KIT KNIGHTLY
Since the US/Israel began their war – sorry, their “targeted, limited, combat operation” – hard facts have been hard to come by.
In a more than usually cloudy combat narrative, we’ve been told that Iran is winning AND losing, depending who you ask. It’s a regime change war, but also it isn’t. Various Iranian officials have been killed, and some came back. Netanyahu was briefly dead, too. There was talk of a tactical nuke.
Nowhere is this fog of war thicker than in the Strait of Hormuz, about which it is seemingly impossible to get a *ahem* strait answer.
The coverage is so fast-paced and contradictory it conjures up images of an elaborate game of “yes, and…” being played by members of an improv group who have totally different goals for the story, and secretly hate each other.
Within hours of the initial bombing raids of “Epic Fury”, Western news sources were reporting that Iran had closed the strait of Hormuz.
Then Iran said they hadn’t, but they were threatening to.
Then Western insurers stepped in, forcing a closure in effect by refusing to cover ships passing through the strait.
Then Donald Trump said the US military would insure the ships, and offered them military escorts as well.
Then we were told that Iran couldn’t close the Strait, even if they wanted to, because their navy had been totally destroyed.
Then the press reported that Iran had mined the Strait with “about a dozen mines”, despite Iranian officials denying this entirely.
More strangely, even US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, refuted the presence of mines, telling a Press Briefing, “We have no evidence of that.”
Which raises an interesting question: If both the governments involved in this war say there aren’t any mines, who is saying there ARE mines? And why?
Who is overruling both the Pentagon and the Iranian Foreign Ministry? And why are the vast majority of the press accepting their word?
Unfortunately, if there ARE mines, the US Navy is in no position to do anything about them, since they decommissioned their four minesweeper ships in September, and then sailed them out of the area in January.
Given that Iran mining the Strait is a very obvious potential outcome of any conflict, one the US has likely wargamed dozens of times in the last fifty years, this is “incompetence” so incredible it’s virtually self-sabotage.
Some politicians recently suggested they could use mine-sweeping drones to keep the trade line open, but the press shut that down immediately, reporting that “Mine-Sweeping Drones Don’t Eliminate The Risks For Clearing Hormuz”
So the press and politicians are engaged in a debate about the best way to remove mines that are not confirmed to be there, and that both sides officially state do not exist.
Meanwhile, Iran is offering safe passage through the Strait to ships from China, or ships trading in Yuan, or just anyone who asks nicely. Which seems to suggest they are telling the truth about the absence of mines.
Which again raises the question of why the press seem so keen for those mines to be there.
All of these contradictions generate a list of pressing questions:
- Is the Strait of Hormuz open or closed?
- If closed, who closed it and how?
- Why can’t the US Navy keep the Strait open?
- Does Iran have any Naval ships left? Or have they been sunk?
- Are there mines deployed? How many?
- If there are mines deployed, could Iran offer safe passage as it is allegedly doing?
…all of which have either no answers at all, or multiple contradictory answers.
It seems clear that large sections of the establishment want the Strait of Hormuz closed, or at least to make everyone believe it’s closed. The broader strokes of “why” are obvious: Drive up prices, cultivate shortages and panics. Chaos. Even better, expensive chaos. The best kind.
But it also seems like Donald Trump and those close to him don’t want the Strait closed and are trying to insist it is open and can be kept open.
Hence, we can only suppose, the back-and-forth claims –
“it’s closed!”
“No, it’s open”
“Definitely closed actually – and mined!”
“Nope, open, open, open, open”
“Closed, closed, closed closed – mines everywhere…”
Two drivers fighting over a steering wheel, while the car manically veers and swerves back and forth.
This struggle over the direction of the story appears to be ongoing; just yesterday, Trump was pleading with NATO allies to help keep the Strait open. It doesn’t look like they’re going to help.
The press is even planning ahead by positioning for the economic impact of the Hormuz closure to persist past the end of the war.
The Financial Times headlines…
Why Hormuz will haunt us long after this war ends
And goes on to say…
It is not in Trump’s power to reopen this vital sea passage by declaring victory and walking away. Instead his war with Iran — and the particular issue of the Strait of Hormuz — will define the rest of his presidency and may haunt his successors.
That is because the strait’s closure creates both an immediate crisis and a long-term strategic quandary. The current problem is that the longer it is closed, the greater the threat of a global recession. The future dilemma is that Iran now knows that control of the Strait of Hormuz gives it a stranglehold over the world economy. Even if it relaxes its grip in the short term, it can tighten it again in future.
Do you see?
In a move straight out of Wag the Dog, they have insured the narrative against anyone, be it Pezeshkian/Trump/Hegseth/Netanyahu/ or anyone suddenly claiming the war is over and ruining the plan.
They’re telling us even if that happens, even if the sides were to come to terms and end hostilities, we’ll still be “haunted” by Hormuz and “feel the effects of the closure” long after any fighting is finished.
That makes it very clear, doesn’t it?
It is vitally important to the greater narrative that the Strait of Hormuz is closed.
Possibly indefinitely
The question is what comes next.
This article (The Strait of Hormuz – A Very Strange Tug-of-War) was created and published by off Guardian and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Kit Knightly
See Related Article Below
The war in Iran may be fake. But the regime change is real.
MIRI AF
As the news cycle has been dominated continuously for the last couple of weeks with news of “the war in/on Iran”, then obviously, the first question we must ask, as seasoned sceptics of psyops is, “is this real?”
The general consensus from conspiratorially-inclined critical thinkers appears to be, “no”.
To clarify, to say the war is “fake”, or a psyop, is not to say there is nothing happening at all: clearly, there are a few pyrotechnic displays going on; some missile strikes conveniently targeting deserted housing complexes scheduled for demolition whilst avoiding all major infrastructure and other key strategy sites; and likely some real injuries and deaths – after all, people do really get hurt on movie sets.
But a movie set is nevertheless what it very much appears to be, with one researcher observing:
“The footage looked like a Star Wars movie. I mean that literally. There were explosions everywhere, and like, lasers…and you are sitting there watching it thinking — what the shit?…Something is off here. Because it did not look like a war.
It looked like someone had a very generous effects budget and absolutely zero interest in making it look real.“
This is the standard signature of the psyop: that the world-class directors and producers behind such productions, with access to infinite budgets and all the best tech, make their psyop sets look fake and unbelievable on purpose.
Conversely, if you go to the cinema to watch the latest war epic, it always looks all too real. Indeed, combat veterans reported that the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan were so realistic, they were unable to watch them.
So it’s not that the black magic sorcerers behind the scenes lack the ability to make fake events look real: it’s that they intentionally don’t do so when staging a psyop, for two key reasons.
The first is that by making their deception readily apparent, they are not forcibly misleading you: rather, they are showing you clearly that the event is fake, meaning that if you choose to believe in it anyway, and behave as if the illusion is real, that’s on you: you have consented to the deception.
We do appear to live in a consent-based system, and so the ruling classes always require it from us to ensure their various deceptive schemes – wars, pandemics, terror attacks, etc. – successfully become part of the global narrative. Obviously, if the majority of us just rolled our eyes and said, “nice try, but this obviously isn’t real”, these staged events would hold no power.
The second reason for such obvious fakery is to fulfil propaganda’s key purpose: humiliation. The psychopathic ruling classes love to mock and humiliate their victims, and requiring the masses to behave as if they believe in something that is very obviously fake, is a key part of the propagandist ritual. As Theodore Dalrymple said:
“[T]he purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.”
The “war in Iran” very much appears to be adhering to these rules, and is little more than a performative soap opera, played out in large parts – as today’s soap operas often are – on social media.
As one critic observed:
“The US, Israel, and Iran are all equally culpable. All 3 announcing strikes hours in advance on Twitter is not warfare, it is to give the illusion of warfare to those gullible enough to believe it.“
The aforementioned countries are not really enemies run by warring factions, but part of a globalist power network all controlled by the same people, working towards the same goals, for the same reasons. Iran is not some renegade outlier, it is a fully signed-up member of the lockstep global agenda, and entirely ensconced in the club.
We can easily discern this to be true this from the facts that Iran participated in the Covid pantomime, has widely installed 5G technology and is working towards 6G, and has a ‘robust’ childhood vaccination programme (including giving the tuberculosis and Hepatitis B vaccinations at birth).
So, Iran is demociding its population and stealing its children’s futures in just the same way the Western countries it is supposedly “at war” with are: so why are they (allegedly) at war?
Well, there’s the old “they have weapons of mass destruction” (or will have them soon) trope. The Trump administration has claimed Iran is ‘a week away‘ from having a nuclear weapon, a claim which Iran has denied. I believe their denial, since I don’t believe nukes are real.
They’re just more fabricated fear propaganda.
As ‘covid’ demonstrated to us so ably, you don’t need a real threat to optimally control a population: you just need the fear of one.
Whether or not you believe “there was a virus” (I don’t), what is unanimously clear is that there was no increased threat to health or life in 2020 as compared to any other year. All that happened is that, in 2020, people who would, in previous years, have been admitted to hospital for flu or pneumonia, were labelled as covid patients instead, then inappropriately treated with ventilators, midazolam, and other drugs.
These dangerous treatment protocols caused some excess deaths, which were consequently attributed to “the virus”, and it became common practice to put ‘covid’ on a death certificate, even when a patient had been terminally ill with other conditions, and when a covid test hadn’t been performed (not that said tests were anything other than useless theatre props).
So the point is, there was no increased threat to anyone’s health or safety in 2020 from “a novel virus” (which in my opinion didn’t even exist), but there didn’t need to be: people simply needed to believe that there was, and then they modified their behaviour accordingly.
It’s the same with nuclear weapons: they don’t need to really exist in order for the ruling classes to use their threat to control people through fear: people simply need to believe that they do.
So, the nominal reason for the war on Iran is “they’re getting nukes”, with a secondary, supporting reason being the need to topple their evil dictator leaders.
Already, a key movie baddie – Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – has reportedly been killed off, and this, apparently, could be Iran’s Berlin Wall moment.
The Guardian reports:
“Khamenei, 86, sat atop Iran’s Islamic power structure for 37 years – nearly a decade longer than the Berlin Wall lasted. As the senior religious authority in the country’s system of velayat-e faqih – rule by Islamic jurisprudence adopted after the 1979 Islamic revolution – he had the final say on all state matters.
His sudden and violent removal leaves a political vacuum that serving members of the regime may struggle to fill.”
The Guardian continues:
“[Iranian scholar] Milani said the regime’s surviving elements no longer possessed the means or the power of intimidation over the populace to hold power by fear alone.
“You need an apparatus of oppression,” he said. “They don’t have enough people willing to kill for them. They still have some but they have lost that focused will that allowed, for example, the Communist party in China to survive after Tiananmen Square.
“And you need a population that is frightened. Fear has dissipated. In Iran, when fear dissipates, authoritarian and pseudo-totalitarian regimes can’t survive.”
In short, this is the precursor for the Islamic theocratic rule in Iran being overthrown, a regime which has been vigorously challenged both in Iran and around the world since the Iranian revolution in 1979.
The official story goes that, prior to 1979, Iran was “a rapidly modernising, pro-Western monarchy under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, characterised by significant social liberalisation, secularisation, and oil-fuelled economic growth“, but that, after 1979, “transformed from a secular monarchy to a strict theocratic Islamic Republic, enforcing mandatory hijabs, gender segregation, and Islamic law“.
The population, women especially, are said to be brutally oppressed, with the regime renowned for “a combination of mandatory morality laws, severe judicial punishment, and violent suppression of dissent, particularly targeting women, ethnic minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals“. Excessive and lethal force, torture, and sexual assault are said to be commonplace.
That sounds like a pretty despicable Muslim regime, right? I mean, isn’t this just more evidence of how thoroughly evil Islam is, and how we need to stamp it out?
Well… not quite.
Look a bit deeper at the “Muslim” power structures in Iran, and guess what you find…
The Iranian rulers are not really Muslim at all: they’re Jewish.
What supremacist organised Jewry has done, with both Islam and Christianity alike, is infiltrate the religions with a view to making them appear so unpalatable – so destructive, violent, and tyrannical – that the world gets behind their mutual destruction.
The destruction of Christianity is already well underway in Western countries, especially the UK, where it is increasingly viewed as a repressive relic which does nothing but constrain and control people, whilst enabling mass institutionalised paedophilia – and the destruction of Islam in Eastern countries is undergoing a similarly targeted destruction.
The point of the “war on Iran” is to get the world behind the same regime change there that has already happened, or is planned to soon happen, everywhere else: the destruction of the target country’s unifying religion and morality, to be replaced by global libertine communism. As John Lennon, Tavistock change agent, prophetically warbled: “no religions, no countries, and no possessions“. No genders or families, either. That’s the desired future, globally.
At present, there isn’t much mass support for – or even interest in – the war in Iran (apart from the effect we’re told it’ll have on petrol prices) – so, in order to get Western audiences more engaged in the action, the scriptwriters need to bring it closer to home: therefore, expect some major “Iranian terror attack”, probably aimed at “the Jewish community”, to be unleashed in London or New York or some other central, suitably celluloid location, very soon.
It will be fake, as I wrote about before, but the public will be expected to behave as if it is real.
The social controllers are already prepping us for this, by claiming plots against British Jews by “Iranian terror cells” have been foiled by police, but that a successful attack soon is more or less inevitable…
They may even go for the big (orange) one, of having Iran be seen to “assassinate Trump”, to really kick off some cinematic chaos (and consequently, instal JD Vance in the top job, which I believe is key to their goal of ultimately undermining Christianity in the USA).
Whatever treacherous tricks they come up with – and they will – the key thing to always ask ourselves, before becoming emotionally invested in any reported event, is, “is this real?” – and assume, until there’s compelling evidence to the contrary, that it isn’t.
Always remember that the world is a stage, war is theatre, and social media is a soap opera – and proceed accordingly.
Thanks for reading! This article was originally published at miriaf.co.uk, which is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…
1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)
2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee
Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.
This article (The war in Iran may be fake. But the regime change is real) was created and published by Miri AF and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply