In the aftermath of the leaked Seely letter and respective to the Iran/Iraq embassy construct and the developing story of National Security Council senior director for European and Russian affairs, Andrew Peek, being placed on leave, does Sundance's work identify said leaker? It's not explicitly stated but it's plausible.
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.
Yesterday, I wrote a piece suggesting that the President would have to give due diligence to filtering further Iranian aggression by examining such instances through the lens of the 'false flag.' Today, we have the DOD and Secretary Esper demarcating a clear line for Iran by stating that the US would not tolerate ANY further aggression from Iran or its proxy forces. I wrote about the dynamics of such a scenario in yesterday's piece.
This is by no means a deep dig on the foreign policy and military scenarios facing the President with Iran, Iraq and the Middle East in general. In fact, I've been holding off on writing something like this despite my immediate reaction and speculation. Rather, this is an acknowledgement of the actual forces and opportunities this construct creates for others (DSSG/MIC/President's enemies) to either manipulate the administration towards ulterior objectives and/or to goad the President into taking action for the same express purpose - achieving ulterior objectives that are assuredly unknown to him.
We'll just play this card immediately - the DOD's claimed inadvertent publication of the Seely letter was not "an honest mistake." Also, the word "suspected" is being removed from further discussion.
Yesterday, I outlined a painstakingly thorough but incomplete body of evidence suggesting that the President may have been in the middle of a calculated Iraq exit strategy that would allow him to keep the DSSG/MIC in check by honoring the sovereignty of Iraq on the world's stage. Moreover, he'd be doing that while again making good on another campaign promise.
Is it possible that President Trump was able to prognosticate his way through the unending Middle Eastern complexity and intricacy to goad the Iraqis into expelling US personnel from the country? Was he able to make good on his campaign promise with what appears to be an insane level of political acumen, savvy and strategy?
TWICE UPDATED WITH HUGE CONFIRMATIONS: Moves and countermoves! In a way, you could argue that the Trump Administration’s assassination of Iran’s most senior military official is old news. At the least, it was foreshadowed. Here’s how.