Reuters Gives Alt-Right Analysis of Trump’s Iran Thing

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
May 10, 2018

Shockingly – I guess – a Reuters writer, Warren Strobel (pic related) has given the Alt-Right version of the Iran situation.

This is of course also the traditional Paleo-con version of things, which is currently being promoted by… pretty much just by Ann Coulter and Rand Paul, on that end. Old Pat is out there saying it, of course. But he’s now very old.

But we’ve been the loudest about it.

The Right Stuff’s Mike Enoch, a prominent Alt-Right commentator, actually got kicked off of Twitter for giving this analysis – by an antifa campaign, no less… antifa now officially considers opposition to Middle East wars as anti-Semitic.

Which is one of the funniest developments of the year thus far. And I mean – are they actually wrong? If their goal is to defend the racial interests of Jews, then they are obligated to push for a war in Syria. So I guess it is consistent.

But it’s funny to see such anti-Jewish – literal “gas the kikes”-tier – analysis coming across the wire.


Fifteen years after invading Iraq over weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda that both proved non-existent, the United States is again steering toward a possible confrontation with a Middle East power for suspected work on nuclear weapons and support for terrorism.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s Iran policy sounds hauntingly familiar to some current and former U.S. officials who witnessed the buildup to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, where sectarian and ethnic fractures and some 5,000 U.S. troops still remain.

More than 4,400 U.S. troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died in the conflict, which many analysts have called one of the major U.S. foreign policy debacles of modern times.

It was the single worst. Since WWII.

At least with Vietnam there was some kind of a thing going on, which even still make logical sense today.

I’m not going to say I back the Vietnam war, but communism was definitely spreading, had an open plan to take over the world, and it actually made logical sense to stop that from happening. It was a real and legitimate argument being made.

Even with the stuff in Latin America, there were at least facts and arguments being made.

Iraq was the first thing where it was just like “yeah, we’re going to invade these people based on this obviously fake shit we just totally made up.”

“There are disturbing and eerie similarities” in the misuse of intelligence then and now, said Paul Pillar, who was the top U.S. intelligence analyst for the Middle East from 2001 to 2005.

“The basic thing that is going on is a highly tendentious, cherry-picked, ‘we know what the conclusion is’” use of intelligence, Pillar said.


“Iran as terrorism funder” is as stupid as “Saddam as terrorism funder” – both have been opposed by the actual terrorists – what we typically consider terrorists, at least – which are Sunni radicals. They are funded by Saudi and the rest of the Sunnigger Gulf states.

Trump on Tuesday withdrew the United States from a six-nation agreement with Tehran that limits Iran’s nuclear work in return for relief from economic sanctions.

The president charged that the deal, negotiated under his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, did not address Iran’s ballistic missile program, its nuclear activities beyond 2025 or its role in conflicts in Yemen and Syria.

How about Saudi’s role in Yemen and Syria, Donald?

If we’re bombing people for “human rights,” then maybe that is something we should look into, huh?

Trump made no mention of assessments by the U.S. intelligence community and the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency, which has nuclear inspectors in Iran, that Tehran is complying with the 2015 deal.

Instead, he cited a cache of Iranian documents made public by Israel on April 30 that he said showed Iran’s leaders lied when they denied ever pursuing a nuclear weapons project.

While the documents’ authenticity has not been challenged by Western governments and intelligence experts, critics said they added little to previous assessments that concluded that Iran mothballed its effort to develop nuclear weapons in 2003. Iran called Israel’s allegations “childish and ridiculous.”

Yeah, authentic or not – whatever – it did not add any new information at all. We already knew that up until 2003, Iran did have a nuclear weapons program.

Beginning shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, President George W. Bush and top aides made the case for invading Iraq by citing intelligence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda and was secretly developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Both claims were proved false. Bush and his aides had exaggerated the available intelligence, relied on dubious claims from Iraqi exiles and ignored contradictory information. On some points, the CIA and its sister intelligence agencies were just wrong.

They didn’t just “exaggerate” intelligence – they outright faked it. The Yellowcake thing was fake. And the Downing Street Memo proved, conclusively, that the US was telling the UK “we’re faking the intelligence and going to war no matter what.”

And there has been a whole bunch of more proof come out since then.

But we have known since 2005 that they literally faked the intelligence on purpose to start a fake war, and it is completely insane that in 2018 Reuters feels the need to say “exaggerate.”

Even when they are making the case against a do-over in Iran.

U.S. officials, as well as analysts in Washington and the Middle East, cautioned that there were key differences between Bush’s Iraq policy and Trump’s approach to Iran.

While Trump’s move on Tuesday ratcheted up regional tensions and widened a rift with U.S. allies in Europe, no one is predicting an American invasion of Iran.


We’re predicting a massive US-Russia proxy war in the entire region which will eventually escalate to a ground war in Europe itself and/or nukes being dropped on major Western cities.

“The question is are we facing the same scenario that happened in Iraq with regards to the WMD, and will the region be dragged to war?” said Faysal Abdul Sater, a Lebanese analyst close to the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah.

Holy shit, Reuters taking straight comment from Abdul-Satir, without hostility.


“In my view, the situation is different, even if the degree of hostility has increased” between Gulf countries and Israel on one hand and Iran on the other, Sater said. “As for a direct attack on Iran, it is unlikely because it would lead by necessity to a comprehensive war that none of the parties could bear.”


None of the parties except me.

The IRL Negan. 

Of course, now for a comment from a Jew neocon whackjob. To balance things out.

Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank, said the war in Iraq resulted partly from a perception that economic sanctions on Saddam, imposed after his 1990 invasion of Kuwait, were rapidly losing effectiveness.

“I think the opposite is true now,” Dubowitz said, noting that Trump appeared to favor tougher economic pressure on Iran, not military action.

Well, Dubowitz, as I write this the Jews are bombing the shit out of Damascus.

That is not an economic action.

The idea that it will just stay in Syria is dumb, especially when Saudi is ready and willing to start bombing Tehran as soon as their kike masters say “go.”

Despite the different tools, two U.S. officials familiar with Iran policy said they believed Trump’s ultimate goal in Iran was similar to the Bush administration’s in Iraq: replacing an anti-American government with a friendly one.

Saddam was friendly with the US though.

And the new Iraqi government is Shiite and a total Iran proxy.

So these people are not just insane, they are a bunch of straight fuck-ups when it comes to doing this insane shit.

But if the Bush administration’s belief that grateful Iraqis would greet invading U.S. troops with flowers was fanciful, it is “at least equally naive” to believe that “democracy will take root in Iran” if the Islamic Republic collapses, one of the officials said.


This is a critical article – why lie?

The neocon plan was to break Iraq up into separate, warring states.

The same as their plan in all of these other countries.

Just Googled it – the Brookings Institute was pushing this for Iraq as recently as 2014. And Bibi was trying to get Obama to push it in Syria in 2015.

Neither Trump nor his hawkish new national security adviser, John Bolton, has publicly called in recent days for the overthrow of Iran’s theocracy.

“Recent days”?

Like, 10 days?

I’m sure you could find Bolton saying it in the last 15 days.

Two current and one former U.S. official said America’s intelligence agencies were not being pressured to provide evidence to support the White House’s policy but instead were being ignored.

Well, I guess that is better than the Bush policy of “fix the intelligence.”

Trump’s team is just telling them “hey, just stay out of the way, we’re just gonna wing this.”

But I think it’s more a statement on the perceived value of fake intelligence at this point – the perceived reliability of intelligence generally – and the fact that coming out with some intelligence hoax thing would just make the whole thing too much like Iraq. They’re trying to make it as different from Iraq as possible, while still trying to keep the same basic formula, because they don’t have any other formula.

Sort of like… a Marvel movie.