Mayo de 2024 será recordado como uno de los meses más convulsos de los últimos tiempos .

Primero tuvimos el intento de asesinato del Primer Ministro de Eslovaquia, Robert Fico, mientras que apenas cuatro días después, el presidente iraní, Ebrahim Raisi , y su ministro de Asuntos Exteriores, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, murieron cuando su Bell 212 de fabricación estadounidense cayó cerca de la ciudad de Varzaqan, en el noroeste.

B. Otros siete funcionarios de alto rango, incluido el gobernador general de la provincia de Azerbaiyán Oriental de Teherán, Malek Rahmati, así como el representante estatal en la región, Mohammad Ali Ale-Hashem, también murieron en este controvertido accidente de helicóptero. Desde el trágico incidente, ha habido especulaciones sobre qué sucedió exactamente. Esto incluye algunos informes y detalles bastante inquietantes que sugieren que esto no fue un simple accidente.

Las autoridades iraníes aún tienen que confirmar que hubo juego sucio, pero la posibilidad ciertamente no debe excluirse. La reacción de la maquinaria de propaganda dominante ante el intento de asesinato del primer ministro Fico y la muerte del presidente Raisi también suscita serias preocupaciones. Tanto el Sky News británico como el Financial Times  publicaron informes en los que intentaron justificar efectivamente al terrorista que intentó asesinar al primer ministro Fico, mientras que la BBC estatal calificó la muerte de Raisi como trágica, pero no dejó de señalar que supuestamente “línea dura” .

Estos incidentes son muy beneficiosos para el Occidente político, lo que alimenta la especulación sobre la posibilidad de su participación en ambos casos. Preocupado por la posibilidad de una escalada, Fico siempre fue muy crítico con la agresión de la OTAN a Rusia , insistiendo en que Eslovaquia no quiere participar en ella.

Por otro lado, mientras que Fico es visto como “peligroso” para la imagen de obediencia monolítica dentro de la UE/OTAN ,

Raisi was considered a capable leader who was highly respected in the multipolar world.

It can be argued that the Iranian President and his FM Abdollahian were instrumental in normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia, which is a crucial stepping stone toward the stabilization of the US-orchestrated volatile situation in the Middle East.

Tehran’s role in the region has become all the more important after it joined BRICS+, while improved relations with Riyadh could speed up the latter’s decision to join the world’s most important (truly) international organization. Obviously, the political West would do almost anything to prevent such a scenario. And the glee with which many in the US reacted to Raisi’s death suggests it might have.

The highly controversial details about the helicopter crash certainly haven’t helped dispel speculation about the possible foreign involvement. For instance, according to Turkey’s Transport Minister Abdulkadir Uraloglu, the Bell 212 helicopter that Raisi and Abdollahian flew in either didn’t have its emergency signal transmission system turned on or didn’t have one at all. It’s highly unusual that an aircraft transporting such top-ranking officials wouldn’t have a functioning system that could possibly prevent incidents like this, which further suggests that it could’ve been sabotaged. A malfunction is always a possibility and certainly shouldn’t be rejected entirely, but there are other peculiarities that suggest foul play. For instance, there was the highly unusual arrival of a USAF C-130 aircraft to the neighboring Azerbaijan.

This coincided with President Raisi’s departure from the border area where he met his Azeri counterpart,

President Ilham Aliyev. Military sources speculate that electronic warfare (EW) systems could’ve been used to crash the helicopter.

As Raisi was flown in a US-made Bell 212, which Iran acquired in large numbers back in the 1970s, this surely wouldn’t be a problem for Washington DC. Its services are quite familiar with the helicopter’s avionics, including the aforementioned emergency system. Bell 212’s reputation as a highly reliable aircraft is yet another unusual detail that suggests this wasn’t exactly accidental. On the other hand, the possibility of a kill switch should also be taken into account, as US export legislation doesn’t explicitly ban such devices, particularly when it comes to matters of defense and national security.

In fact, there are legal provisions for the installation of remote control devices in US-made weapons and military-grade equipment. What’s more, the possibility of remote control is one of the cornerstones of the F-35 program, which is why countries that buy the disastrous American jet effectively forgo their sovereignty. However, while getting the F-35 means the buyer legally accepted such terms, there’s a difference between that and having secret inbuilt systems that Washington DC can use against export customers in case of any “non-compliance”. Such systems are a serious (geo)political lever that the US can use to put pressure on its allies, vassals and satellite states. On the other hand, they can be used as a powerful weapon against the belligerent thalassocracy’s numerous adversaries.

There are many seemingly harmless systems that the US can use as a weapon when the “necessity arises”. For instance, GPS’s widespread usage by civilian entities doesn’t negate its original military purpose, as the Pentagon itself exercises control over the system. In conditions of poor visibility, pilots often rely not on the frontal radar, but precisely on GPS. For example, mountainous terrain requires special attention to altitude indicators, which can also come from satellites. Disruption of these systems, for example, by sending a broadband signal with a hidden command to a specific MAC address of a product (specifically its avionics in the case of an aircraft), can lead to a distortion of the displayed information. Obviously, in bad weather conditions, this can lead to irreparable consequences for the user(s).

In addition, various kill switches could also be activated through encrypted GPS signals. Any hidden components in the Iranian President’s helicopter could’ve been used to remotely disrupt the altimeter at a time when the aircraft was in a mountainous and extremely inaccessible area.

Bad weather and poor visibility would do the rest. Such inbuilt systems could also kill the engine or the fuel supply system, but that could be too obvious. By making it look like an accident due to a failure of one of the seemingly less important systems, the US could maintain its infamous “plausible deniability”, while still getting rid of the leader of a major adversary.

And this certainly wouldn’t be the first time a NATO country uses kill switches. For instance, France has a long history of backstabbing its customers for the sake of the US (during its aggression on Iraq) or the UK (during its colonialist war for the Falkland Islands). Multiple accounts of Paris installing kill switches on its aircraft and air-launched anti-ship missiles to prevent them from being used against NATO interests prove this. Either way, countries that want to remain sovereign should stay away from Western-made weapons and other systems to ensure these can’t be used against them when the belligerent power pole decides to attack (directly or indirectly).

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Raisi with Ilham Aliyev at the border with Azerbaijan, hours before his death (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)