cta-image

Donate

Donations from readers like you allow us to do what we do. Please help us continue our work with a monthly or one-time donation.

Donate Today
cta-image

Subscribe Today

Subscribe to receive daily or weekly MEMRI emails on the topics that most interest you.
Subscribe
cta-image

Request a Clip

Media, government, and academia can request a MEMRI clip or other MEMRI research, or ask to consult with or interview a MEMRI expert.
Request Clip
Jun 17, 2019
Share Video:

Russian TV Anchor Dmitry Kiselev: Oman Tanker Attacks are Part of a Predictable American Playbook

#7315 | 05:02
Source: Russia 1

In his commentary for Vesti Nedeli on Rossiya-1 TV (Russia), pro-Kremlin presenter Dmitry Kiselev claimed that the attacks on the two tankers in the Gulf of Oman are part of a predictable American playbook. According to Kiselev, the Americans first make false accusations, and they then use these actions as a pretext for military action that frequently backfires before finally admitting that the initial accusations were bogus. Kiselev explained that this pattern began with the sinking of the USS Maine in 1898, which triggered the Spanish-American War after Spain was blamed for the disaster. He argued that this pattern continued with the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, which was used to justify America's intervention in Vietnam. He also said that mysterious white powder was used to buttress a claim that Saddam Hussein was accumulating CBW materials and that this prompted the invasion of Iraq, which that subsequently gave rise to ISIS. Kiselev expressed the opinion that Donald Trump is not a hothead and that he will not rush into a disastrous war on the basis of the tanker attack. The video was translated into English by Vesti.

Dmitry Kiselev: "Undermining tankers in the Gulf of Oman is just how Americans traditionally start a war. The USA were having fun like this since the 19th century. In 1898, off the coast of Cuba, the American armored cruiser 'Maine' suddenly exploded. At that time, Cuba belonged to the Spanish monarchs like other vast territories in Latin America. The United States did not like it. They needed redistribution. Spain did not want to fight, but the Americans created a reason by blowing up their own battleship. Interestingly, officers were mostly on shore. The explosion killed 261 people on board, mostly black sailors. Spain was accused of that as if the insidious Spaniards allegedly brought a mine under the ship. Then a hate campaign in the media followed by the war. So a casus belli – a reason for the war – was created, unleashing the Spanish-American war. As a result, the USA takes Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. 10 years after the end of the Spanish-American War, when the remnants of the American battleship 'Maine' were brought to the surface, it was clear that the fatal explosion originated on board, not outside the ship.

"Moreover, the steam boilers of the engine remained intact, ruling out the possibility of an accident. But the war had long been over by that time, and no one revised its results. The Americans constructed a similar casus belli on August 4, 1964, in order to start the war in Vietnam. Then two American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin interpreted some interference on their radars as an attack on them by Vietnamese boats. They didn't 'attack back,' but US President Johnson ordered the start of the bombing of Vietnam. As a result, 11 years of war killed millions of Vietnamese people. The United States had 60,000 killed and 300,000 wounded Americans and shamefully retreated from Vietnam. But it really wanted to make war. Later, in 2005, the US National Security Agency (NSA) disclosed documents on the incident in the Gulf of Tonkin, which show that the NSA deliberately sent the White House falsified reports on the events of August 4. Finally, the USA invented a reason to start the war in Iraq in 2003. A test tube of white powder, which Secretary of State, Colin Powell, showed at the UN Security Council, was falsified too. He claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, and that Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, teamed up with Al-Qaeda. Later on, both statements proved to be false. But the war began on that false pretext. Saddam Hussein was hanged, hundreds of thousands of people died, a barbaric pseudo-caliphate was born.

"And the USA, without apologizing to anyone, is already thinking of a new pretext for war, this time against Iran. As the saying goes, it doesn't hold water. But it's one thing to make up a reason for war, and it's quite another to start the war itself. Will Trump start a war with Iran? Since he has already announced that he'll run for election, such a war may turn out to be a great domestic political risk for him. This is the first point. Secondly, it may affect Israel, which won't play into Trump's hands either. Thirdly, it's quite hard to predict the consequences of the massacre, during which Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, the oil aorta of humanity. Is Trump ready for all that? It depends on how much a hothead he really is. I guess not that much."

Share this Clip:

HELP BRIDGE THE LANGUAGE GAP – DONATE TO MEMRI’S 2020 SUMMER CAMPAIGN