Iran Situation Deteriorating Fast; Talk from Rhouhani of "war" - Diplomats Evacuated

Iran Situation Deteriorating Fast; Talk from Rhouhani of "war" - Diplomats Evacuated

The situation with Iran is spiraling downward fast and talk of war has now been spoken by Iranian Leader, Rhouhani, who is quoted as telling the United States "War is what you get when you listen to the mustache" meaning National Security Adviser John Bolton.

The US State Department has ordered the immediate evacuation of Diplomats and non-essential persons from our Embassy in Baghdad and our Consulate in Irbil, and the militaries from the US, UK, Netherlands, Germany and other nations have suspended training activities in Iraq because short range ballistic missiles have been moved by Iran into firing positions which can hit those troops.

Iran's foreign Minister also said today "Iran will defeat the American-Zionist front."   

At the Pentagon just minutes ago, the military revealed forensic analysis of the explosives placed on the hulls of oil tankers in the United Arab Emirates over this past weekend.  The Pentagon said the explosives - which detonated and left gaping holes in the ship hulls - "were placed on the ships by combat divers from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)."

Earlier this year, the United States declared the IRGC to be a "terrorist organization."  This was the first time an element of a sovereign nation was declared to be such a thing. 

That declaration carries gigantic implications because under existing US law, enacted after the attacks of 9-11, a President is NOT required to seek Congressional Approval for military action against terrorist organizations.  Put simply, we can go to war against Iran without a Congressional declaration of war.

The US Military increased its threat protection for all US forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, telling troops:

"All US service members in Iraq must exercise extreme caution in the coming days. 

Bad actors are our targeting bases for suicide bomb attacks and looking to blame other countries for it."

United States Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) said today that he and other Senators (both Democrats and Republicans) from the Foreign Relations Committee want an immediate briefing from the Trump Administration regarding Iran.   The demand was made after the US State Department, citing "imminent and credible threats" ordered: ALL NON EMERGENCY STAFF FROM EMBASSIES, CONSULATES AND DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS AND LOCATIONS MUST LEAVE THE COUNTRY (IRAQ) IMMEDIATELY."

The Trump Administration AGREED and accelerated a Senate briefing scheduled for next week, to be given to Senators tomorrow - Thursday.


"We are going into crisis mode," a Whitehall source said, describing it, for now, as "pretty light touch."

Crisis mode is a formal status at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in response to events. There is a crisis center within the department, with screens, computers and secure telephone lines to enable staff to keep in contact contacts with missions and diplomats in the region affected.

Early this morning eastern US time, the Netherlands suspended its missions in Iraq for security reasons.  Next came Germany, which ordered its troops to suspend all training activities in Iraq due to "imminent threat of attack" in Iraq.

Seasoned observers point out that "Embassies being closed and suspension of training activities , etc, usually mean that the US is about to bomb something.

And isn't it unusual that several countries are pulling people out ?"

US intelligence has proof that at least 10 mid-range missiles have been imported by Iranian Al-Quds forces into Iraq. These missile have the capacity to hit Tel Aviv.


 UPDATE 5:06 PM EDT --

IRGC Commander says "we are on the verge of a full-scale confrontation with the enemy.The Islamic Republic is at the most decisive moment of its history."  Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp commander, Maj. General Hossein Salami, says: "Because the enemy has stepped into the field of confrontation with us with all possible capacity, this is the most decisive moment of the Islamic revolution."



So it looks like that Iraq will be where the first attacks come from.

Iran will measure the counter attack and analyze the response.

The US might just preemptively hit the targets they know of with missiles.

Based on the size of the US response or the level of the preemptive strikes is how Iran and proxies will go forward.

I am guessing the reason for everyone getting out of Iraq ASAP is due to the above. Timing is critical as one of the other looks like it is about to happen.

Would be interesting to see if the US would invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter if Iran and/or its proxies go first.

That's why I think Iran will try and wait to see if they can goad the US to hit first.

In any case, the legacy mass-media in the US and in Europe does not seem to be telling the general public about any of this.   If things go hot . . .  and it is looking like they will within a day or two . . . the general public will be blind-sided by the outbreak of what could turn into a major war.

I hope this "heads-up" by the Hal Turner Radio Show web site, is something that proves its informational value to YOU, and that in return, you feel it worthy of your financial support by clicking the DONATE button in the right column above.



You must login to post a comment.
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Ronald Cordova · 10 months ago
    I don't think for one minute that Iran sabotaged the oil tankers. Always ask who has the most to gain by doing that? Certainty not Iran. As far as war with Iran, I think it is just bluster. The US can fire missiles and has air power but "invading" is out of the question. The US doesn't have enough troops for full scale war with Iran. And I think the only major country left to form a coalition is UK. US cannot invade by water and cannot come in by land ( Iraq). And Trump is not going to get into a war knowing that he will probably lose the election in 2020 by doing so. Both Bolton & Pompeo need to be fired.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Michele Schauer · 10 months ago
    In other words...If the war comes here, not just there...if we are in a state of economic crisis, if the grid goes down....we qualify for national crisis ...UN takes over, FEMA takes over....why do you think they are building all those FEMA camps?
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Michele Schauer · 10 months ago
    Sorry for a dose of reality but wasn't the UN formed for the purpose of a world government?
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Michele Schauer · 10 months ago
    I remember now...COG, Continuity of Government.....UN takes over
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Michele Schauer · 10 months ago
    For Decades Alex Jones ( sorry to bring him up for those who do not like him) has been talking about the power the UN has , FEMA has in a state of national emergency and that elections could be suspended all together and the UN could be in charge. There is a name for this...I forget. But we are signed up.......
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Eric Bishop · 10 months ago
    It's really sad that we have a full blown emergency on our southern borders and the powers to be are getting ready for another needless war in the Middle East! We need to take care of our own people and problems before we even consider another war! Lets send those troops to our border to help stop the influx of illegal immigrants coming over! Unless they're just moving assets around as a show of force to keep our bases from being attacked but I can't imagine Iran would risk a full blown attack against them by the US and its allies right now. I don't see what they would gain by doing so. I also think it would be a huge political blunder for Trump to move forward with an attack on Iran. I don't think most Americans want to get involved in another war!
  • This commment is unpublished.
    shaun bourke · 10 months ago
    Last week Hal commented on his radio show about a possible Iranian terror attack in Minn. If indeed this took place it will be a FF, and if it included Iranian people these Iranians will be part of the MEK terrorist network. The MEK was recently delisted by Washington as a terrorist organization...... fancy that.

    Long time severe critic of the leadership in Terhan puts the MEK terrorists as a primary motive for the strong cohesion of the Iranian people to Tehran"s leadership in recent decades...........

    A surprisingly excellent rundown on the MEK's history can be found at the Wiki.........'s_Mujahedin_of_Iran

    Of specific interest right now is MEK's current situation...........'s_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Settlement_in_Albania_%282016%E2%80%93present%29

    Going forward, the MEK's purpose in the states now is to provide physical actions to support the propaganda demanding military attacks on the sovereign country of Iran.

    The mossad will be the most likely actor in the ME to provide the necessary FFs to promote attacks on the sovereign country of Iran.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Paul Lambert · 10 months ago
    As to how Iran's proxies might react. I am not sure they would do anything, but whisper a silent "thank you" to the United States if the US successfully castrated Iran and its ability to wage war, even if outwardly they scream and howl in protest and start rattling sabres in their typical Arab fashion. It would all be for show.

    Iran is the big bully in the neighbourhood and is hated by nearby countries. Iran's greatest source of moral support seems to be the Hal Turner Show discussion threads.
    • This commment is unpublished.
      😎Swenson · 10 months ago
      Where have you people been to be so stupid? If you have not worked with them, been in country for a while with them, or really know how they think and live their religion, don't be ignorant.
      • This commment is unpublished.
        Paul Lambert · 10 months ago
        C'mon, don't make it personal.

        That was a very Swedish attitude anyway, and frankly you don't know where we have all been, what we know or what we don't know.

        If you are actually interested, what I know about Iran, their interpretation of Islam and their disposition on many aspect of life comes from the Iranians themselves via their radio broadcasts. I have actually written to them to send reception reports and they responded with plenty of material, and to their credit, they were exceptionally polite and professional in their communication with me. I just do not share their life philosophy in most respects and find it to be largely rotten and immoral.

        Of course, that is only a government source that is highly restricted in what they can say. However, I am being asked to believe that the government enjoys widespread support, and that reflects on the people too. I don't need to go to that country before making any judgements at all.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Paul Lambert · 10 months ago
    Actually, those of you will shortwave radios should tune to Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or if you live in the United States, the Iranians broadcast "Voice of Justice" to your neck of the woods, which is much more hard-hitting and profuse in polemics.

    9750  VO ISLAMIC REP.IRAN 19:20 20:20 1234567 English
    9800  VO ISLAMIC REP.IRAN 15:20 16:19 1234567 English
    9855  VO ISLAMIC REP.IRAN 19:20 20:20 1234567 English

    They might be carried on the internet as well.

    I will leave it to those interested to listen and evaluate. Don't just trust American media and authorities - I agree. Get it exactly from the horse's mouth, and hear how official Iran, through its monopoly broadcaster, presents its view on society, civics, human rights and generally how they believe people should live and their attitude toward other countries, both good and bad.

    Hearing only what the Iranians want you to hear, you should then decide if this is the right horse to back.
    • This commment is unpublished.
      Copperhead · 10 months ago
      "...through its monopoly broadcaster" - sort of like the BBC?
      • This commment is unpublished.
        Paul Lambert · 10 months ago
        Yes, sort of, in as much as we are talking about being a state-funded national broadcaster. However, in Iran it is worst in that it is a monopoly, i.e., all competition in the field of broadcasting is legally forbidden.

        At least in Britain, private competing broadcasting is allowed on TV and radio, where you have things like Channel 4 or ITV etc., and there is plenty of private radio -even talk radio. Not in Iran.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    selah · 10 months ago
    the zionist settler state will be wiped out by iran if the usa or it's allies strike. i'm guessing this is all a bunch of smoke.
  • This commment is unpublished.
    Robin Robbins · 10 months ago
    Persoally I have no trust in what our
    Government says. Why would Iran
    want to start a war it can't win? Makes no sense. Probably a false
    • This commment is unpublished.
      Normand Berube · 10 months ago
      Yes.... for a false flag.
    • This commment is unpublished.
      Paul Lambert · 10 months ago
      Robin: What set out circumstances, hypothetically speaking, of course, would have to occur for you to be inclined to believe that Iran is the aggressor?
      • This commment is unpublished.
        Peter Milne · 10 months ago
        I do not think I have missed anything - but it appears to me you have talked around in circles and not given one fact to why Iran is the Aggressor (I read all threads after this one too)
        • This commment is unpublished.
          Paul Lambert · 10 months ago
          Peter: So far, I have not endeavoured to do so. My interest has not been in this new conflict per se, but in finding out what motivates so many on this forum a priori to side with a country like Iran. Is it enough that Iran is an enemy of Israel? Does Jew-hatred run so deep? For some of us here, there will be other motivations. Not wanting the US to get into another war is another motivation, one that I find defensible.

          I am not trying to convert or convince anyone. Sure, I know I am in hostile waters on this forum, but I am here to get other's take on such issues exactly because I know the people on the Hal Turner forum will be blunt and not beat around the bush. I *want* people to find holes in my understanding and correct me if they can. The only downside is that there are too many hobby horses on this forum, especially when it comes to the it-must-be-the-Jews routine whenever something bad happens. That gets nowhere. A lack of focus is another. There is plenty of pivoting without addressing explicit questions and comments.

          Now, what I will say to the point about Iran with regard to my question to Robin: In order to ascertain whether Iran is the aggressor in its conflict with the United States, I would ask myself a few questions:

          Has Iran threatened to attack the United States or US interests militarily?
          Is Iran actively involved in sponsoring terrorism?
          Is Iran deliberately fomenting violent sentiment against the US domestically and abroad?
          Is or was Iran supporting violent insurgency against US forces in other countries?
          Has Iran engaged in cyber-attacks against the US?
          Does Iran have sleeper cells positioned in the United States poised to commit acts of violence against civilian populations?

          (I realise now that I have just invited some non-focused responses with contrasting questions about US activities against Iran, enter Mossadegh stage left. It would be to miss the point, but somebody wants to go there, I'm sure.)

          If the answers are yes, then I might be inclined to think that Iran is at fault here. If the answer is no, then I would revisit the matter. If the answer is: it just looks like that because those are all false flags too and the Mossad is up to it - well, then we have the current state of discussion. The reason why that last point seems to be the animus is what I am most interested in finding out.
      • This commment is unpublished.
        CHAD BRUNDY · 10 months ago
        Paul Lambert @Paul
        How many more sets of facts not circumstance would it take for you to see reality. Bolton has been openly telling Americans for years that War is coming with Iran. PNAC 20 years ago, General Wesley Clark, Bolton himself told you last year that He personally would be celebrating in Tehran 2019! This is all coming from the very horses mouth unedited, unabridged. You seriously don't think the Neocon Satanist running all foreign governments wouldn't set up false flags to start WW3? Kennedy ring a bell? Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11, the list is endless. This whole left right paradigm is a charade. These corrupt politicians have sold all of humanity out to Satan already. You have a front row seat with a VIP ticket and you don't even know what show you are watching, it's sad. It breaks my heart to watch Good minded Patriotic Americans be so fooled continuously by these Luciferians! I guess the masses will continue to believe until they cease to exist after bombs start being exchanged worldwide. Don't believe in Man, BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST. Don't you understand man isn't even in charge of this mess, they are simply being used by Satan himself to utterly massacre all of humanity one way or another. These words will continue to fall on deaf ears and these vicious lies will continue to be believed. I pray for everyone who doesn't get it, and even more for those who do!!!
        • This commment is unpublished.
          Paul Lambert · 10 months ago
          Well Chad, I'm not American so your heart can rest easy. As well, I do believe in Jesus so if the Luciferians are successfully deceiving me and bringing turmoil to my life on earth, at least my soul will be safe in the fullness of time.

          I see now, given that the tone on this site tends to be so inflammatory, that my question to Robin might have been taken the wrong way. It was not rhetorical. I was sincerely interested, given all his preconceived notions, what he would find compelling or what could be falsifiable. Nothing more. Sort of like if you asked me "Paul, what would make you believe in space aliens". I'd say "If a little green man tapped me on the shoulder and took me aboard his saucer, I would be inclined to believe in them". Robin can choose to respond or not as he likes.

          And don't presume all my positions either. I am very open to the idea that false flags have and will again be used to bring about wars or other dreadful things. I am just not convinced that is happening in this very case.

          It is not all the theorising and suspicions either that bother me in these discussions. After all, we are just a bunch of fellows throwing around ideas and not afraid to speak our minds. More power to us all! My bone of contention is this apparent idea that Iran is the good guy. One could argue, and I might even agree, that it would be wrong for the United States to go to war with Iran and that the likes of Bolton who are apparently kicking up the crap are absolutely doing the wrong thing. That does not suddenly make Iran a decent country with a good government that respects individual rights and freedoms (granted I don't think anyone here has put it quite that way). It does not mean I have to approve of Iran in general or take its side in this conflict, and if the rulers in Iran actually enjoy the support of most of the population, it only tells us what kind of people Iranians are. So if we take the view that the US is the evil aggressor, then we have a case of slime vs slime. The worst kinds of violence occurs between two evil parties. Gang violence is typically between the Crips and the Bloods, not the Crips and the Boy Scouts, or Bloods and the 4-H Club.
      • This commment is unpublished.
        shaun bourke · 10 months ago
        @ Paul Lambert,

        Facts that support your thesis that Iran is an aggressor would be a good start.
        • This commment is unpublished.
          Paul Lambert · 10 months ago
          Alright, that would be a clear one for you and certainly a fair one. After all, if I were to claim that gravity pulled downward, I should be expected to demonstrate that gravity pulls downward.

          However, given the overall context of the many preconditions and postulates that Robin puts forward in his short comment, it is difficult to know what would be sufficient, in his case.

          He personally doesn't trust what his country's government says, so it stands to reason that if his government puts forth such facts, Robin would not believe they are true and simply conclude his government is lying - no matter what they say. And of course there is always the gravity well effect on this forum, namely, one simply counters every example by claiming it is a false flag, Jewish treachery or a response to someone else's earlier wrongdoing (the Mossadegh meme)

          He asks rhetorically why Iran would start a war it cannot win. The question assumes many things that might not be true. We don't know that Iran knows or believes it cannot win. We don't know that winning is their goal. And as for not making any sense, all sorts of governments do things that do not make sense. Does a false flag operation in this case make much sense either? (Well, yes, I suppose if we end up back down the it's-the-Jews'-fault gravity well, then we have an answer for everything).

          So when basing a conclusion that this a false flag on the top of a mountain of preconceived notions, it is hard to see how any other conclusion is possible. Hence my serious and respectful question as to what would have to happen to make Robin think that Iran could be at fault, or for him to reach any other conclusion.

          It will be up to him to decide whether or not he wants to elaborate.