I didn't go looking to disprove it, I was just looking for more info and this is what popped up. In addition to the Straits Times piece with a little more info., which is linked to in The Hill, there's also similar at The Guardian. At first I was intuiting from the Straits Times explanation of Mattis activities: well, sounds like a leak from one of the meetings, where they may have been talking about "what ifs" as per the "Five Eyes" agreement, i.e., what could we do if this happened or that happened now.

But  then I saw Turnbull's statement covered that by saying the ABC’s report had not benefited from any “consultation” with his office, nor with the office of the defence minister or the foreign affairs minister.

But yeah, the reality with a crazy Trump is that he could do anything as he doesn't keep up with anything his administration is trying to do. This is actually how the story hit me: any speculation might be true because of that. That this may be why the Pentagon has stopped talking to reporters, because whatever they say could be made out to be a lie the next day by commander in chief.

In general though, I am starting to see a pattern, with like what happened with North Korea and with NATO and with tariffs: he says outrageous shit and causes chaos and then later walks it back in actual policy. IAnd  thinking that maybe that's gonna be the modus operandi through November. Because the chaos from the conflicting info. result makes it easier for him to lie to his base about what he did at the same time allowing GOP candidates in swing districts to sell that a moderation thing for the party as a whole. But should he get a GOP rubber stamp in November, watch out, that's when he'd follow through on some of his fantasies instead of just bluffing for chaotic effect.

I just don't see him using the wag the dog thing, I don't know why. Probably because he can't stay on any one thing for long enough except his favorites like tariffs and the wall.  Look, North Korea was a monster enemy one day and the next day Kim's one of his best friends, and everything in between. A bombing he might order, but not a full on war. That takes staying power and propaganda that he has no interest in. He didn't stay on the Syria topic for two seconds after that one bombing, never went back to it. He likes an apparent show of strength and then moves on, no attention span and no real ideology. And his fans, they are mostly isolationist, they won't even buy a Reaganite hatred of Russia, certainly not the types to want to spend long term blood and money on the mideast.

And I also wouldn't be surprised to know this is why he judged it the right time to switch to a new Rouhani v. Trump kayfabe narrative, start a totally new match, have the fans fuggeabout the last one:

US intelligence agencies determine that North Korea is constructing new missiles: report

until campaign time when he can brag about solving both, natch.

hah, now here you made me think for a minute::could it really be so?...nope because he can't make it a bullshit "art of the deal" transactional show, there's not even the possibility of a plea bargain with the guy, as there would be with most prosecutors. Which also made me think this is why a special prosecutor is so feared, is just a supposed fact finder, is not playing the adversarial game where one side wins and one side loses. No way to fight it except with agitprop, yelling "witch hunt" and "no collusion" over and over. But to win anything doing that you have to convince a majority (of the populace, or of the House) and he couldn't even do that being elected, ironically with the very same shady ops that are being investigated.