“Already, the corporate-media and certified warmongers alike are pinning the recent bombings in Bangkok, Thailand on “bungling” Iranian terrorists.
“US policy consultant, Max Boot, a Neo-Con Project for a New American Century (PNAC) signatory and a member of various corporate-funded think-tanks that endlessly conjure up and promote wars to expand Wall Street and London’s global reach, immediately linked the incident in Bangkok with 2 failed bombings in India and Georgia in his recent article, “Self-Defeating, But Dangerous Terror Acts.” He concludes his baseless appraisal of the string of attacks by stating:
“On one level these events are comforting because they suggest that Iran and its proxies in Hezbollah are not as skillful as generally assumed. But on another level these events should be deeply discomfiting to anyone who subscribes to the notion that the Iranians are calculating Realpolitikers who act so cautiously they can even be trusted with the possession of nuclear weapons. Au contraire: The events of the last two days suggest the Iranian regime, assuming it is responsible for these attacks, is capable of acting in self-defeating, irrational but dangerous ways. In short, hardly the sort of people we should trust with a BB gun–much less nuclear weapons.”
“Boot manages to both bolster the untenable theory that Iran was behind these attacks, while using their reckless, bungling nature to illustrate just how necessary a war is in order to disarm Iran of its alleged nuclear ambitions – a war these attacks provide the perfect pretext for.
“Of course, Boot and the corporate-media never mention that Western policy makers for years have been conspiring to provoke Iran into a war it neither wants nor will benefit from in any conceivable way. This is best encapsulated in this often cited quote from US policy think-tank, Brookings Institution:
“…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) ”
-Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, pages 84-85.
“The same report would go on to say:
“In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. 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.”
-Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, page 52.