Setting The Stage For War: US Air Force Says Missile Targeting Saudi Capital Was Iranian

Tyler Durden's picture

One day after Saudi Arabia and Kuwait ordered their citizens to evacuate Lebanon - a move many suggested telegraphed an imminent "military intervention" - the mainstream media has begun building the case for a new mid-east war, one which will involve Iran and Hezbollah (and potentially Russia, not to mention other Shia Muslims) on one hand, and Saudi Arabia and Israel on the other.

For that, it got help from the US Air Force today, and as AP reports this morning, "the ballistic missile fired by Yemeni rebels that targeted the Saudi capital was from Iran and bore “Iranian markings,” the top U.S. Air Force official in the Mideast said Friday." Lt. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, who oversees the Air Forces Central Command in Qatar, made the comments at a news conference in Dubai. Predictably, Harrigian declined to offer any specifics on what type of missile they believed it was.

If the narrative sounds familiar, it's because it is: just as European terrorists conveniently commit suicide and always dutifully bring along their passports so they can be identified, so Iran always makes sure it leaves identifying marks when it illegally sells its weapons to Houthi rebels in Yemen.

No really: after the Nov. 4 strike near Riyadh, Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Ministry said investigators examining the remains of the rocket found evidence proving “the role of Iranian regime in manufacturing them.” It did not elaborate what, though it also mentioned it found similar evidence after a July 22 missile launch. French President Emmanuel Macron similarly this week described the missile as “obviously” Iranian.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said in a statement Tuesday that the July launch involved an Iranian Qiam-1, a liquid-fueled, short-range Scud missile variant. Iran used a Qiam-1 in combat for the first time in June when it targeted Islamic State group militants in Syria over twin militant attacks in Tehran.

It was unclear what, exactly, constitutes "Iranian markings": perhaps a stamp on the side saying "this ballistic missile was made in Iran, if found please return to PO Box 666, Tehran."

A still image of the missile taken from a video distributed by Yemen's pro-Houthi
Al Masirah television station on November 5, 2017

To be sure, this was not the first time the rocket was "found" to be Iranian, and the news first emerged hours after the missile was miraculously intercepted by Saudi counter missiles, and then again earlier this week when U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said "information released by Saudi Arabia showed the missile fired in July was an Iranian Qiam, which she described as “a type of weapon that had not been present in Yemen before the conflict.”

Haley said that by providing weapons to the Houthis, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp‎s had violated two U.N. resolutions on Yemen and Iran. She said a missile shot down over Saudi Arabia on Saturday “may also be of Iranian origin.”


“We encourage the United Nations and international partners to take necessary action to hold the Iranian regime accountable for these violations,” Haley said. It was not immediately clear what action the United States was calling for.

The fact that the story of "Iran's missile" made the mainstream media for the third time in one week, is just another indication that this story is meant to remain fresh in the mind of the public, even though - as AP reported - there was no elaboration or evidence actually disclosed to the public. Just like when Russia hacked the American middle class to vote for Trump...

Trivial (lack of) details aside, Harrigian said authorities were investigating how the missile was smuggled into Yemen amid a Saudi-led coalition controlling the country’s airspace, ports and borders. What authorities will find is that Iran was in breach of a variety of embargos, and further violated the nuclear deal, giving the democratic western media just the right amount of justification to root for Saudi Arabia and Israel when the next war begins.

* * *

Update: and then there's this:


and finally:


We'll soon find out if he is right.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
lucitanian's picture

"And why is the manufacturer of a weapon responsible for how the new owner uses it?"

No, Actually conventional arms contract are conditional on UN obligations which means, based on international treaties, so they are conditional on the constitutional law in USA, or anywhere. The selling country has a moral and leagal responsability on their use.

veeger's picture

  if international laws , moral and legal responsibility , and constitutional laws were enforced.....there would allready  have been hundreds of war criminals hung by the neck........and many illegal wars never started.

lucitanian's picture

Too true, we (everywhere in the world) are already well byond the pale.

veeger's picture

  that is the truth also.......the senseless killing all across the globe just seems to be ignored by most of said globe's inhabitants.....sorry about the downvote  ( quick on the trigger.....ironic huh ?  )  anyway ,, gave you an upvote on this one.....

veeger's picture

   thats the fucking truth

researchfix's picture

"Missile Also Dropped Iranian Passports ..."

And obviously gave a pre flight schedule.

Thought Processor's picture


Yeah, let's move right to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.  Spare us the foreplay. 

Giant Meteor's picture

Oh, and don't forget the incubator babies ..

Needs more cowbell ..

Thought Processor's picture



Yep, no need for Colin Powell on this one.  It's a Slam Dunk!  They are making the world safe for democracy! (yet again.....though please do not read the history of any of this, casuse you know it's important to keep the lie alive).


U.S. Secretary of Defense – and former 12-year Republican Senator – Chuck Hagel said of the Iraq war in 2007:

People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs.

4 Star General John Abizaid – the former commander of CENTCOM with responsibility for Iraq – said:

Of course it’s about oil, it’s very much about oil, and we can’t really deny that.


A high-level National Security Council officer strongly implied that Cheney and the U.S. oil chiefs planned the Iraq war before 9/11 in order to get control of its oil.

The Sunday Herald reported:

It is a document that fundamentally questions the motives behind the Bush administration’s desire to take out Saddam Hussein and go to war with Iraq.

Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century describes how America is facing the biggest energy crisis in its history. It targets Saddam as a threat to American interests because of his control of Iraqi oilfields and recommends the use of ‘military intervention’ as a means to fix the US energy crisis.

The report is linked to a veritable who’s who of US hawks, oilmen and corporate bigwigs. It was commissioned by James Baker, the former US Secretary of State under George Bush Snr, and submitted to Vice-President Dick Cheney in April 2001 — a full five months before September 11. Yet it advocates a policy of using military force against an enemy such as Iraq to secure US access to, and control of, Middle Eastern oil fields.

One of the most telling passages in the document reads: ‘Iraq remains a destabilising influence to … the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets.

‘This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader … and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments.


‘Military intervention’ is supported …


The document also points out that ‘the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma’, and that one of the ‘consequences’ of this is a ‘need for military intervention’.

At the heart of the decision to target Iraq over oil lies dire mismanagement of the US energy policy over decades by consecutive administrations. The report refers to the huge power cuts that have affected California in recent years and warns of ‘more Californias’ ahead.

It says the ‘central dilemma’ for the US administration is that ‘the American people continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience’. With the ‘energy sector in critical condition, a crisis could erupt at any time [which] could have potentially enormous impact on the US … and would affect US national security and foreign policy in dramatic ways.”


The response is to put oil at the heart of the administration — ‘a reassessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy’.


Iraq is described as the world’s ‘key swing producer … turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest”. The report also says there is a ‘possibility that Saddam may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time’, creating a volatile market.


Halliburton is one of the firms thought by analysts to be in line to make a killing in any clean-up operation after another US-led war on Iraq.

All five permanent members of the UN Security Council — the UK, France, China, Russia and the US — have international oil companies that would benefit from huge windfalls in the event of regime change in Baghdad. The best chance for US firms to make billions would come if Bush installed a pro-US Iraqi opposition member as the head of a new government.

Representatives of foreign oil firms have already met with leaders of the Iraqi opposition. Ahmed Chalabi, the London-based leader of the Iraqi National Congress, said: ‘American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.’

Postscript 1: Again, it is not only American politicians and oil companies.  As the Independent reported in 2011:

Plans to exploit Iraq’s oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world’s largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.


The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.


Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: “Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis.”

The minister then promised to “report back to the companies before Christmas” on her lobbying efforts.

The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq “post regime change”. Its minutes state: “Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity.”

After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office’s Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: “Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake of their long-term future… We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq.”

Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had “no strategic interest” in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was “more important than anything we’ve seen for a long time”.

BP was concerned that if Washington allowed TotalFinaElf’s existing contact with Saddam Hussein to stand after the invasion it would make the French conglomerate the world’s leading oil company. BP told the Government it was willing to take “big risks” to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world.

Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002.

The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq’s reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil …

lucitanian's picture

Any contract signed under duress is "non-binding".

general ambivalent's picture

Praying for all Drumpftards to die in this war, as per their wish to Make America Great Again.

Kina's picture

So you can build your new Mosques all over America no doubt.

Then you can start arse fucking all the children you want. maga Islam style.

Giant Meteor's picture

I was neither your upvote nor downvote ..

I find praying for people to die is a waste of time and also, a good prayer, as people are gonna die with or without my prayers.

Also, I reject the labeling, Trumptards, and Libtards, as being a tard is not in my opinion, party specific. Plenty of tards to go around, just like death.

The enlightened soul, understands the nature of mankinds primary failings, as well as his own mortality, death being a fate that comes for all of us, in it's own good time. Now it is true that mankind seems to be hell bent, in the greatest hurry to expedite the process of self annilation, and is wont to buy into all sorts of errant bullshit, I'll grant you that. Lastly, any insult to the current POTUS, or his most vocal boosters, without utilizing orange in the subtext description, falls woefully, inadequately short. I am most partial to orange Jesus .. as that makes be belly laugh every time !

Don't be so hard on your fellow misguided man ..

Pray for wisdom, pray for understanding, pray for your enemies even, but for God's sake, don't pray for the inevitable ..

crazzziecanuck's picture

There's a saying we all know well: be careful what you wish for.  The only problem these dsays is that those that are wishing for war are never the ones to pay a price for it.  Until a price is exacted, can you ever expect them to change their behavior.

Selly2k's picture

US sells arms to Saudies, Iran sells to Yamenies. What is the big deal?

shovelhead's picture

So What if it was?

Isn't the shit raining down on Yemen made in the USA?

crazzziecanuck's picture

International arms sales should be BANNED.  The problem for the West now is that we are so economically decrepit, that arms sales are used for general economic purposes.

Meat Hammer's picture

If you want your WWIII you can keep your WWIII

Lumberjack's picture

Judge stops Hillary’s emails from being located.

Federal judge tosses suit, says FBI did all it could on Clinton emails

Mr.BlingBling's picture

"the ballistic missile fired by Yemeni rebels that targeted the Saudi capital was from Iran and bore “Iranian markings,”

So fucking what?  The missiles fired by the Saudi invaders that targeted Sana'a were from America and bore the markings of the US MIC. 

What's their point?  Should I be more outraged at one or the other?  If that's the point, then I'm more outraged at the missiles that I fucking pay for every April 15th.


silverer's picture

Brown people have been blown up for years with missiles bearing markings of US manufacturers. And here and there some McDonald's wrappers from lunch stuffed in with the rest of the million dollar hardware.

Winston Churchill's picture

Exactly.Hell of a way to win the hearts and minds of peeps.

Then Americans wonder why they're hated so much.

Sociopathy much ?

7thGenMO's picture

Whoa now Winston!  We Americans are just sons of the bloody English man - watch a documentary about Special Branch during the Malay Emergency and how, after a day of decapitating insurgents, they would end the day with a nice glass of sherry at the club.  You Brits have produced some of the finest, cultured killers ever known, and we Americans can't even come close to that level of (can't think of a word to describe it).

Do you really think Special Branch is just leaving the American amateurs to get another ME war started?

NOTE:  I think British commoners are some of the finest people/sheeple in the world - very polite and kind.  However, I once asked a Brit if the royalty had deliberately bred them to be so complacent and expend themselves so willingly for The Royalty's and (((Rothschild's))) Empire - he didn't have a good answer.

shovelhead's picture

Hey, give him a break. Britain's been inconsequential for so long they forget they used to be the world leader in exporting terrorism.

lucitanian's picture

What was his bad answer? Was it something like?

Queen, country and empire first. We're civilizing the world. They need our justice and values to be civilized.

Does it sound familiar?

7thGenMO's picture

Sounds very similar to "making the world safe for democracy", or more recently, a "force for global good."

His answer was a comtemplative, silent stare - golden to my ears.

king leon's picture

The only difference between US Sheeple and British Sheeple "IS" the US have 6 x times more.

Eyes Opened's picture

Actually... the way Trump the travellin salesman is goin around sellin arms to ANYONE who will pay, one would not be surprised if the rest of the planet declared war on the US....

"Made in USA"

Used by "........." (fill in which warmongering country here)

Gorgeous's picture

True.  Tyler, don't be so quick w the faux outrage.  "markings" can be part numbers written in Farsi.  Or just parts  known to be manufactured used by the the Iranians.  You think we cant tell a minuteman from a scud?  Missile origin of mfg doesn't mean anything.  Who launched it and why is.  At least it didn't have sarin gas and targeted "his own people".  The outrage is US continued support for one country's agenda.

silverer's picture

WTF? Proves the level of incompetence of the Federal government you pay 3.2 trillion dollars a year to.

chunga's picture

Wow, US gov completely awash in non-stop scandals top to bottom, fraud, crime, pedophiles, warmongering, every day looking more like a nuclear armed Rome at the end.

Trader200K's picture

Remember the name among the others:



IridiumRebel's picture

We’re going to have a World War III somehow

silverer's picture

You can judge the condition of the western financial institutions and the central banks by how close war is. The war starts the day the banks are unable to make interchange settlements. The theft of the people's money can then begin with bail-ins, blaming, of course, the country you are at war with. Hey, it's only the thousandth time in history they've pulled this stunt.

Obsidian Samctum's picture

World war 3 will see a new class of weapon. Genetic weapon. Whole racial group will disappear.

Air force been collecting genetic sample of every ethnic group on earth for this reason.

OverTheHedge's picture

Given the genetic makeup of the population of the  US, that seems to be a)unlikely and/or b) an incredible own goal in the making.

Not sure I would want to believe this without some sort of evidence.

However, a less diverse nation might make the "ultimate weapon", but what happens if you cock  it up? Hell of a thing to play God with.

Eyes Opened's picture

Given that the USSA is made up of every other race in the world, I don't see how this is feasible...


Heh... seems like OvertheHedge types faster than me...  lol

Number 9's picture

crazy is what insane does

yaright's picture

Just fucking do it.. we all know its coming

E.F. Mutton's picture

It also dropped an Iranian Passport

JoseyWalesTheOutlaw's picture

So this is why Vlad and The Donald skipped the meeting in The Nam

A. Boaty's picture

Fearless Leader will bring us a glorious victory over the evil missile launchers in Yemen! Sleep better, Comrades, knowing your children won't grow up speaking Yemenese!

Agent P's picture

Are you saying Iran is backing rebels in Yemen?  Shut the front door...

Mike Masr's picture

And the missile had sarin gas so Assad is to blame. (sarc)

Who can believe anything that our government tells us?

And these asshole liars tell us that RT is propaganda. GFY

Mimir's picture

Missiles killing people in Yemen are American and British. Neither the British House of Commons or the American Senat have declared war on Yemen. False Flag!

Mustafa Kemal's picture

Do you mean to say that Iran is supporting the Yemeni's resistance to KSA?

OMG, we cant allow proxy wars


Boubou's picture

And the entire world reeks of American weapons and burned flesh. Does no one care about that?