Former CIA officer outlines false flag construct for Iran’s downing of Ukrainian jetliner while Pentagon retroactively revises Iraq embassy casualties.
The level of DSSG maneuvering in the metastasizing matter that is foreign policy and diplomacy with Iran, which takes the form of using an old fax line number and the nation of Switzerland as a back channel diplomatic conduit, is an entanglement of affairs getting more and more difficult to track. That is by design. That is how these constructs function.
More and more details continue to leak out after the fact and evidence suggests support for what was predicted – that the current state of affairs in the diplomatic relationship between Iran and President Trump’s administration is being constructed around him. The purpose of this construct is to undermine the effectiveness of his presidency and to cause him political harm on major campaign pillars as we stand upon the precipice of the 2020 US presidential election.
As an introduction to that evidence and to which we will give greater attention further down, even Trump’s Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, was kept in the dark on US casualties in the Iraq embassy attack until Thursday. That information was made public the following day. How can the Secretary of Defense be kept in the dark on such an issue if nefarious internal DOD actors are not in play? That’s a rhetorical question – they must be in play for a practical approach to understanding all of this. Let’s get to it.
For important contextual background, THIS 07 Jan 20 article outlines my suspicions that the ‘Seely letter,’ which was the alleged ‘throw away draft’ that would have been presented to the President as an option, was intentionally leaked to the MSM. Moreover, there were also legitimate concerns about the veracity of that letter. Importantly, this article also contains THIS (05 Jan 20), which is my prediction for Trump’s Iraq exit strategy, THIS (06 Jan 20), which is a direct confirmation of that exit strategy prediction, and THIS, which is an 07 Jan 20 ZH item making the precise same prediction I made but a day later. Importantly, ZH frames the article in the context of an ongoing propaganda war, which I also addressed in THIS on 02 Jan 20.
It didn’t take long to see the construct for what it was – a construct. That brings us to THIS (11 Jan 20) article outlining the precarious position – a set-up, if you will – that the DSSG/MIC has constructed around the President as it relates to his Iranian foreign policy positions. The result is the creation of portals or entry points for a DSSG/MIC false flag operation devised to exact influence on matters.
If unfamiliar with false flag operations, further understanding can be gleaned from the article. This article also contains links to THIS (06 Jan 20), which discussed Pelosi’s effort intercede on and perhaps seize the President’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and THIS (03 Jan 20), which outlines the DSSG/MIC effort to unconstitutionally entangle the Iran/Iraq construct with the 25th Amendment with a circular logic, chicken-egg basis. It’s idiot-level reasoning for low-information Americans who enjoy swilling the Kool-Aid. I digress.
THIS (31 Jan 19) article from over a year ago provides the backdrop for the DSSG angle on the 25th Amendment. Moreover and for further clarity on the backdrop, THIS (from the old site) dates back to 14 Apr 19 and outlines my initial suspicion that the US had deeper hegemonic aspirations for Iran.
As momentum built for the Iran/Iraq matter being an actual construct, the evidence continued to accumulate. THIS 12 Jan 20 article aligns Secretary Esper’s demarcated ‘red line,’ which is a critically important and very clear line representing the ENTIRE CRUX OF THIS CONSTRUCT, with the previous day’s false flag assessment. Esper’s comments are important enough to replicate here (emphasis mine),
On @CNNSotu & @FaceTheNation today, I reiterated the United States will not tolerate any further aggression from Iran & its proxy militias. We are poised and ready to respond to threats, but are seeking Iran to de-escalate and cease its malign, destabilizing behavior. pic.twitter.com/RhKeEy6btv— Secretary of Defense Dr. Mark T. Esper (@EsperDoD) January 12, 2020
Here are bones basics behind that statement – if there is no line to be crossed, there is no construct. The ‘red line’ delineates between opposing positions and creates the aforementioned portals for undermining, affecting, sabotaging or otherwise influencing events. It also provides the precise lever to the DSSG/MIC to manipulate the designed construct to its advantage.
Do you recall OBAMA’S SYRIA ‘red line’ as it relates to chemical weapons? It’s a good example of how a ‘red line’ works. In that case the President drew a line as it relates to President Assad using chemical weapons on his own people and it was CROSSED – what then? So, what did Obama do? He balked and despite what the linked Politico article claims, this was miserable failure for a weak and ineffective President.
That’s the power of the ‘red line.’ It can make or break presidents when they chose to demarcate them and therefore, they serve as the crux of the construct or, in other words, the lever to be pulled. So, as soon as Esper declared the ‘red line’ on 12 Jan 20, the Iran/Trump construct could be considered armed, ready and available to the DSSG/MIC.
Our chronology muddies the waters here just a bit but worry not; it can be sorted-out. We know that the Ukrainian jetliner was SHOT DOWN on 08 Jan 20; however, Esper’s statement isn’t until four days later on 12 Jan 20. Read Esper’s actual statement again, though. It’s critical to note that Esper is not establishing the Trump Administration’s ‘red line.’ Rather, he “reiterated the United States will not tolerate any further aggression from Iran & its proxy militias” (emphasis mine.) With the key word being ‘reiterated,’ it means that Esper took to the international stage to revisit a ‘red line’ that was already in place. It’s not by accident that he ascended to an international stage to make such a reminder. He’s essentially retrofitting the ‘red line’ back into the construct. Now, whether that ‘red line’ was retrofitted to benefit the Trump administration or the DSSG/MIC remains to be seen. No matter, Esper delivered that message for someone and for some specific reason.
Logically, there are plausible explanations on both sides for Esper; all rooted in national defense considerations: a) he’s framing forthcoming decisions and actions facing the Trump administration germane to Iran foreign policy and possible military intervention or b) he’s galvanizing the construct to accommodate a false flag event designed to drag Trump’s administration into another regional conflict thus contradicting major 2016 election and 2020 reelection campaign pillars.
With all of that established, it brings us to today’s revelation from former CIA counter-terrorism specialist, Philip Giraldi. Consider Giraldi claims in THIS ZH article,
“The shutdown of the transponder, which would have automatically signaled to the operator and Tor electronics that the plane was civilian, instead automatically indicated that it was hostile. The operator, having been particularly briefed on the possibility of incoming American cruise missiles, then fired.
“The same technology can, of course, be used to alter or even mask the transponder on a civilian airliner in such a fashion as to send false information about identity and location. The United States has the cyber and electronic warfare capability to both jam and alter signals relating to both airliner transponders and to the Iranian air defenses. Israel presumably has the same ability.
“One cannot believe that a passenger plane is struck near an international airport while flying in a [commercial] flight channel,” after previously saying that IRGC commanders were not the only ones involved in the plane downing, noting that “There were others, too.”
Philip Giraldi, former CIA Counter-Terrorism Specialist (sourced from Zero Hedge)
Let’s get back to that retrofitted and reiterated ‘red line’ demarcated by Esper and consider it in light of Giraldi’s comments. The important aspects to consider in order to draw a cogent conclusion are these: motive, means and opportunity. Did the DSSG/MIC have the motive, means and opportunity to leverage the President on Iran by causing Iran to down a Ukrainian jetliner? They sure as hell did – that’s how constructs work. That’s exactly what Giraldi is claiming.
Moreover, it was so unbelievable that a Ukrainian jetliner was actually targeted by Iran that I took time to weigh-in with some satire,
Soooooooo, now we have a UKRAINIAN jetliner crashing in IRAN just after take-off?
What will we learn next?
That Jeffrey Epstein had actually been extracted from prison and was hanging-out with Osama Bin Laden in Iran before they boarded that plane on their way to the Ukraine to open a stone company with Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis? That it was a stone company specializing in cutting only KEYSTONES and it was funded by the $150 billion that Obama gave the Mullahs?
– POLITICAL MOONSHINE, 08 Jan 20 (SOURCE)
Not that it needs mentioning again, but Ukraine is my best bet for the original KEYSTONE in the QAnon fabric (by the way, I’m confident I’ve learned Q’s true identity and I wrote THIS related article yesterday. The linked article also recapitulates the impeachment construct on the front end.) So, think about this convergence of facts and ask ourself if this is all just coincidental and by chance:
- Ukraine stands as the conduit for an international corruption scheme involving global energy markets and likely more
- Ukraine implicates a US presidential candidate and his son
- Ukraine implicates the Speaker of the House and her son
- Ukraine is the basis for the President’s forthcoming impeachment trial in the Senate
- Ukrainian arms dealers are linked to the House Judiciary Chairman (Adam Schiff, D-CA) to whom impeachment powers were transferred by the Speaker subsequent to the House changing it’s impeachment rules
- Whistleblower rules were changed to allow for hearsay impeachment evidence tying back to Ukraine
- Ukraine represents an open geopolitical war front in the ongoing coup d’etat against President Trump
- Ukraine overlaps Iran (Iran shot down the Ukrainian jetliner), which is another open geopolitical war front
- Iran was deliberately entangled in the argument to remove the President with the 25th Amendment
In the spirit of brevity, that’s an incomplete list but it’s sufficient enough to establish that the evidence suggests that the DSSG/MIC is heavily manipulating and maneuvering around the President in ways detrimental to his current administration and his reelection hopes in 2020. It won’t matter, though. President Trump win in a landslide.
Back to Esper and the Iraq embassy matter. In concerning fashion, Secretary Esper again went to the public but this time to revise the emerging DOD narrative around no casualties deriving from the embassy strike. Directly from THIS ZH article, consider,
“And over a week ago, days following the attack, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said there was only damage to property at Al-Asad air base, going so far as to underscore: “Most importantly, no casualties, no friendly casualties, whether they are US, coalition, contractor, etc.,” according to an official statement at the time.
“But after on Friday it was revealed that eleven US soldiers were injured in the attack — some of them significantly given they were flown out of Iraq to be treated for head injuries — belatedly confirmed by US officials, the Pentagon is now pretending there was never a discrepancy in its clearly shifting accounts. Eight were actually flown all the way to medical facilities in Germany for advanced treatment, with three flown to Kuwait.
“Asked about the apparent discrepancy, a Defense official told CNN, “That was the commander’s assessment at the time. Symptoms emerged days after the fact, and they were treated out of an abundance of caution.”
Comments from Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper – sourced from ZH
Again, that the Secretary of Defense was kept in the dark on casualty numbers is concerning. That he’s traipsing out on an international stage to retroactively revise those numbers is more concerning. It also fits nicely with the likely scenario that the Iran construct is exactly what I’ve outline extensively and thoroughly – that is a CONSTRUCT.
It’s a construct with a ‘red line’ in wait so as to leverage a sitting President into taking action antithetical to his own foreign policy and campaign positions; the latter being most important at the moment.
It’s all worthy of close scrutiny; not to mention it’s all so swampy.
Be First to Comment