Ron Paul asks: Who’s Behind Today’s Terror Attack in Iran?

On today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:

Iran has suffered its largest terror attack in more than 40 years, as several explosive devices went off at a memorial ceremony for the late Gen. Soleimani. With tensions in the Middle East already at an extreme, who could have been behind the attack and who benefits? Also today: surprise surprise – the “extremism in the military” scare was completely bogus. Another Biden lie.

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

45 thoughts on “Ron Paul asks: Who’s Behind Today’s Terror Attack in Iran?”

  2. Mossad. Israel is trying to get Iran to take the bait so Israel can use one of its tactical nukes on Iran. Buckle up. Sh*t storm on the horizon…….

    1. If the attack had occurred at, say, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in DC, or the National Memorial Hall for Israel’s Fallen in Jerusalem, you’d have immediately started yelling “FALSE FLAG!”

      1. You’re a mod and that’s the best you can offer? IF you’re going to poke your nose in, at least engage with the comment.

        1. I don’t really consider myself a “victim” of your dumb fucking assumptions.

          I just try to not assume things, because even if I want them to be true they may well not be.

        1. I think none of us wants to think badly about someone else, yet, sometimes something is so glaringly, in your face, there is no place left to look?….

        2. Mossad’s involvement isn’t a stretch for me at all.

          But I don’t operate on the basis of “this conclusion agrees with my prior hypothesis, therefore this conclusion must be true.”

          1. Scientifically, a conclusion that agrees with a prior hypothesis is more likely to be true.

            What happens next is that one takes the hypothesis – in our case, “Mossadi’i agents carried out the attack” – and we work to a) find evidence to support the hypothesis, and b) find avenues to disprove our hypothesis.

            Means, motive, and opportunity – do ASI agents have this ? What do the physical facts tell us – what were the explosives, how were they planted and where, what patterns in demolition do we see that do or do not match known Mossad operations ?

            And then to other possibilities that would discredit the Mossad hypothesis : the MEK or PKK perhaps ? They are known to operate inside the IRI.

            A hypothesis graduates to working theory, then to full theory, when we consistently fail to disprove it – when every alternate explanation fails to unseat the working hypothesis as the most likely probably true statement.

          2. “A hypothesis graduates to working theory, then to full theory, when we consistently fail to disprove it”

            And in order to be able to attempt to disprove it, it has to be testable. Which, for most people’s access to information, this hypothesis isn’t.

            I have no problem with those who find a highly provisional hypothesis of the sort persuasive. Finding a highly provisions hypothesis persuasive is neither evidence nor science.

          3. I think we’re into the realm of forensic science in this case – at which point “testability” and “persuasive” take on a different context.

            My best friend is (retired) police & on with a city police force now – he, as other cops, will tell you that in the case of a crime with a limited pool of suspects, the most likely one is where you start. Doesn’t mean you’re correct, it’s just the logical procedural place to start. Husband dead ? Look at the wife first, because history shows her the most likely culprit. Not THE culprit; the most likely.

            S**t going down between the ASI, Hamas, Houthis, and possibly Hezbollah, and something happens to the IRI. Of the list of candidate actors, the ASI & Mossad are the sensible first suspects. Start there, then work down the list.

            Absent, of course, credible credit taken by MEK or PKK or fragments of Al-Q or Daeshi’i. They’re suspects too.

      4. It proves that ISIS either works for Israel and for the neocons or it doesnt exist .

      5. Such a suggestion has a measure of justification.

        The USA has a history of casus-belli incidents with more than circumstantial evidence implicating a false-flag attack. The ASI frequently responds disproportionately heavily to attacks against it, demonstrating that their metric for warfare measures mild “acceptable” losses to allow for severe “intended” damage against enemy parties.

        “False Flag” is not an appropriate claim to be made for the Tomb Attack, nor do I think ‘1730 is making one.

        The Mossadi’i are an ASI agency, not IRI – their involvement would be an external provocative act, not an internal casus-belli/false-flag attack.

        To my earlier point of the USA and ASI, the IRI does not have the aggressive, war-waging history of either (the Persians, what, north of 130+ years since starting a war ?) nor does STARTING a war against the ASI make any strategic, tactical, or political sense.

        Tehran knows it wins by not being an open aggressor and ‘firing the first shot’. “Soft strength” by supporting neo-Baghdad & post-occupation Iraq, Syria, the Hezbollese, and distantly the Houthinese (I think that relationship has far longer arms-length than is admitted by the MSM). Tehran knows the ASI and USA are itching to have a reason to attack the IRI, and stay on their side of that line.

  3. Easy answer and here is General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years

    “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

    https://youtu.be/FNt7s_Wed_4

  4. Very likely it was Israel and the US working together on the attack.

    I’ve been saying since 2006 that Israel wants Iran gone, but needs the US to do it. Israel can’t atart it directly itself because Hezbollah will blow up Israel. So Israel needs a US administration to do it and both Israel and the US administration need an excuse.

    So Israel was stuck until the Biden administration and the extreme neocons around Biden. Then Israel finally got the extreme war cabinet in Israel that would do what Israel wanted since 1947 – get rid of the Palestinians. So the neocons gave them the green light to do that.

    But that is going badly for Israel. Plus the Ukraine project is going badly for the neocons. So both need a public distraction.

    Widening the war gives Israel and the neocons want they’re always wanted – a way to get rid of Hezbollh, Syria, Iran, the Houthis and everyone else in the way of US and Israel hegemony in the Middle East.

    Unfortunately for them, the US and Israel can’t militarily succeed at that.

    Unfortunately for everyone else, that won’t stop the US and Israel from trying.

    The end result will be the US militarily defeated in the Middle East – albeit not without having caused enormous destruction in most of the countries there – and Israel being economically and militarily destroyed.

    What happens beyond that is anyone’s guess. Israel using nuclear weapons is a high probability unless Russia intervenes, which I believe Russia will do if it sees Israel preparing to use nukes on Syria and/or Iran, Russia’s allies. Russia has the capability to destroy Israel’s ballistic missile capability, if not Israel’s submarine launch capability. And if Russia tells Israel not to launch, Israel will probably stand down – or someone in Israel will force them to, if not the US.

    1. It has not happened yet, but if Hezbollah fires off some of its 150,000 rockets at Tel Aviv, some hitting the Bleach or Chlorine plants……………..

      1. I just read something somewhere about Hezbollah being able to hit major Israeli petroleum refining plants which would have the potential of both damaging the economy and cutting off necessary military fuel supplies. Hezbollah just hit the city involved but not the plants, which seems to have intentionally sent a message.

        1. Richard:

          You should really write an article for us. Your in-depth dialogue would be wonderful for all of us to utilize.

          2. “Like Knapp would allow that!”

            I have precisely zero control over, or even input into, what articles Antiwar.com runs.

            I’m pretty sure I’ve recommended one or two of your Substack pieces for linking, though (I don’t make the linking decision, but I am part of the pool of people who regularly suggest articles to link to elsewhere).

          6. There’s nothing about his claim, or TLK’s persona, to suggest deceit. That he suggested your work to antiwar’s editor(s) is an unremarkable (and quite complimentary) statement.

            To have accepted the claim at face value, and maybe shown appreciation for the sentiment, might have been a decent gesture on your part ?

            MY comments on these boards only get published ’cause I think the Disqus Corporation gets a tax break for my presence under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1975. Ironic because I’m only American for tax purposes using my Guaminese dual-citizenship which, itself, I have for Canadian tax purposes.

    1. If we were seeking a wider war with Iran, we would just bomb them. This is Israel. Biden needs another war before the next election like he needs a head ache.

      1. Not necessarily… Ahem….
        Remember the old expression: By deception, they will do war.

        1. I personally do not believe the Biden Administration wants a war with Iran, or even really this Gaza mess, Trump on the other hand, would have been completely in line with an Iranian war with Israel. He was both deeply indebted to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Biden’s war is Ukraine that’s the war he wanted and was a party to starting. But, that’s made us weaker, and now more likely other people will start wars and take advantage of our attention and resources being depleted fighting a war in Europe via proxy. Which even a novice like me could see coming from a hundred miles away.

  6. WE ARE THE PROBLEM: Israel and US!…
    WTF?!

    I am sitting here, smacking my head!

  7. Pingback: Ron Paul chiede: Chi c’è dietro l’attacco terroristico di oggi in Iran? - Notizie Dal Web

  8. Isreal, obvious, to everyone but the United States. Besides, us stating that it didn’t look like Israel sealed it. They are itching to get us into a war with Iran.

    1. Cui bono is always a good place to look. It is not, however, evidence, and there’s often more than one party standing to benefit from any particular event.

      The Israeli regime believes it stands to benefit if it can push the US into open war with Iran.

      The Iranian regime believes it stands to benefit if it can blame Israel and/or the US for attacks on it.

      MEK believes it stands to benefit if it kills Iranians who support the current regime (and who were presumably most of the crowd at the Soleimani event).

      The Islamic State believes it stands to benefit if it kills Shia Muslims.

      My guess, and it’s only a guess in the absence of actual evidence, is that it was MEK or some other US/Israeli proxy. Which is not precisely the same thing as saying that it was acting AS such a proxy with the attack. Those proxies also have their own interests, such as heightening US/Israel-Iran conflict in general.

      1. Fair point, I wasn’t alluding that actual Isreali soldiers did this, but rather either the Mossad or some affiliate they employ. I just hope Biden keeps the channels open for a diplomatic solution with some type of assurnances that we didn’t support this.

        1. And it may well have been Israel behind it.

          Or not.

          There are a number of players in the region, none of whom hie to any ethical constraints which might conflict with their objectives.

          1. I don’t know who did it, we can agree on this point. It’s all speculation. Honestly, it may not matter much who did it, the end effect will be the same. Just like 911.

          2. “Honestly, it may not matter much who did it…”

            Indeed, Jackquiline. You could have CNN, MSNBC, FOX, all of MSM simultaneously report that 9/11 was an inside job and almost all conspiracy theories on the top WERE correct, and Americans would shrug and wonder if the Patriots can pull an AFL-CIO Wild Card spot for a longshot at a Super Bowl appearance.

            Sometimes people are content to believe what they want to believe instead of what is actually true.

Comments are closed.

viewpoint highlights
breaking news
© 2024 Antiwar.com. All rights reserved.
Antiwar.com Blog Stock Photos provided by our partner Depositphotos