Brookings: ‘Horrific Provocation’ and ‘Tehran-Sponsored 9/11′ Needed to Trigger Iran Invasion

Brookings Institute: “‘Other countries also will want payoffs from the United States in return for their assistance on Iran. Such deals may be distasteful, but many will be unavoidable if the Persuasion approach is to have a reasonable chance of succeeding. … To be successful, a Persuasion approach would invariably require unpleasant compromises with third-party countries to secure their cooperation against Iran. …

any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context (…) The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer- one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal. …

it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion. And it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocation move (…), the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all. …

With provocation, the international diplomatic and domestic political requirements of an invasion would be mitigated, and the more outrageous the Iranian provocation (and the less that the United States is seen to be goading Iran), the more these challenges would be diminished. In the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation, meeting these requirements would be daunting.

Something on the order of an Iranian-backed 9/11, in which the plane wore Iranian markings and Tehran boasted about its sponsorship.(…). The entire question of “options” becomes irrelevant at that point: what American president could refrain from an invasion after the Iranians had just killed several thousand American civilians in an attack in the United States itself?’ “

http://www.infowars.com/brookings-horrific-provocation-and-tehran-sponsored-911-needed-to-trigger-iran-invasion/

So how in the world could they get Iran to admit something they didn’t do?  That’s easy.  The media claimed bin laden (or one of the bin ladens) boasted about doing 9/11, but not before the original bin laden publically disclaimed it (and down the memory hole it went).  The media could be told to print anything and they’d do it.  They’ve been doing it for years.  They’ll do it again.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.