On Sunday, John Bolton, the U.S. President’s national security adviser, announced that the United States would send an aircraft carrier and bombers to the Persian Gulf in response to Iran’s “disturbing and escalating warnings” – a striking decision that raised fears of a possible military confrontation with Tehran. John Bolton does not explain why this deployment is taking place now, but intervenes against the backdrop of a deadly two-day escalation (Saturday and Sunday) between Israel, which has carried out air raids against the civilian population of Gaza, and Palestinian resistance groups, which have succeeded in firing, in retaliation, more than 600 missiles from the Gaza Strip towards Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.
Indeed, John Bolton and other hawks of the Trump administration are trying to suggest that “Tehran is planning attacks against American forces”. But they exaggerate the threat, officials tell the Daily Beast.
“Bolton’s statement is the clumsy expression of a tired technique of psychological warfare,” said Keyvan Khosravi, spokesman for the Iranian National Security Council, adding that the United States had neither the will nor the ability to lead an attack on Iran.
To justify the deployment of a naval air force in the Middle East, State Department officials anonymously cited information that “Iran has developed a plan to use its “proxies” to strike U.S. forces, both off the coast of Yemen and those stationed in Iraq. Apparently, there is a consensus that Iran is preparing for war, wrote an article in the Daily Beast.
However, multiple sources close to the case told the American newspaper that the US administration had exaggerated, calling the “threat” more important than it really was. The newspaper claims that “this information came mainly from Israeli sources” and that “it is the same information that served as the basis for Bolton’s incendiary tweet”. “It is not that the administration misinterprets the information, but that it overreacts and everyone knows who gets the maximum benefit from an Iranian-American military escalation in the region,” said a U.S. government official in barely veiled reference to the Israeli regime that just came out with its head down from a showdown with the Resistance.
Another source, also active within the US government, pointed out to the newspaper that the Trump administration’s response was an “overreaction” but did not rule out the risk of a conflict: “I would say that both sides would prepare to turn the situation around in anticipation of a possible conflict. And I would even say that Iran is perfectly capable of harming American forces through its “proxies”. Iran’s specific intentions may be debatable, but there is no doubt that it is capable of hitting American forces through alternative groups, as Force Quds demonstrated with deadly effectiveness during the war in Iraq,” adds this source.
The newspaper added: “There is no consensus in the US intelligence and military community on the relevance of the US administration’s decision to deploy a naval air force in the Persian Gulf. Indeed, the tension between the Trump administration and the IAM only increased after the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the 2015 nuclear agreement a year ago to the day. In recent weeks, the US government has further tightened sanctions against Iran, announcing that it will no longer grant exemptions to eight countries that buy Iranian crude oil and designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a “terrorist organization”.
Sources told the Daily Beast that Washington’s decision to blacklist the CGRI in April had intensified tensions between the two countries. In response, Iranian officials have designated US forces deployed in the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and Central Asia (CentCom) as terrorists.
The newspaper refers to Mike Pompeo’s unexpected visit to Iraq and his discussions with both the Iraqi president and prime minister. “Despite the official American discourse full of threats, there is some concern settling in the United States, which may not be unfounded. After all, Iraq is home to thousands of US soldiers and anti-American currents are widely present everywhere, whether in government, parliament or society. The Americans have no real interest in starting a war unless they want to advance their pro-Israeli Deal of the Century project. Let us say that Israel has just lost face in its recent conflict in which it suffered 700 missiles without being able to deal with them. A US war against Iran could well fix it. But is that enough? To impose the Deal of the century, it is necessary to convince the Palestinians, and this “Deal” goes so far as to deny their existence. So can a US war against Iran change the situation? ».