On Sunday, 22 June we woke up to the surreal news that US President ordered an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, including Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan. While a few analysts said this was coming imminently (one of them was Lt. Col. Douglas Macgregor), I did not expect that this and said in a recent podcast interview that we might see an attack, but that it could be a fake one, orchestrated for a media blitz while inflicting minimal or no damage to Iran.

I'm not sure whether the attacks were real or fake, but it does appear that the "minimal or no damage" part is, in fact, the case. Former US Marine and UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter tweeted in the immediate aftermath of the attacks that the attack was, "

"An act of theater. Trump's big mouth had boxed him into a corner. Iran wouldn't play his game. So he had to bomb Iran to save face. He bombed two empty facilities that had been previously struck by Israel. And he bounced six bombs off an indestructible facility (Firdos), claiming destruction despite the opposite being the case. That's it. A "contained" strike. A nothing burger."

Later in the day, Ritter gave an interview on Judge Andrew Napolitano's podcast providing more details about what the attacks achieved. Ritter maintains that they had no impact on Iran's uranium enrichment facilities. While US strikes left a few holes in the ground and damaged one exit and one entrance (out of five or six) to Fordow nuclear program facility, they did not destroy the stockpiles of 60% enriched Uranium which can be weaponized in relatively short order.

Rather than disarming Iran, the attacks might tip Iran across the line to go from being nuclear threshold state to being a nuclear state. The full 32-min. interview is below:


An illegal nothing burger

But what's worse, it is likely that the attacks Trump ordered were illegal, both under International and American laws. In the interview's opening, Napolitano said that what the President of the United States did was,

"profoundly unconstitutional, absolutely unlawful, was un impeachable offence and was a war crime. Under our Constitution, only the Congress can declare war, not the President. And Congress can only declare war on a country that poses immediate and grave military threat to the United States of America. President Trump has started a war with Iran which poses no threat..."

Furthermore, Napolitano said that "Under ... the War Powers Resolution, the President is required to give notice to Congress and give Congress an opportunity to respond before he attacks a foreign country. ... He not only ignored the Constitution, he ignored that law."

Could this really be political theater?

I believe we'll know the answer to this question with time. How the Iranians respond will tell a part of the story: if they only direct a token, pre-announced attacks on US bases rather than an intense missile barrage against US interests in the region, this might suggest that the whole exchange of blows was about as genuine as a WWF wrestling match.

The reason I still believe this is plausible was the precedent of Trump's April 2017 missile attack on Syria. The event was a spectacular nothing burger: US forces launched some 50 missiles at Syria. They alerted Russian forces in the region one hour in advance and they shot down about half of them. The other half landed on empty lots across Syria, causing little, if any damage and only a handful of casualties.

Of course, we can't know whether Trump was guided in his attack on Iran with the same deceptive logic, but Alex Jones posted something interesting on X, suggesting this possibility, including a video where Trump told Fox News that he worked with Iran to stage an attack in 2020 to de-escalate war. Jones lays out the following argument, under the title, "BIG SHOW - BACK DOOR DEAL?"

QUOTE

Iran's nuclear facilities were evacuated and equipment moved out days in advance.

US publicly announced and made the upcoming strikes visible. We all saw the bombers moving in place and the news coverage predicting the strike.

The U.S. hence struck an empty Iranian nuclear facility, since the Iranians knew and evacuated it.

US satellites showed the evacuation of the facilities by the Iranians, hence the Americans knew the facility is are empty and not operational.

US and Iran held secret talks in Oman days before, no one knows what was agreed upon.

Trump essentially explained that such a deal was done previously. -> The attached video!

The only logical conclusion is that Iran and USA made a secret deal to end the war. - USA strikes empty facilities - Iran will retaliate but miss (like in the video explained) -> Just watch for the Iran response. Not the words, but the actual physical response.

If it's not too harsh on casualties, but looks big ... I'm right. PS: It's a geopolitical observation I made. I could be wrong. People need to understand that the governments are not telling us the truth most of the time and that not everything is as it seems. The authorities need consent, so they make shows for you. Don't get upset. Just note it as a possible scenario. I'm not here to repeat the MSM talking points of any country, here you got the nuanced middle position I feel is right.

UNQUOTE

The above reasoning from Alex Jones dovetails the possibility I also find plausible. We won't know this for some time, but with time, as the dust settles, things will be much clearer.

In the meantime, Iran is continuing to lob missiles and drones at Israel. On Sunday, they launched their 20th wave of attacks on Israel consisting of about 40 missiles which, by all accounts are inflicting very severe damage on Israel and rapidly depleting Israel's air defence systems and ammunition.

Will Iran close the Hormuz?

In short, it does appear so. Namely, Iran's parliament has voted to close the Strait of Hormuz and some reports indicate that the Iranians have already started turning vessels away from the straits where an estimated 20% of global oil supply passes.

The measure could trigger unpredictable spikes in the prices of oil and LNG gas, triggering a deep economic crisis for Western economies, but particularly for Europe. The United States is still one of the world's leading oil and gas producers, which can help cushion the economic pain from high oil prices. For Europe on the other hand, it will be only pain, no cushioning. It makes one wonder who the real target of Trump's attack is, but I'll leave things at that.

Perhaps there is no method to the madness; but again: we'll know more with time, but from this point on, things will be getting increasingly bumpy. Not only oil and gas, but commodity prices in general might soar along with interest rates and currencies, led probably by Japanese yen, the euro and the British pound will likely begin to crash.
Source link