/the-north-wind-and-the-sun.html]The North Wind and The Sun[/url].

The Admin's approach also conjures memories of a plot device common to many stories featuring a battle between good and evil. The Bad Guys don't even consider "moral suasion" -- that is, convincing people of the justness of their cause. They go straight to making dire threats of what will happen if people don't cooperate. The Good Guys, on the other hand, appeal to peoples' sense of justice, usually supplemented by enumerating The Bad Guys' previous bad acts, and often further suggesting that cooperation with them would be rewarded by treachery.

Some of these moral considerations seem to apply to real life situations as well. I leave it to the reader to ponder their relevance to campaigns waged to end injustices and oppression.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;519883]So, you're saying the Iranians are [i]lying?[/i][/QUOTE]

Denying the "Trump wanted to work a deal where the US bombed some empty land or defunct military infrastructure" offer would actually be smart diplomacy, had such an offer existed. The very-orchestrated Syrian bombing a few years ago which caused the ever-war-loving MSM to have a short-lived "Trump proved he is presidential"-gasm makes is credible that Trump might favor trying a similar gambit as a face-saving measure vis-a-vis Iran. But the Iranians are not the Syrians, and they say "no way, no how", and the drone shoot-down gets the attention of the folks whose attention they want to get, namely POTUS and the actual military types, rather than the loony neocons Trump somehow allowed to lead him to the edge of the abyss here. At the same time, they don't want to go out of their way to publicly embarrass Trump, because they don't want a shooting war, either. So deny the "kabuki bombing" offer in order to help Trump save face at home, at the same time making it very clear that they are capable of defending themselves militarily, to help the saner voices in the Trump admin make themselves heard.

But under such a scenario, I would be surprised to see Bolton remain in his position - if he is allowed to stay on, that may necessitate a re-think.

Also, note that even though a hot war appears to have been averted for now, that is not enough for the Iranians, who rightly consider themselves economic victims of an entirely unjustified and brutal sanctions regime. MoA has a followup post about that:

[url=https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/06/trump-is-afraid-of-a-shooting-war-but-iran-has-also-other-means-to-damage-him.html]As Trump Wants To Avoid A Shooting War, Iran Will Use Other Means To Pressure Him[/url]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;519928]Denying the "Trump wanted to work a deal where the US bombed some empty land or defunct military infrastructure" offer would actually be smart diplomacy, had such an offer existed.
<snip>[/QUOTE]I'm simply curious about the inference you suggest -- that we should believe the purported offer was made, [i]because[/i] the Iranians denied it. I'm not buying that.

I can easily see why they would issue an official denial after [i]reports[/i] of such an offer were made public, for domestic political reasons -- [i]whether the reports were true or not[/i]. I am quite sure there are factions with political power (particularly within the Revolutionary Guards) who would see even [i]receiving[/i] such an offer, as a sign of weakness or betrayal. Obviously, in order to placate the hard-liners, an official denial would have to be issued -- again, [i]whether the reports were true or not[/i]. So, I am not willing to view the public denial as any indication of whether the reported offer actually happened. You, conversely, may fault me for offering the denial with the tacit implication that it rebutted reports of the offer having been made.

One thing I did notice about the official denial was that it denied that the US had sent a [i]letter[/i] (as opposed to the term "message" in the headline). The careful word choice -- the specificity of the term [i]letter[/i] (assuming the translation into English was accurate) -- leaves open the possibility of such an offer having been communicated by other means, and the denial being a non-denial denial.

So assuming, for the sake of argument that such an offer was made, the question presents itself: who dreamed up the idea? I doubt [i]Il Duce[/i] came up with it himself. And I'm not sure how many folks who were around him when he ordered the missile strikes on Syria, are still around him now.

Meanwhile, it seems the Admin launched a cyber attack on Iran's air defenses. I'm no military expert, but this strikes me as particularly stupid. Disrupting command and control as an immediate prelude to an actual military strike makes sense, but in isolation seems to me far worse than useless. The Iranians will now have plenty of time to figure out how the attack worked, and devise countermeasures. And, they may share their findings with others. So, it seems likely, at least to me, that if the US tries a similar cyber attack in future as a prelude to an actual military attack, it [i]won't work[/i].

It also may prompt the Iranians to step up their own cyber attacks against US interests.

Where are they now?
 

[url=https://www.apnews.com/46da2dbe04f54adbb875cfbc06bbc615]Attorneys: Texas border facility is neglecting migrant kids[/url]
[quote]By CEDAR ATTANASIO, GARANCE BURKE AND MARTHA MENDOZA
June 21, 2019
EL PASO, Texas (AP) — A 2-year-old boy locked in detention wants to be held all the time. A few girls, ages 10 to 15, say they’ve been doing their best to feed and soothe the clingy toddler who was handed to them by a guard days ago. Lawyers warn that kids are taking care of kids, and there’s inadequate food, water and sanitation for the 250 infants, children and teens at the Border Patrol station.

The bleak portrait emerged Thursday after a legal team interviewed 60 children at the facility near El Paso that has become the latest place where attorneys say young migrants are describing neglect and mistreatment at the hands of the U.S. government.

Data obtained by The Associated Press showed that on Wednesday there were three infants in the station, all with their teen mothers, along with a 1-year-old, two 2-year-olds and a 3-year-old. There are dozens more under 12. Fifteen have the flu, and 10 more are quarantined.

Three girls told attorneys they were trying to take care of the 2-year-old boy, who had wet his pants and had no diaper and was wearing a mucus-smeared shirt when the legal team encountered him.[/quote]

[url=https://www.npr.org/2019/06/23/735191289/law-professor-describes-poor-conditions-where-migrant-children-are-held]Law Professor Describes Poor Conditions Where Migrant Children Are Held[/url][quote]June 23, 20198:17 AM ET
Heard on Weekend Edition Sunday
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST:

Migrant children are being held in grim and dangerous conditions at detention facilities along the U.S.-Mexico border. That's according to lawyers who visited the facilities in recent days and spoke with children there. One of those lawyers is Warren Binford, a professor at Willamette University, who described for us what she saw.

WARREN BINFORD: Many of them are sleeping on concrete floors, including infants, toddlers, preschoolers. They are being given nothing but instant meals, Kool-Aid and cookies - many of them are sick. We are hearing that many of them are not sleeping. Almost all of them are incredibly sad and being traumatized. Many of them have not been given a shower for weeks. Many of them are not being allowed to brush their teeth except for maybe once every 10 days. They have no access to soap. It's incredibly unsanitary conditions, and we're very worried about the children's health.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: She visited the facility in Clint, Texas, and the family holding center at Santa Teresa in New Mexico. Her team has been doing inspections like this for over 20 years. And I asked her how this one compared.

BINFORD: This was, by far, the worst situation that I've seen not just by the conditions but by the sheer number of children who are being kept at this facility and being kept in really dangerous, unsanitary conditions. Literally, one of the children said that, currently, there are 100 children in his cell and that when he first arrived there, there were 300 children in the cell. I drove around the outside of the compound to try and find out what he was referring to. And it is a metal warehouse that was set up recently that Border Patrol said increased their maximum occupancy from 104 adults to 600. We know that they do have over 350 children there as of Monday when we arrived and that over a hundred of these children were young children. We saw no windows in the warehouse. And the children reported that they seldom get to go outside. One child reported that the highlight of their day is that when they come in to clean the cell, the children are able to go out in the hallway. And that's the highlight of their day.
<snip>
[/quote]

[url=https://www.npr.org/2019/06/24/735552011/migrant-children-moved-from-border-patrol-center-after-outcry]Migrant Children Moved From Border Patrol Center After Outcry[/url][quote]<snip>
It is not clear where the children formerly detained at the Clint facility have been transferred. Escobar said some of the children were temporarily sent to Border Patrol Station 1 on the north side of El Paso.

Vice President Pence told CNN on Sunday that the administration is asking Congress for funds to pay for more bed space for migrant families.

"Congress needs to provide additional support to deal with our crisis on our southern border," Pence said.[/quote]

I feel sick.