Jump to content
gestaltdude

Iran situation theory

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone.

 

I know it's been ages since I posted here, but I came up with a theory that may explain a few things regarding what's been happening with Iran in the last week and a half. To preface this, I've only had around 2.5 hours sleep after driving 36 out of the last 60 hours, so mesa kinda knackered (too much time to think :D) . Anyway, to the theory.

 

Simply put, everything was an elaborate hoax, planned by the upper echelons of the Iranian government and Trump, his top aides, and the US envoy to Tehran. The attack on the embassy was simply cover for one of the Ayatollah's people to get in and communicate with Trump without suspicion. This conversation is what directly led to the drone strike on the Iraqi airport, killing the Iranian general (won't even try to spell his name). Of course, this could never go unanswered by the Iranians, hence the toothless attack on the US bases that killed and fooled no one. Why?

The Iranian general so beloved by his people and important in the government, had become crazed with power and  decided he didn't need the Ayatollah and all these clerics running the country. Simply put, the imminent threat Trump keeps going on about had nothing to do with the Americans, but was in fact planning a military take over of Iran which, given his megalomania, would have led to the whole Middle East becoming a lot more unstable than it already is. By killing him the way he was, Trump got to look tough (though still a huge idiot), the Ayatollah rid himself of a huge political threat without alienating his army and people, and no one else was hurt apart from the few in the car with the general. I'm not sure how what happened to the Ukranian plane factors into things, though I suspect if it does, at least some of the general's co conspirators were on the plane, and the Iranians couldn't or wouldn't let them go. Another alternative is the Iranian agents responsible for coordinating everything with Trump et al was on the plane, and it was shot down to prevent this knowledge leaving the country.

 

So what do you think? Please let me know of any loop holes, other than the fact Trump seems to have alienated a lot of his supporters, and I wouldn't be surprised if the impeachment actually passes Congress as a result.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Iran made a mistake by firing on US bases, as all this bullshit is about the US and their Zionist controllers trying to maintain financial dominance and control through oil .Since this is all about money and always is ,the hip pocket is the obvious target.

All Iran had to do was to sink 3 or 4 empty oil tankers across the straights of Hormuz and load them with high explosives with proximity fuses,this would completely stop the export of crude from Iraq,Kuwait,Saudi Arabia Katar and the UAE until  the obstructions are cleared  but Iran would still be able transport oil, maybe this could be seen Iran's sanctions on the US and its cronies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rona Barrett: Is respect the most important thing in your opinion?

Donald Trump: Respect can lead to other things. When you get the respect of the other countries, then the other countries tend to do a little bit as you do, and you can create the right attitudes. The Iranian situation is a case in point. That they hold our hostages is just absolutely, and totally ridiculous.

That this country sits back and allows a country such as Iran to hold our hostages, to my way of thinking, is a horror, and I don’t think they’d do it with other countries. I honestly don’t think they’d do it with other countries.

Rona Barrett: Obviously you’re advocating that we should have gone in there with troops, et cetera, and brought our boys out like Vietnam.

Donald Trump: I absolutely feel that, yes. I don’t think there’s any question, and there is no question in my mind. I think right now we’d be an oil-rich nation, and I believe that we should have done it, and I’m very disappointed that we didn’t do it, and I don’t think anybody would have held us in abeyance. I don’t think anybody would have been angry with us, and we had every right to do it at the time. I think we’ve lost the opportunity.

Rona Barrett: Donald, would you have wanted to be one of those men to have gone to Iran, and then taken those fellows out?

Donald Trump: No, I wouldn’t have wanted to be, but I would have done it.

Rona Barrett: Would you?

Donald Trump: Absolutely. If I were the age, if I were in the military.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-stat/graphics/politics/trump-archive/docs/rona-barrett-1980-interview-of-donald-trump.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, theo102 said:

Rona Barrett

Mate I don't know whats got up your ass, I don't even know who Rona Barrett is, this is just an observation and if you don't like it I can't help that. But due to your reaction I may not be far off the mark.

Are you talking about physical hostages or financial hostages ,if it's financial hostages ,you have got the wrong end of the stick old son. I would ask how meany  wars has Iran started or countries that its invaded, answer NONE ,to bad we can't we cant say the same about the US

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, peter said:

Are you talking about physical hostages or financial hostages


Look at the date of the article. 1980.
lt gives it away...

"Fifty-two American diplomats and citizens were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981 in Iran."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, gestaltdude said:

Hi everyone.

 

I know it's been ages since I posted here, but I came up with a theory that may explain a few things regarding what's been happening with Iran in the last week and a half. To preface this, I've only had around 2.5 hours sleep after driving 36 out of the last 60 hours, so mesa kinda knackered (too much time to think :D) . Anyway, to the theory.

 

Simply put, everything was an elaborate hoax, planned by the upper echelons of the Iranian government and Trump, his top aides, and the US envoy to Tehran. The attack on the embassy was simply cover for one of the Ayatollah's people to get in and communicate with Trump without suspicion. This conversation is what directly led to the drone strike on the Iraqi airport, killing the Iranian general (won't even try to spell his name). Of course, this could never go unanswered by the Iranians, hence the toothless attack on the US bases that killed and fooled no one. Why?

The Iranian general so beloved by his people and important in the government, had become crazed with power and  decided he didn't need the Ayatollah and all these clerics running the country. Simply put, the imminent threat Trump keeps going on about had nothing to do with the Americans, but was in fact planning a military take over of Iran which, given his megalomania, would have led to the whole Middle East becoming a lot more unstable than it already is. By killing him the way he was, Trump got to look tough (though still a huge idiot), the Ayatollah rid himself of a huge political threat without alienating his army and people, and no one else was hurt apart from the few in the car with the general. I'm not sure how what happened to the Ukranian plane factors into things, though I suspect if it does, at least some of the general's co conspirators were on the plane, and the Iranians couldn't or wouldn't let them go. Another alternative is the Iranian agents responsible for coordinating everything with Trump et al was on the plane, and it was shot down to prevent this knowledge leaving the country.

 

So what do you think? Please let me know of any loop holes, other than the fact Trump seems to have alienated a lot of his supporters, and I wouldn't be surprised if the impeachment actually passes Congress as a result.


Possible.
Any articles that suggest conflict between Soleimani and the Ayatollah ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Basket Case said:


Look at the date of the article. 1980.
lt gives it away...

"Fifty-two American diplomats and citizens were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981 in Iran."

Yes I noticed the date, that's why I didn't bother to look at the link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Basket Case said:


Possible.
Any articles that suggest conflict between Soleimani and the Ayatollah ?

I wish I could say there was. Truthfully, I wouldn't even know where to look if there was. The scenario I described was simply the one that made the most sense out of the events over that period in time, at least to me. I'm not holding myself to this as a strict interpretation, ie I'm not suggesting this is the only reason this could have happened. I'm simply stating what to me makes the most sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2020 at 12:15 AM, gestaltdude said:

Simply put, everything was an elaborate hoax, planned by the upper echelons of the Iranian government and Trump, his top aides, and the US envoy to Tehran..

 

Yes good point, it's odd how the US knew exactly where and when Soleimani's car would be in order to hit it, unless somebody tipped them off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2020 at 6:45 PM, peter said:

Mate I don't know whats got up your ass, I don't even know who Rona Barrett is, this is just an observation and if you don't like it I can't help that. But due to your reaction I may not be far off the mark.

No idea what reaction you're talking about, my post was to show what Trump's attitude to Iran was.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2020 at 1:56 PM, Basket Case said:


Possible.
Any articles that suggest conflict between Soleimani and the Ayatollah ?

 

Ideologies versus money.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2020 at 6:58 AM, theo102 said:

No idea what reaction you're talking about, my post was to show what Trump's attitude to Iran was.

 

Sorry mate,  I  apologize

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2020 at 4:21 AM, peter said:

I think Iran made a mistake by firing on US bases, as all this bullshit is about the US and their Zionist controllers trying to maintain financial dominance and control through oil .Since this is all about money and always is ,the hip pocket is the obvious target.

All Iran had to do was to sink 3 or 4 empty oil tankers across the straights of Hormuz and load them with high explosives with proximity fuses,this would completely stop the export of crude from Iraq,Kuwait,Saudi Arabia Katar and the UAE until  the obstructions are cleared  but Iran would still be able transport oil, maybe this could be seen Iran's sanctions on the US and its cronies

 

Gods no - what you suggest would be used justify war on Iran and just about everyone would sign up - It would hurt pretty much everyone's economy - except the US which doesn't import oil from the idle East (or is almost there). The UN would vote military action through in a heartbeat.

 

Their response was - particularly from a middle East* stad point absolutely spot on.

They gave a direct robust military response to the aggressor - which is vital for their standing.

At the same time the manner of the attack enabled the US to move its troops out of harms way.

 

Perfect face saving all round - Iran has responded with strength - at the same time with no US casualties it isn't compelled to retaliate. Everyone wins everyone looks strong situation deescalates.

 

That was still achieved even in light of the subsequent oops moment

 

 

*I know Iran isn't strictly ME but certain ME cultural influences are either the same or its proximity means Iran has to work with them in mind

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Eldnah said:

 

Gods no - what you suggest would be used justify war on Iran and just about everyone would sign up - It would hurt pretty much everyone's economy - except the US which doesn't import oil from the idle East (or is almost there). The UN would vote military action through in a heartbeat.

 

Their response was - particularly from a middle East* stad point absolutely spot on.

They gave a direct robust military response to the aggressor - which is vital for their standing.

At the same time the manner of the attack enabled the US to move its troops out of harms way.

 

Perfect face saving all round - Iran has responded with strength - at the same time with no US casualties it isn't compelled to retaliate. Everyone wins everyone looks strong situation deescalates.

 

That was still achieved even in light of the subsequent oops moment

 

 

*I know Iran isn't strictly ME but certain ME cultural influences are either the same or its proximity means Iran has to work with them in mind

 

 

yes I know that it wouldn't be a good idea, I was just looking at it with regards to the oil producing countries and their position on a map. If I could think of it ,no doubt that this scenario as already been factored in with regards to military operations on both sides of the coin 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crude Oil Imports by Country

Below are the 15 countries that imported the highest dollar value worth of crude oil during 2018.

  1. China: US$239.2 billion (20.2% of total crude oil imports)
  2. United States: $163.1 billion (13.8%)
  3. India: $114.5 billion (9.7%)
  4. Japan: $80.6 billion (6.8%)
  5. South Korea: $80.4 billion (6.8%)
  6. Netherlands: $48.8 billion (4.1%)
  7. Germany: $45.1 billion (3.8%)
  8. Spain: $34.2 billion (2.9%)
  9. Italy: $32.6 billion (2.8%)
  10. France: $28.5 billion (2.4%)
  11. Thailand: $28.4 billion (2.4%)
  12. Singapore: $28 billion (2.4%)
  13. United Kingdom: $26 billion (2.2%)
  14. Taiwan: $23.4 billion (2%)
  15. Belgium: $19.5 billion (1.7%)

By value, the listed 15 countries purchased 83.9% of all crude oil imports in 2018.

The sole increase from 2014 to 2018 among the above top countries was the 4.8% gain for the People’s Republic of China.

Those countries that posted declines in their imported crude oil purchases were led by: Japan (down -38.3%), United States (down -35.6%), Germany (down -31.5%) then Belgium (down -28%).

 

Those declines are based on two aspects, a reduction in manufacturing or new supplies from within those countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Apprentice said:

Crude Oil Imports by Country

 

Below are the 15 countries that imported the highest dollar value worth of crude oil during 2018.

  1. China: US$239.2 billion (20.2% of total crude oil imports)
  2. United States: $163.1 billion (13.8%)
  3. India: $114.5 billion (9.7%)
  4. Japan: $80.6 billion (6.8%)
  5. South Korea: $80.4 billion (6.8%)
  6. Netherlands: $48.8 billion (4.1%)
  7. Germany: $45.1 billion (3.8%)
  8. Spain: $34.2 billion (2.9%)
  9. Italy: $32.6 billion (2.8%)
  10. France: $28.5 billion (2.4%)
  11. Thailand: $28.4 billion (2.4%)
  12. Singapore: $28 billion (2.4%)
  13. United Kingdom: $26 billion (2.2%)
  14. Taiwan: $23.4 billion (2%)
  15. Belgium: $19.5 billion (1.7%)

By value, the listed 15 countries purchased 83.9% of all crude oil imports in 2018.

The sole increase from 2014 to 2018 among the above top countries was the 4.8% gain for the People’s Republic of China.

Those countries that posted declines in their imported crude oil purchases were led by: Japan (down -38.3%), United States (down -35.6%), Germany (down -31.5%) then Belgium (down -28%).

 

Those declines are based on two aspects, a reduction in manufacturing or new supplies from within those countries.

 

Worth noting that the US figure is only abot 10% to 15% of its consumption - so I stand by my point that even if it imports solely from the middle east this isn't a massive hit - some rationing on private cars and they're good.

 

I must admit I hadn't realised they still  imported so much - gives you an indication of just how oil hungry the US is in comparison to Europe - if you consider the US import about the same amount as Europe yet 85% of their consumption is domestic produced and Europe is more like 85% imported.

 

Explains a war or two.

 

I had to doble check those figures because I thought it had confused petrol imports with crude imports

US exports diesel and imports petrol  UK currently exports petrol and imports diesel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×