Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and  bastardization of classic Unix

Iran saber-rattling: Trump as Israel stooge is not  a part of the solution, he is a part of the problem.

Even for those who support American empire it is now clear that Trump is a dangerous, malleable idiot with gasoline and matches and needs to be removed ASAP

The point is: Trump is loose cannon. No-one knows what the narcissistic jackass decides next. No good prospects for the world.
 

 

News Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine Recommended Links Shoot-first-ask-questions-later: Trump ME policy Mike "we killed up to 200 Russians" Pompeo Energy Geopolitics Soleimani assassination opened Pandora box in the Middle East The Role of Pro-Israel forces in US Iran Policy New American Militarism
Media-Military-Industrial Complex Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA  Trump as America’s First Zionist President  History of American False Flag Operations American Exceptionalism China factor in Cold War II and the possibility of China-Russia military alliance Mark Esper - Wikipedia National Security State Demonization of Putin
 Zombie state and coming collapse of neoliberalism Trump after his Colin Powell moment Hillary Clinton and Obama created ISIS   Audacious Oligarchy and "Democracy for Winners" Doublespeak Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich Militarism and reckless jingoism of the US neoliberal elite Blowback against neoliberal globalization
Israel lobby Predator state Nation under attack meme Non-Interventionism Trump2016 foreign policy platform Resurgence of neo-fascism as reaction on neoliberalism Skeptic Quotations Humor Etc
 
“Pompeo’s been caught lying, which horrifies me,” said Fred Wellman, a 1987 grad who retired as a lieutenant colonel and has been one of the more vocal detractors of his fellow cadets now running the government. “So I’ve been discouraged by what I’ve seen coming out of the military academy graduates involved in the administration.”

Trump’s ‘West Point Mafia’ Faces a Loyalty Test - POLITICO

They had a handshake agreement, which was why Soleimani wasn’t under protection. The Solemiani killed Americans stuff cracks me up. He was a military advisor for the Shia militia’s who were attacked by US forces during a unsanctioned war in 2003………….uh derp derp. There have been many other generals that have committed “death of American” crimes that the Trump Admin seems to love.

As my father used to say “homosexuals make great commie fighters” (homosexuals like Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin agree lol). The Zionists so badly want this war in the Trump administration, but Trump doesn’t have the guts to just invade like Iraq.

Bert Schlitz, January 10, 2020 3:46 pm

Killing of General Soleimani  on what looks to be a diplomatic mission (or in other version to visit burial of fighters killed previously by US strikes) was the act of war.  He was a high level Iran official.  Which make his assassination a very cowardly act on the part of Trump, Pompeo, and Esper. Which rabid exceptionalisms like Mike  "We lie, cheat and steal" Pompeo do not care one bit, relying of the USA unquestionable military superiority.

Which  does exist, but without nuclear weapons is no longer absolute, because we are taking about fighting on the local to Iran battlefield with the 80 million nation which can get 10-20 million army and which might well be supported by both Russia and China (making this for the USA the second Vietnam). Iran definitely can inflict Vietnam size  losses on the local US contingent.  The USA will win but it will be Pyrrhic victory and the end of the USA-centered global neoliberal empire as we known it.  Including possible liberation of Europe from the USA occupation.

With oil prices jumping  above two  hundred dollars per barrel (assuming Iran, KSA, Iraq and all Gulf state oil infrastructure bombed out) economically this means a serious economic crisis in all Western countries. So this will be a Pyrrhic victory in one more sense. The USA will finally manage to capture Iranian oil, but not before crashing its own and its allies economy.

This event might signify the start of gradual replacement of dollar with euro dollar as the main world reserve currency (assuming that EU will be intact.) But his can happen only if Saudis, Iran and Iraq facilities will be completely destroyed in the process. In most case we also can expect that Israel might suffer serious losses in both people and infrastructure.

Looks like malleable and incompetent Trump was lured into this trap by West Point 86 graduates gang of greedy military contractors (Pompeo and Esper). Esper previously was disloyal to Trump, when he stood up for Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a senior staff member on the NSC, who at the time was involved with formulating Ukraine policy and who has testified to House investigators in the probe against Trump. The Secretary of State’s behavior has been  neoconish for all his tenure 

Trump, the cowardly bully that he is, probably would have avoid this step, if Pompeo was less insistent (he and Esper flied to Florida).   Now Pompeo head is on the block and he is engaged in face saving PR campaign appearing on all major MSM and trying to hide that Trump administration really has  zero intelligence on "eminent threat" that would somehow justify this cowardly act and to hide as much as possible from public view.  Meanwhile Iraq Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi confirmed that he was scheduled to meet Soleimani, making effectively Soleimani a diplomatic envoy MoA - Iraqi Parliament Expels Foreign Militaries From Iraq

"Before the vote Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told the parliament that he was scheduled to meet with Soleimani a day after his arrival to receive a letter from Iran to Iraq in response to a de-escalation offer Saudi Arabia had made. The U.S. assassinated Soleimani before the letter could be delivered by him. "

This killing raises again an important question: Why the USA invaded Iraq and what are geopolitical goals of continuing Iraq occupation? Most political analysts single out two major factors: control of Iraq oil and Israel interests in the region.

Killing of Soleimani clearly plays into Israel hands. Chris Matthews once asked the question of the level of contorl of neocons of the USA forign policy and David Corn said it is close to 100% and the goal of the neoconservative is to protect Israel.  Here’s part of the exchange:

Matthews: Why were the people in the administration like [Paul] Wolfowitz and the others talking about going into Iraq from the very beginning, when they got into the white house long before there was a 911 long before there was WMD. It seemed like there was a deeper reason. I don’t get it. It seemed like WMD was a cover story.

Corn: I can explain that. For years. Paul Wolfowitz and other members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid of Iraq and there would be democracy throughout the region that would help Israel and they came to believe actually a very bizarre conspiracy theory that al Qaeda didn’t matter, that Saddam Hussein was behind all the acts of violence…

Matthews: The reason I go back to that is there’s a consistent pattern: the people who wanted that war in the worst ways, neocons so called, Wolfowitz, certainly Cheney.. it’s the same crowd of people that want us to overthrow Bashar Assad, .. it’s the same group of people that don’t want to negotiate at all with the Iranians, don’t want any kind of rapprochement with the Iranians, they want to fight that war. They’re willing to go in there and bomb. They have a consistent impulsive desire to make war on Arab and Islamic states in a neverending campaign, almost like an Orwellian campaign they will never outlive, that’s why I have a problem with that thinking. … we’ve got to get to the bottom of it. Why did they take us to Iraq, because that’s the same reason they want to take us into Damascus and why they want to have permanent war with Iran.

Because Soleimani is by-and-large byproduct of imperial wars the USA wages in Middle East we can state that the USA created the man and then killed him, creating a symbol of struggle against military American presence in the region.   And now as a martir he  will inflect even heavier damage on the occupying fouces then  when he was alive.  First of all he now is powerful recruitment force to anti-American groups in Iraq (Soleimani brigades).

Paradoxically with one masterful  strike Trump achieved the situation which existed at the height of Iraqis fight againt US occupation: until the hysteria connected with Soleimani murder subside no American (military contractor,  or civilian) outside fortified areas like military bases can feel safe in Iraq.  and probably several other Middle East countries.

It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake ~Talleyrand (attributed)

  C'est pire qu'un crime, c'est une faute.
It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.

Reaction to the 1804 drumhead trial and execution of Louis Antoine de Bourbon, Duke of Enghien, on orders of Napoleon. Actually said by either Antoine Boulay de la Meurthe, legislative deputy from Meurthe (according to the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations) or Joseph Fouché, Napoleon's chief of police (according to John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919), http://www.bartleby.com/100/758.1.html).

In other words, what Trump committed  is worse the a crime. It was a blunder. He pained the USA in the corner as a rogue state ( which actually it has been since 1991). The Trump impeachment now comes into play as part of a WEspern realignment or restructuring of the USA Mid-Wast position.  As somebody said   “There are decades when nothing happens, but there are weeks when decades happen” I would not be  now surprised if Trump will lose 2020 re-election bid.   He is now considered dangerous rogue by a strata of independents, those who are able to think about the insanity of the USA foreign policy (and voted for Trump mainly duie to his 2016 anti-war stance). The policy which push the money to MIC while domestic infrastructure, jobs  and wages crumbles  (which is not the majority of the USA electorate) impoverishing most Americans like in classic over-extended empire scenario.  The last such case was the USSR. How it ended we now from history.

What is likely to be happening is that the US will not quit Iraq willingly, despite the  resolution of Parliament. Which will lead to increased public and armed resistance to the US, as indeed happened under Bush-Cheney regime. Moqtada al-Sadr, a powerful Shia cleric whose parliamentary alliance holds 54 of the 329 seats in Iraq’s legislature, called on militants inside and outside Iraq to create “International Resistance Legions” to end America’s military presence in the country, by force if necessary( Iraqi Parliament Backs Expulsion of US Troops Background and What to Expect Next - Sputnik International)

Rephrasing Kissinger: " Assassination is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one".

What is now clear is that Trump is a neocon, or, worse, incompetent and malleable neocon puppet. And appointment of a Rapture obsessed warmongering Secretary of State was not accidental.

But it is kind of ironic to have as the top diplomat a person, who in addition to being a former military contractor (with the appropriate circle of the West Point friends, some of them probably killed or injured during Iraq invasion/occupation) is a big friend of the current head of Mossad (that's probably was the origin of his love of assassinations :-)

He is much better suited for MIC lobbyist position, than for diplomacy. Killing one person even talented and high ranking commander of the Iran army will have no effect on the total direction/methods/capabilities. It is just empower Iran hawks.

But the deep irony of Trump-Pompeo-Esper trio assassination gambit is that Soleimani was one of the key figures in defeating ISIS in Iraq and Syria and used to work with US high command. If this is not the "destruction of credibility" I do not know what is. It feels like ""The Moor has done his duty, the Moor can go."

So the vote of Iraq Parliament should not come as a huge surprise; this was logical consequence of this action. Iran surprised me attacking some objects in Iraq. This was a signature event: looks like the official end of the period of "Full spectrum Dominance". Of course, Iran incompetence with shooting down the Ukrainian airliner spoiled the broth, but still...

Reports are the Pompeo was after Soleimani for a long time, and that the neocon duo of Pomeo-Esper pushed Trump, who felt impeachment pressure and wanted to wag the dog in any case.

But again we can talk about consequences we need to wait for the 2020 elections. I do not think that this action was positive for Trump re-election chances. His base is glued to him no matter what.

But Trump with one masterstroke lost all anti-war republicans and most probably a substantial part of army vote. The army is overextended and is tired of imperial wars. With the proper candidate that may play into Democrats hands in 2020 elections.

Especially, if Tulsi will be on the ticket as a VP (there is almost zero chance for that; and IMHO little chances for Sanders or Warren to be the candidate from Neoliberal Dems )

Can the USA continue to occupy Iraq

There's no doubt that the US can hold out for a while, but a renewed US full military occupation would not be appreciated back home, especially if new flow of the body-bags is implied.

Iraqi parliament resolution about status of the foreign forces in the country is just one small step that now complicated the USA policies in the Middle East. And while the USA will ignore it (and probably it does not have binding legal power, as the government of Iraq is a marionette government who can't act against the USA) the consequences of such a vole are net negative for Trump administration -- the USA forces now clearly viewed as an occupying, hostile force.  Still I see Iraq as a US territory. Like Guam or Puerto Rico. Or Europe for that matter.

augrr | Jan 5 2020 20:23 utc | 102

One can speculate on and debate all kinds of alternative actions and outcomes for Iraq to take if the US refuses to leave, or more importantly, ignores any “no-fly” orders. As I think most of the readers of this blog put a very low probability on US compliance with whatever Iraq officially requests.

Without an ally with the clout to get the US's attention and respect Iraq's wishes will be swatted aside like a pesky mosquito.

There is exactly one – and only one – military opponent at this moment that can credibly challenge the US if Iraq were to ask for help with enforcing the will of its government. A showdown between the old hegemon and a new multipolar power constellation has been on the cards as a future event for some time, with “future” being the operative word.. The current series of events creates the potential to accelerate this transition. I would not be at all surprised if the phone lines between Moscow, Beijing and Teheran have been buzzing fulltime for the past 24 hours. President Putin is essential in this potential team, having the military means, Iran is a given as they are the ultimate US target here, which leaves China. China also knows that at some time it will have to face and defeat the US – but would prefer a time and cause of its choosing. It may be sufficient to get the US out of Iraq if all three together declare their support for Iraq and its decisions.

I knew 2020 would bring interesting times.

Tom_LX | Jan 5 2020 21:00 utc | 113

@juliania | Jan 5 2020 19:53 utc | 96

Lets face it. The US government is captured. Voting will not undo what has been done since at least 1963, assassination of John F. Kennedy. He was the last clear headed US President we had (Carter was not bad) which did not save him from the killing team in Dallas. From that point on we have been on a slow (so as to keep the sheep asleep) downward trajectory. At a minimum we would need to reverse this graph to give any hope of waking up the populace before it is too late.

https://www.personalgrowthcourses.net/images/media-ownership.gif
MSM has people's minds completely frozen to the narrative coming out of DC while Hollywood sends out subtle signals "We are watching and listening to you" with movies like "The Conversation". Perhaps I am wrong and they are awake. Perhaps they are simply too afraid to express what they think. I don't know. I'm just one soul behind a keyboard.

and reassert the need for Trump and his administration to be impeached on treasonous grounds.
"The Buck Stops Here" always operates. Trump is behind the Big Desk because he wanted to be there so he must take the responsibility. But I remind everyone that in the case of Syria Trump initially signaled pulling out all US troops. Then suddenly he stayed "For the Oil". That reversal I interpret as him being on an Israeli leash. He got a Bibi offer he could not refuse and he had to stay under the excuse of Oil, as befitting a business guy. Shallow, stupid for sure but no one would argue.

So Trump is not enough. Clinton (Yugoslavia), Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, Colon Powell, ..... did more of the damage to get us where we are today. Later facts came out showing them to be lying to the Nation and what happened ? -----> NOTHING. Trump impeachment was a Show from the word GO. Clinton was played the same way. To play nice at the end of his term he pardoned a poor guy named Mark Rich. That's how the game is played. What's funny, all this information is out there !!!!

Why Trump-Popeo-Esper decided to Soleimani. Why now?

When we are analyzing recent actions of the USA on Middle East that  are two competing explanatory hypothecs

Nowhere those two completing hypothesis are visible more clear then in analysis of Soleymani murder. For example Scott Ritter clearly prefer the second hypothesis He does not even mention  that role of Israel in Soleimani assassination ( The US unwittingly helped create Qassem Soleimani. Then they killed him. — RT Op-ed.

 Colonel Lang takes similar position  in his opinion peace and opinion peace of TTG: 

As usual, Philip Giraldi see Israel influence as the primary factor in this despicable act.  The Soleimani Assassination, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz Review

Donald Trump rode to victory in 2016 on a promise to end the useless wars in the Middle East, but he has now demonstrated very clearly that he is a liar. Instead of seeking detente, one of his first actions was to end the JCPOA nuclear agreement and re-introduce sanctions against Iran. In a sense, Iran has from the beginning been the exception to Trump’s no-new-war pledge, a position that might reasonably be directly attributed to his incestuous relationship with the American Jewish community and in particular derived from his pandering to the expressed needs of Israel’s belligerent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

His views are supposed by a sizable part of commentarial from the Moon of Alabama. The site that usually provide a high quality geopolitical analysis. For example

Nathan Mulcahy | Jan 5 2020 17:06 utc | 50

I am reposting this because the recent developments all point finger to this. BTW, in no way am I excusing Trump as a victim.

The Ziocon-Deep State-Kosher Nostra Mob has the disposable President, aka the Orange Man aka Drimpf by the balls. The Mob was going to get its war with Iran anyway - most likely after the re-election of Drumpf. But now Satanyahu desperately needs a war to stay out of prison. So the ZOG neutered Drumpf by impeaching him out of thin air (while ignoring many legitimate grounds). Drumpf now needs every vote in Senate, and the war with Iran is the ticket. With this war Drumpf just lost his practically guaranteed reelection chance. Of course this is the preferred outcome for the Mob anyway. Now the Mob will have its cake and eat it too. It will get its preferred President (another Bush or another Obama or another Clinton - of either gender, etc. ).as well as have its Iran war.

Was Soleimani on Diplomatic mission?

Several commenters at Moon or Alabama share the view that Soleimani was of some kind of official mission (which might be a trap) or even at the time of his killing enjoyed a diplomatic status of envoy:

"Before the vote Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told the parliament that he was scheduled to meet with Soleimani a day after his arrival to receive a letter from Iran to Iraq in response to a de-escalation offer Saudi Arabia had made. The U.S. assassinated Soleimani before the letter could be delivered by him. Abdul-Mahdi also said that Trump had asked him to mediate between the U.S. and Iran. Did he do that to trap Soleimani? It is no wonder then that Abdul-Mahdi is fuming."

Saker views on the issue

Noted military analyst Saker hold position that  consequences for the USA of this killing will high highly negative. But,while an excellent analyst, he often exaggerate negative consequences for the USA or its actions.

Well, my first though when reading these bullet points is that General Qasem Soleimani has already struck out at Uncle Shmuel from beyond his grave . What we see here is an immense political disaster unfolding like a slow motion train wreck. Make no mistake, this is not just a tactical "oopsie", but a major STRATEGIC disaster . Why?

For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void.

Second, the US now has two options:

The main problem with the current (and very provisional) outcome is that both the Israel Lobby and the Oil Lobby will now be absolutely outraged and will demand that the US try to use military power to regime change both Iraq and Iran.

Needless to say, that ain't happening (only ignorant and incurable flag-wavers believe the silly claptrap about the US armed forces being "THE BEST").

Furthermore, it is clear that by it's latest terrorist action the USA has now declared war on BOTH Iraq and Iran.

This is so important that I need to repeat it again:

The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure , with BOTH Iraq and Iran.

I hasten to add that the US is also at war with most of the Muslim world (and most definitely all Shias, including Hezbollah and the Yemeni Houthis).

Next, I want to mention the increase in US troop numbers in the Middle-East. An additional 3'000 soldiers from the 82nd AB is what would be needed to support evacuations and to provide a reserve force for the Marines already sent in. This is NOWHERE NEAR the kind of troop numbers the US would need to fight a war with either Iraq or Iran.

Finally, there are some who think that the US will try to invade Iran. Well, with a commander in chief as narcissistically delusional as Trump, I would never say "never" but, frankly, I don't think that anybody at the Pentagon would be willing to obey such an order. So no, a ground invasion is not in the cards and, if it ever becomes an realistic option we would first see a massive increase in the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not more (depending on the actual plan).

No, what the US will do if/when they attack Iran is what Israel did to Lebanon in 2006, but at a much larger scale. They will begin by a huge number of airstrikes (missiles and aircraft) to hit:

Iranian air defenses Iranian command posts and Iranian civilian and military leaders Symbolic targets (like nuclear installations and high visibility units like the IRGC) Iranian navy and coastal defenses Crucial civilian infrastructure (power plants, bridges, hospitals, radio/TV stations, food storage, pharmaceutical installations, schools, historical monuments and, let's not forget that one, foreign embassies of countries who support Iran). The way this will be justified will be the same as what was done to Serbia: a "destruction of critical regime infrastructure" (what else is new?!)

Then, within about 24-48 hours the US President will go on air an announce to the world that it is "mission accomplished" and that "THE BEST" military forces in the galaxy have taught a lesson to the "Mollahs". There will be dances in the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem (right until the moment the Iranian missiles will start dropping from the sky. At which point the dances will be replaced by screams about a "2nd Hitler" and the "Holocaust").

Then all hell will break loose (I have discussed that so often in the past that I won't go into details here).

In conclusion, I want to mention something more personal about the people of the US.

Roughly speaking, there are two main groups which I observed during my many years of life in the USA.

Group one : is the TV-watching imbeciles who think that the talking heads on the idiot box actually share real knowledge and expertise. As a result, their thinking goes along the following lines: " yeah, yeah, say what you want, but if the mollahs make a wrong move, we will simply nuke them; a few neutron bombs will take care of these sand niggers ". And if asked about the ethics of this stance, the usual answer is a " f**k them! they messed with the wrong guys, now they will get their asses kicked ".

Group two : is a much quieter group. It includes both people who see themselves as liberals and conservatives. They are totally horrified and they feel a silent rage against the US political elites. Friends, there are A LOT of US Americans out there who are truly horrified by what is done in their name and who feel absolutely powerless to do anything about it. I don't know about the young soldiers who are now being sent to the Middle-East, but I know a lot of former servicemen who know the truth about war and about THE BEST military in the history of the galaxy and they are also absolutely horrified.

 

Iran leadership position should be very reserved as time is working in their favor.

From military and strategic perspectives the deal the  General Soleimani means the declaration of war. But the rule is if your enemy made a mistake do not interrupt him. And this was not a mistake, this was a blunder -- creating martyr who now will recruit thousands of young Iranians and Iraqis to fight the USA presence in the region.  

Iran is known to be pragmatic, and will likely find a way to walk around the issue of retaliation without needing to go to war. At the same time Trump clearly pushed Iran out of its comfort zone, obliging Iran to respond with an assassination attack similar to that which the US just perpetrated. Last year, Iran refrained from downing a US spy plane with 38 officers on board. It is unlikely to show such forbearance in the near future.

Of course, logically Iran should not rush into retaliating. No one in a military hierarchy is irreplaceable. Soleimani’s aides and high officials in the intelligence ministry are certainly more than capable of picking up his mantle and continuing his policies. He was in his position for 20 years, which is a way too much and counterproductive.

It more likely that Iran keep the US waiting for a possible attack on many fronts, exhausting its finances and security measures to protect its forces, its commanders and VIPs. They will seek to avoid dragging Iran and the Middle East into an all-out-war.

The war in which Iran can inflict heavy casualties to the USA allies in the region buy pay a heavy price by itself -- be  destroyed.  Continental USA is out of reach for Iran.

So quit work on enhancing its suverainity via defense treaties with Russia and China should be done  instead of noise statements. Iran can't afford the war with the USA (and Trump can't afford the war in election year iether)

But direct losses of Iran are limited: again, General Soleimani was in change qi quid forces for 20 years and that means  that  his re-assignment was long overdue as any such force need fresh blood in leadership. He probably would move up, but how good he could be  as a politician remains unclear. So while symbolically this is clearly type of Sarajevo assassination it would be stupid for Iran leadership to play it that way.  He was replaced by a very similar general, of the same age and career, who was mostly involved in operations in Afghanistan (Meet Qassem Soleimani's Replacement Esmail Ghaani Is Iran's New Top Military Leader Zero Hedge)

..."We are children of war,” Ghaani once said of his relationship with Soleimani, according to Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency. "We are comrades on the battlefield and we have become friends in battle."

...Like Soleimani, he first deployed to put down the Kurdish uprising in Iran that followed the shah’s downfall. Iraq then invaded Iran, launching an eight-year war that would see 1 million people killed. Many of the dead were lightly armed members of the Guard, some of whom were young boys killed in human-wave assaults on Iraqi positions.

...Volunteers “were seeing that all of them are being killed, but when we ordered them to go, would not hesitate,” Ghaani later recounted.

...He survived the war to join the Quds Force shortly after its creation. He worked with Soleimani, as well as led counterintelligence efforts at the Guard. WEspern analysts say that while Soleimani focused on nations to Iran’s west, Ghaani’s remit was those to the east like Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, Iranian state media has not elaborated on his time in the Guard.

...Also in 2012, Ghaani drew criticism from the U.S. State Department after reportedly saying that “if the Islamic Republic was not present in Syria, the massacre of people would have happened on a much larger scale.”

“The U.S. and Israel are too small to consider themselves in line with Iran’s military power,” Ghaani said at the time. “This power has now appeared alongside the oppressed people of Palestine and Gaza in the form of missiles and weapons.”

Now, Ghaani is firmly in control of the Quds Force. Yet while Iran’s leaders say they have a plan to avenge Soleimani’s death, no plan has been announced yet as the country prepares for funerals for the general starting Sunday.

Whatever that plan for revenge is, Ghaani will be leading it.

"That Qaani survived at such high ranks in the (Guard), and remained Soleimani’s deputy for so long, says a lot about the trust both Khamenei and Soleimani had in him," said Afshon Ostovar, the author of a book on the Guard. "I suspect he’ll have little difficulty filling Soleimani’s shoes when it comes to operations and strategy."

The first statement of show some level of diplomatic and strategic skills, especially by stating that "Tehran will avenge the assassination of Qassem Soleimani by driving the US out of the region." This is much better strategy then any tit-for-tat measures

Tehran will avenge the assassination of Qassem Soleimani by driving the US out of the region, his successor said shortly after another Revolutionary Guard commander warned that dozens of American targets are “within our reach.” 

“We promise to continue martyr Soleimani’s path with the same force... and the only compensation for us would be to remove America from the region,” Esmail Qaani said on Monday in an interview to local media ahead of the general’s funeral in Tehran.

Qaani was appointed new leader of the Quds Force – the secretive arm of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – on January 3. His comments come just days after General Gholamali Abuhamzeh, who heads the IRGC in Iran’s southern Kerman province, said 35 US targets in the region as well as Tel Aviv were identified “long ago” and are “within our reach.”

Washington responded with a similarly-worded message, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threatening “lawful strikes” targeting “actual decision makers” if any American asset is in danger.

Excessive noise about retaliation plays into Israel hand  and allow then to use the USA as the enforcer of their agenda and that not what Iran wants.

The US extremely hawkish  policy toward Iran was in place for a long  time

Iran and the Fallacy of Saber-Rattling The National Interest Blog by Paul R. Pillar

January 10, 2013

Among several broadly held misconceptions about Iran is that to get Iranians to make concessions we want them to make at the negotiating table the United States must credibly threaten to inflict dire harm on them—specifically, with military force—if they do not make the concessions. Some in the United States (and some in Israel) who are especially keen on promoting this notion would welcome a war. If war preparations and brinksmanship used to communicate such a threat lead the two nations to stumble into an accidental war—and there is a real danger they might—so much the better from their point of view. But the belief in saber-rattling as an aid to gaining an agreement in the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program extends to many who actually want an agreement and are not seeking a war. We have heard more about this lately in connection with Chuck Hagel's nomination to be secretary of defense. People ask whether this nominee, who has evinced an appreciation of the huge downsides of a war with Iran, would be able to rattle the saber as convincingly as the same people think a secretary of defense ought to rattle it.

Even the usually thoughtful David Ignatius has adopted this line of thought. In his latest column he makes a comparison with nuclear deterrence in the time of Dwight Eisenhower. Under the doctrine of mutual assured destruction, a “bluff” of “frightening the Soviets with the danger of Armageddon” was used to dissuade them from overrunning WEspern Europe. “Obama,” says Ignatius, “has a similar challenge with Iran.”

No, he doesn't. One situation was deterrence of what would have been one of the most epic acts of aggression in history. The other is an effort to compel a far lesser country to curtail or give up an avowedly peaceful program, and to do so by threatening what itself would be an act of aggression. Thomas Schelling has taught us that deterrence and what he called compellence have significant differences, with the latter generally being harder to accomplish than the former. And this is in addition to all the other vast differences in scale, subject matter and morality between nuclear deterrence during the early Cold War and the current standoff with Iran.

These and other differences get to one of the problems with the common notion about threatening military attack in response to Iran not crying uncle at the conference table: a difficulty in making such a threat credible no matter how energetic a saber-rattler the secretary of defense might be. This is related also to the question Mr. Obama posed during the election campaign, about whether his opponent wanted a new war in the Middle East. At the level of public sentiment, most Americans do not want to become engaged in a new war in the Middle East. At the more sophisticated level of policy analysis—if that analysis is done thoroughly and objectively—such a war would be seen to have enormous costs and disadvantages. One of those disadvantages would be—as members of the opposition in Iran have repeatedly warned—to strengthen politically Iranian hardliners whose position is based partly on implacable hostility from the United States and who would benefit from a rallying around the flag in response to foreign attack. Another disadvantage would be the directly counterproductive one of leading the Iranians to make the decision they probably have not yet made, which is to build a nuclear weapon.

That last consideration is in turn related to another problem with the notion about threatening military attack, which concerns the reasons Iranians have for being interested in nuclear weapons. The chief reason almost certainly involves the presumed value of such weapons as a deterrent against major, regime-crushing foreign attack. The more that the brandishing of the threat of military attack makes such an attack seem likely, the greater will be the Iranian interest in developing nuclear weapons and the less inclined they will be to make concessions that would preclude that possibility.

As if all of this were not enough to discard the notion about the efficacy of saber-rattling, there are the central realities of the nuclear negotiations themselves and how Tehran perceives them. Inducing the Iranians to concede is not just a matter of hurting them more. They already are hurting a lot, from the economic consequences of international sanctions. What is missing from the negotiations is any reason for them to believe that the hurt will be eased if they make concessions. The P5+1 have yet to place on the table any proposal that includes any significant relief from sanctions. Without such an incentive, there is no reason for the Iranians to cry uncle or even to make lesser concessions, no matter how much more they are made to hurt.

The Iranians have good reason to be suspicious of ultimate U.S. and WEspern motivations, and threats of military force figure into that in an unhelpful way too. The Iranians do not have to look far to see ample evidence in favor of the proposition that the primary U.S. goal regarding Iran is regime change. And they do not have to look far into the past to see a recent U.S. use of military force—participation in the intervention in Libya—that overthrew a Middle Eastern regime after it had reached an agreement with the United States to give up all its nuclear and other unconventional weapons programs. What reason would Iranian leaders have to make any concessions if they believe the same thing is likely to happen to them? This is already a problem; rattling the saber only makes it worse.

Top Visited
 Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Jun 03, 2021] US March Oil Production Rebounds Strongly From Winter Storm Low

Jun 03, 2021 | peakoilbarrel.com

RON PATTERSON IGNORED 06/03/2021 at 7:34 am

Dennis,

If all sanctions on Iran are lifted, very soon, they may reach 3.5 million barrels per day by Q1 2022, but no way before then. I doubt they will ever reach 3.8 million again.

At any rate, to get to 29.54 million bpd by Q4 OPEC would need to increase production by 4.5 million bpd from April's production level. Dennis, we both know that is not going to happen.

[May 03, 2021] Escobar- US, Europe, The Vienna JCPOA 'Shadowplay'

May 03, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Few people, apart from specialists, may have heard of the JCPOA Joint Commission. That’s the group in charge of a Sisyphean task: the attempt to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal through a series of negotiations in Vienna.

The Iranian negotiating team was back in Vienna yesterday, led by Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi. Shadowplay starts with the fact the Iranians negotiate with the other members of the P+1 â€" Russia, China, France, UK and Germany â€" but not directly with the US.

That’s quite something: after all, it was the Trump administration that blew up the JCPOA. There is an American delegation in Vienna, but they only talk with the Europeans.

Shadowplay goes turbo when every Viennese coffee table knows about Tehran’s red lines: either it’s back to the original JCPOA as it was agreed in Vienna in 2015 and then ratified by the UN Security Council, or nothing.

Araghchi, mild-mannered and polite, has had to go on the record once again to stress that Tehran will leave if the talks veer towards “bullyingâ€, time wasting or even a step-by-step ballroom dance, which is time wasting under different terminology.

Neither flat out optimistic nor pessimistic, he remains, let’s say, cautiously upbeat, at least in public: “We are not disappointed and we will do our job. Our positions are very clear and firm. The sanctions must be lifted, verified and then Iran must return to its commitments.â€

So, at least in the thesis, the debate is still on. Araghchi: “There are two types of U.S. sanctions against Iran. First, categorized or so-called divisional sanctions, such as oil, banking and insurance, shipping, petrochemical, building and automobile sanctions, and second, sanctions against real and legal individuals.â€

“Second†is the key issue. There’s absolutely no guarantee the US Congress will lift most or at least a significant part of these sanctions.

Everyone in Washington knows it â€" and the American delegation knows it.

When the Foreign Ministry in Tehran, for instance, says that 60% or 70% has been agreed upon, that’s code for lifting of divisional sanctions. When it comes to “secondâ€, Araghchi has to be evasive: “There are complex issues in this area that we are examiningâ€.

Now compare it with the assessment of informed Iranian insiders in Washington such as nuclear policy expert Seyed Hossein Mousavian : they’re more like pessimistic realists.

That takes into consideration the non-negotiable red lines established by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei himself. Plus non-stop pressure by Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who are all JCPOA-adverse.

But then there’s extra shadowplay. Israeli intel has already notified the security cabinet that a deal most certainly will be reached in Vienna. After all, the narrative of a successful deal is already being constructed as a foreign policy victory by the Biden-Harris administration â€" or, as cynics prefer, Obama-Biden 3.0.

Meanwhile, Iranian diplomacy remains on overdrive. Foreign Minister Javad Zarif is visiting Qatar and Iraq, and has already met with the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim al Thani.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, virtually at the end of his term before the June presidential elections, always goes back to the same point: no more US sanctions; Iran’s verification; then Iran will return to its “nuclear obligationsâ€.

The Foreign Ministry has even released a quite detailed fact sheet once again stressing the need to remove “all sanctions imposed, re-imposed and re-labeled since January 20, 2017â€.

The window of opportunity for a deal won’t last long. Hardliners in Tehran couldn’t care less. At least 80% of Tehran members of Parliament are now hardliners. The next President most certainly will be a hardliner. Team Rouhani’s efforts have been branded a failure since the onset of Trump’s “maximum pressure†campaign. Hardliners are already in post-JCPOA mode.

That fateful Fateh

What none of the actors in the shadowplay can admit is that the revival of the JCPOA pales compared to the real issue: the power of Iranian missiles.

In the original 2015 negotiations in Vienna â€" follow them in my Persian Miniatures e-book â€" Obama-Biden 2.0 did everything in their power to include missiles in the deal.

Every grain of sand in the Negev desert knows that Israel will go no holds barred to retain its nuclear weapon primacy in the Middle East. Via a spectacular kabuki, the fact that Israel is a nuclear power happens to remain “invisible†to most of world public opinion.

While Khamenei has issued a fatwa clearly stating that producing, stockpiling and using weapons of mass destruction â€" nuclear included â€" is haram (banned by Islam), Israel’s leadership feels free to order stunts such as the sabotage via Mossad of the (civilian) Iranian nuclear complex at Natanz.

The head of Iran’s Parliament Energy Committee, Fereydoun Abbasi Davani, even accused Washington and London of being accomplices to the sabotage of Natanz, as they arguably supplied intel to Tel Aviv.

Yet now a lone missile is literally exploding a great deal of the shadowplay.

On April 22, in the dead of night before dawn, a Syrian missile exploded only 30 km away from the ultra-sensitive Israeli nuclear reactor of Dimona. The official â€" and insistent â€" Israeli spin: this was an “errantâ€.

Well, not really.

Here â€" third video from the top â€" is footage of the quite significant explosion. Also significantly, Tel Aviv remained absolutely mum when it comes to offering a missile proof of ID. Was it an old Soviet 1967 SA-5? Or, rather more likely, a 2012 Iranian Fateh-110 short range surface-to-surface, manufactured in Syria as the M-600 , and also possessed by Hezbollah?

A Fateh family tree can be seen in the attached chart. The inestimable Elijah Magnier has posed some very good questions about the Dimona near-hit. I complemented it with a quite enlightening discussion with physicists, with input by a military intel expert.

The Fateh-110 operates as a classic ballistic missile, until the moment the warhead starts maneuvering to evade ABM defenses. Precision is up to 10 meters, nominally 6 meters. So it hit exactly where it was supposed to hit. Israel officially confirmed that the missile was not intercepted â€" after a trajectory of roughly 266 km.

This opens a brand new can of worms. It implies that the performance of the much hyped and recently upgraded Iron Dome is far from stellar â€" and talk about an euphemism. The Fateh flew so low that Iron Dome could not identify it.

The inevitable conclusion is this was a message/warning combo. From Damascus. With a personal stamp from Bashar al-Assad, who had to clear such a sensitive missile launch. A message/warning delivered via Iranian missile technology fully available to the Axis of Resistance â€" proving that regional actors have serious stealth capability.

It’s crucial to remember that when Tehran dispatched a volley of deliberately older Fateh-313 versions at the US base Ayn al-Assad in Iraq, as a response to the assassination of Gen Soleimani in January 2020, the American radars went blank.

Iranian missile technology as top strategic deterrence. Now that’s the shadowplay that turns Vienna into a sideshow.

[Mar 28, 2021] China Signs 25-Year Deal With Iran in Challenge to the U.S-

Mar 28, 2021 | www.msn.com

A draft copy of the accord that surfaced on media last year showed plans for long-term supply of Iranian crude to China as well as investment in oil, gas, petrochemical, renewables and nuclear energy infrastructure.

Lured by the prospect of cheaper prices, China has already increased its imports of Iranian oil to around 1 million barrels a day, eroding U.S. leverage as it prepares to enter stalled talks with Tehran to revive a nuclear deal.

The Biden administration has indicated that it's open to reengaging with Iran after then-President Donald Trump abandoned the accord nearly three years ago and reimposed economic sanctions, but the two sides have yet to even agree to meet. Iran exported around 2.5 million barrels of oil a day before American penalties resumed.

Iran's closer integration with China may help shore up its economy against the impact of the U.S. sanctions, while sending a clear signal to the White House of Tehran's intentions. Wang Yi, who arrived in Tehran on Friday, also met with Rouhani to discuss the nuclear deal.

In a televised speech, Rouhani raised the prospect of restrictions being eased before the end of his second and final term as president in early August.

"We're ready for the lifting of sanctions," he said on Saturday. "If obstacles are removed, all or at least some sanctions can be lifted."

[Mar 28, 2021] Iran, China sign strategic long-term cooperation agreement

Mar 28, 2021 | www.politico.com

No additional details of the agreement were revealed as Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Chinese counterpart Wang Yi took part in a ceremony marking the event.

me title=

The deal marked the first time Iran has signed such a lengthy agreement with a major world power. In 2001, Iran and Russia signed a 10-year cooperation agreement, mainly in the nuclear field, that was lengthened to 20 years through two five-year extensions.

Before the ceremony Saturday, Yi met Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and special Iranian envoy in charge of the deal Ali Larijani.

Saeed Khatibzadeh, spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, on Friday called the agreement "deep, multi-layer and full-fledged."

The deal, which had been discussed since 2016, also supports tourism and cultural exchanges. It comes on the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Iran.

The two countries have had warm relations and both took part in a joint naval exercise in 2019 with Russia in the northern Indian Ocean.

Reportedly, Iran and China have done some $20 billion in trade annually in recent years. That's down from nearly $52 billion in 2014, however, because of a decline in oil prices and U.S. sanctions imposed in 2018 after then-President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. unilaterally out of a nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, saying it needed to be renegotiated.

Iran has pulled away from restrictions imposed under the deal under those sanctions in order to put pressure on the other signatories -- Germany, France, Britain, Russia and China -- to provide new economic incentives to offset U.S. sanctions.

[Mar 28, 2021] Iran, China sign strategic long-term [25 yr] cooperation agreement

Mar 28, 2021 | peakoilbarrel.com

HICKORY IGNORED 03/28/2021 at 12:29 pm

Thanks Dennis.
It is easy for us to discount the production capacity of Iran, however this could be a mistake.
If China needs oil it will fund production in Iran, regardless of the 'worlds' concern over Iranian nuclear and regional ambitions [very aggressive ambitions that are largely theocratically driven].

This weekend-
'Iran, China sign strategic long-term [25 yr] cooperation agreement
The agreement covers a variety of economic activity from oil and mining to promoting industrial activity in Iran, as well as transportation and agricultural collaboration.'
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/27/iran-china-agreement-478236

[Jan 20, 2021] Pompeo's twitter has become full of China hysterics

Jan 20, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org

Norwegian , Jan 18 2021 11:12 utc | 78

@Passer by | Jan 18 2021 1:26 utc | 52

Pompeo's twitter has become full of China hysterics. A snake becomes crazy when it is wounded and nears its demise.

What POMPEO Does After TRUMP Administration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv-DG8l_wqU

[Jan 19, 2021] Trump was a desperate "Murica must have the biggest dick" imperialist massively triggered by the US decline and trying to save the US Empire. Like a rabid dog that is wounded, he attacked anything that moves, including those who helped him get into power.

Jan 19, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org

Passer by , Jan 19 2021 21:57 utc | 36

Posted by: teri | Jan 19 2021 21:31 utc | 33

>>Today, the Trump administration filed an appeal against the UK decision not to extradite Assange. I must imagine that means that Trump has no intention of pardoning Assange.

Trump was a desperate "Murica must have the biggest dick" imperialist massively triggered by the US decline and trying to save the US Empire. Like a rabid dog that is wounded, he attacked anything that moves, including those who helped him get into power.

Anyone who thought that he will help the likes of Russia or Assange does not understand the psychology of elite US WASPs.

These people thought that they and the US should rule the world and that they are the cream of the cream. Anything denying them that would lead to crazed reactions, hysteria, rabid animalistic behavior, and snarling and gnashing of teeth at anything that moves.

Simply put, their decline caused them to go rabid. A rabid dog attacks anything that moves, whether friendly or not. Unfortunately for the likes of Russia and Assange.

[Jan 19, 2021] US expands sanctions against Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, targeting ships Russian firms working on vital pan-European projec

Jan 19, 2021 | www.rt.com

46 Follow RT on RT Outgoing US President Donald Trump has delivered his "parting gift" to the Moscow-led Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, with newly announced sanctions targeting a pipe-laying vessel and companies involved in the multinational project.

The specialist ship concerned, named, 'Fortuna,' and oil tanker 'Maksim Gorky', as well as two Russian firms, KVT-Rus and Rustanker, were blacklisted on Tuesday under CAATSA (Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) as part of Washington's economic war on Moscow. The same legislation had been previously used by the US to target numerous Russian officials and enterprises.

Russian energy giant Gazprom warned its investors earlier on Tuesday that Nord Stream 2 could be suspended or even canceled if more US restrictions are introduced.

ALSO ON RT.COM Gazprom warns investors that Nord Stream 2 could be canceled as Trump announces more US sanctions in 'parting gift'

However, Moscow has assured its partners that it intends to complete the project despite "harsh pressure on the part of Washington," according to Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov. Reacting to the new package of sanctions on Tuesday, Peskov called them "unlawful."

Meanwhile, the EU said it is in no rush to join the Washington-led sanction war on Nord Stream 2. EU foreign affairs chief, Josep Borrell, said that the bloc is not going to resist the construction of the project.

"Because we're talking about a private project, we can't hamper the operations of those companies if the German government agrees to it," Borrell said Tuesday.

Nord Stream 2 is an offshore gas pipeline, linking Russia and Germany with aim of providing cheaper energy to Central European customers. Under the agreement between Moscow and Berlin, it was to be launched in mid-2020, but the construction has been delayed due to strong opposition from Washington.

ALSO ON RT.COM One more European firm caves to US pressure on Nord Stream 2 project – media

The US, which is hoping to sell its Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) to Europe, has hit the project with several rounds of sanctions over scarcely credible claims that it could undermine European energy security. Critics say the real intent is to force EU members to buy from American companies.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

46 Follow RT on RT Trends:

Fatback33 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:20 AM

The group that owns Washington makes the foreign policy. That policy is not for the benefit of the people.
DukeLeo Fatback33 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:06 PM
That is correct. The private banks and corporations in the US are very upset about Nord Stream - 2, as they want Europe to buy US gas at double price. Washington thus introduces additional political gangsterism in the shape of new unilateral sanctions which have no merit in international law.
noremedy 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:22 AM
Is the U.S. so stupid that they do not realize that they are isolating themselves? Russia has developed SPFS, China CIPS, together with Iran, China and Russia are further developing a payment transfer system. Once in place and functioning this system will replace the western SWIFT system for international payment transfers. It will be the death knell for the US dollar. 327 million Americans are no match for the rest of the billions of the world's population. The next decade will see the total debasement of the US monetary system and the fall from power of the decaying and crumbling in every way U.S.A.
Hanonymouse noremedy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:37 PM
They don't care. They have the most advanced military in the world. Might makes right, even today.
Shelbouy 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:25 PM
Russia currently supplies over 50% of the natural gas consumed by The EU. Germany and Italy are the largest importers of Russian natural gas. What is the issue of sanctions stemming from and why are the Americans doing this? A no brainer question I suppose. It's to make more money than the other supplier, and exert political pressure and demand obedience from its lackey. Germany.
David R. Evans Shelbouy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:58 PM
Russia and Iran challenge perpetual US wars for Israel's Oded Yinon Plan. Washington is Israel-controlled territory.
Jewel Gyn 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:34 AM
Sanctions work both ways. With the outgoing Trump administration desperately laying mines for Biden, we await how sleepy Joe is going to mend strayed ties with EU.
Count_Cash 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:20 AM
The US mafia state continues with the same practices. The dog is barking but the caravan is going. The counter productiveness of sanctions always shows through in the end! I am sure with active efforts of Germany and Russia against US mafia oppression that a blowback will be felt by the US over time!
Dachaguy 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:24 AM
This is an act of war against Germany. NATO should respond and act against the aggressor, America.
xyz47 Dachaguy 42 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:20 PM
NATO is run by the US...
lovethy Dachaguy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:04 PM
NATO has no separate existence. It's the USA's arm of aggression, suppression and domination. Germany after WWII is an occupied country of USA. Thousand of armed personnel stationed in Germany enforcing that occupation.
Chaz Dadkhah 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:19 PM
Further proof that Trump is no friend of Russia and is in a rush to punish them while he still has power. If it was the swamp telling him to do that, like his supporters suggest, then they would have waited till their man Biden came in to power in less than 24 hours to do it. Wake up!
Mac Kio 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:34 PM
USA hates fair competition. USA ignores all WTO rules.
Russkiy09 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:33 PM
By whining and not completing in the face of US, Russia is losing credibility. They should not have delayed to mobilize the pipe laying vessel and other equipment for one whole year. They should have mobilized in three months and finished by now. Same happens when Jewtin does not shoot down Zio air force bombing Syria everyday. But best option should have been to tell European vassals that "if you can, take our gas. But we will charge the highest amount and sell as much as we want, exclude Russophobic Baltic countries and Poland and neo-vassal Ukraine. Pay us not in your ponzi paper money but real goods and services or precious metals or other commodities or our own currency Ruble." I so wish I could be the President of Russia. Russians deserve to be as wealthy as the Swiss or SIngapore etc., not what they are getting. Their leaders should stand up for their interest. And stop empowering the greedy merchantalist Chinese and brotherhood Erdogan.
BlackIntel 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:27 PM
America i captured by private interest; this project threatens American private companies hence the government is forced to protect capitalism. This is illegal
Ohhho 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:15 PM
That project was a mistake from the start: Russia should distance itself from the Evil empire, EU included! Stop wasting time and resources on trying to please the haters and keeping them more competitive with cheaper Russian natural gas: focus on real partners and potential allies elsewhere!
butterfly123 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:58 PM
I have said it before that part of the problem is at the door of the policy-makers and politicians in Russia. Pipeline project didn't spring up in the minds of politicians in Russia one morning, presumably. There should have been foresight, detailed planning, and opportunity creation for firms in Russia to acquire the skill-set and resources to advance this project. Not doing so has come to bite Russia hard and painful. Lessons learnt I hope Mr President!
jakro 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:37 AM
Good news. The swamp is getting deeper and bigger.
hermaflorissen 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:49 AM
Trump finally severed my expectations for the past 4 years. He should indeed perish.
ariadnatheo 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:06 PM
That is one Trump measure that will not be overturned by the Senile One. They will need to amplify the RussiaRussiaRussia barking and scratching to divert attention from their dealings with China
Neville52 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:01 PM
Its time the other nations of the world turned their backs on the US. Its too risky if you are an international corporation to suddenly have large portions of your income cancelled due to some crazy politician in the US
5th Eye 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:03 PM
From empire to the collapse of empire, US follows UK to the letters. Soon it will be irrelevant. The only thing that remains for UK is the language. Probably hotdog for the US.
VonnDuff1 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:10 PM
The USA Congress and its corrupt foreign policy dictates work to the detriment of Europe and Russia, while providing no tangible benefits to US states or citizens. So globalist demands wrapped in the stars & stripes, should be laughed at, by all freedom loving nations.

[Jan 11, 2021] "We are all Taiwanese now" stunt is Pompeo's act of petty spite for getting outfoxed in the Hong Kong colour revolution play.

Jan 11, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org

LittleWhiteCabbage , Jan 11 2021 15:19 utc | 128

@84:
As sometimes said: don't sweat the small stuff.
This "We are all Taiwanese now" stunt is Pompeo's act of petty spite for getting outfoxed in the Hong Kong colour revolution play.
Empire's useful idiots were let loose to trash the hapless city, fired up by the Western propaganda machinery.
Now Beijing is putting the stock on those pompous minions with the National Security Law, and their foreign masters can't do nuffin' except squeal human rights and apply some nuisance sanctions.
The West fails because it looks at China through ideological lenses and sees Communists, who can fall back on 5000 years of statecraft to push back at interlopers.
Beijing's moves can be likened to two classic strategies.
1. Zhuge Liang fools the enemy to fire all their arrows at straw men, which become ammunition against them.
2. The Empty City strategy. Invaders take over an ostensibly abandoned city, only to be trapped inside.
Global Times is cantankerous and sometimes risible, but even a broken clock is right, twice a day.
So when it says that crossing Beijing's red line on the Taiwan issue is not in the island's best interests, the incoming BiMala administration should take note.

[Jan 02, 2021] PATRICK LAWRENCE- Trump's Foreign Policy Explained Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... International Herald Tribune ..."
"... Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century ..."
"... The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News. ..."
Jan 02, 2021 | consortiumnews.com

rump the New Yorker was a stranger in a strange land, having nothing of the sensibility of the insular, self-serving swamp-dwellers in Washington and no grasp whatsoever of the power of the Deep State, whose ire he quickly aroused. Trump was a terrible statesman, too seat-of-the-pants, but what was to him dealmaking was at bottom diplomacy, an activity Washington has little time for.

Why did Trump surround himself with people who opposed him and not infrequently sabotaged those few foreign policy ideas one can approve of -- constructive ties with Russia, an end to wasteful wars, peace in Northeast Asia, sending "obsolete" NATO into the history books? What were H.R. McMaster, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and numerous others like them but of lesser visibility doing in his administration?

I am asked this not infrequently. My reply is simple: It is not at all clear Trump appointed these people and at least as likely they were imposed upon him by the Deep State, the permanent state, the administrative state -- whatever term makes one comfortable. Let us not forget, Trump knew nobody in Washington and had a lot of swivel chairs to fill.

We must add to this Trump's personal shortcomings. He is by all appearances shallow of mind, poorly read (to put it generously), of weak moral and ethical character, and overly concerned with appearances.

Put these various factors together and you get none other than the Trump administration's nearly illegible record on the foreign policy side.

Trump is to be credited with sticking to his guns on the big stuff: He held out for a new-détente with Russia, getting the troops out of the Middle East and Afghanistan, making a banner-headline deal with the North Koreans. He was scuttled in all cases.

Complicating the tableau, the prideful Trump time and again covered his impotence by publicly approving of what those around him did to subvert his purposes. A year ago, the record shows, Pompeo and Mark Esper (then the defense secretary) concocted plans to assassinate Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian military leader, flew to Mar–a–Lago, and presented Trump with a fait accompli -- whereupon Trump acquiesced as the administration and the press pretended it was White House policy all along.

Now We Come to Iran

Hassan Rouhani, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, addresses the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly's General Debate, Sept. 25, 2019. (UN Photo/Cia Pak)

Pulling out of the Iran nuclear accord a year into his administration was among the most destructive moves Trump made during his four years in office. It was afterward that the shamefully inhumane "maximum pressure" campaign against Iranians was set in motion.

Trump's intention, however miscalculated, was the dealmaker's: He expected to force Tehran back to the mahogany table to get a new nuclear deal. As secretary of state, Pompeo's was to cultivate a coup or provoke a war. It was cross-purposes from then on, notably since Pompeo sabotaged the proposed encounter between Trump and Rouhani on the sidelines of the UN GA.

Now we have some context for the recent spate of Iranophobic posturing and the new military deployments in the Persian Gulf. We have just been treated to four years of a recklessly chaotic foreign policy, outcome of a war the Deep State waged against a pitifully weak president who threatened it: This is the truth of what we witness as Trump and his people fold their tents.

Trump the dealmaker a year ago now contemplates an attack on Natanz on the pretext Iran is not holding to the terms of an accord he abandoned two years ago? The only way to make sense of this is to conclude that there is no sense to be made of it.

Who ordered the B–52 sorties and the Nimitz patrols? This question promises a revealing answer. It is very highly doubtful Trump had anything to do with this, very highly likely Pompeo and his allies in hawkery got it done and told the president about it afterward.

Trump is out in a few weeks. The self-perpetuating bureaucracy that made a mess of his administration -- or a bigger mess than it may have been anyway -- will remain. It will now serve a president who is consonant with its purposes. And the eyes of most people who support him will remain wide shut.

Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century . Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via his Patreon site .

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

Ed Rickert , December 31, 2020 at 10:06

A first rate analysis of the inconsistent and inchoate policies of Trump as well as an acute assessment of his psychology, notably his weakness when challenged. Equal cogent is Lawrence's trepidation and concern over the policies and potential actions of the administration that is to replacement Trump. Thank you for your thoughtful work.

Pierre Guerlain , December 31, 2020 at 06:51

I would just like to have a linkto the sources for Pompeo hoodwinking Trump for the assassination of Soleimani.

Linda , December 30, 2020 at 18:42

Thank you, Patrick, for this very clear article summarizing Trump's clumsy attempts at making peace with other countries (a campaign offering to voters) and the Deep State's thwarting of those attempts. My friends and I intuitively knew the people taking roles around the Trump presidency were put there by the "system". Trump had been made into a pariah by the Press, his own Republican Party, and shrieks for 'Resistance' by Hillary Democrats in the millions across the country even before he was inaugurated. There was no 'respectable' person in Washington DC who would dare help Trump make his way in that new, strange land. Remember one of the Resistanace calls to the front? . "Become ungovernable!!!!" Tantrums, not negotiations, have become the norm

So long, any semblance of Washington DC respectability. It was nice to think you were there at one time.

Jerry Alatalo , December 30, 2020 at 16:52

Dear readers and supporters of Consortium News around the Earth,

Please pass the following important message along to the genuine war criminals United States President Donald Trump and United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson:

"Do the right & moral thing for once in your hideous, miserable & pathetic lives, – and free genuine peacemaker Julian Assange."

***

Please consider making the (1st ever in history) establishment of genuine Peace on Earth the absolute overwhelming #1 New Year's Resolution worldwide for 2021. The quality of life for future generations depends on the good actions of this generation.. Thank you.

Peace.

Patrick Lawrence , December 30, 2020 at 14:32

I thank these commentators, a couple of whom read these pieces regularly, and all others who've taken the time this year gone by to put down their thoughts. I read them always and almost always learn things from them. Blessings to all and wishes for a superb new year! -- Patrick.

Lee C Ng , December 30, 2020 at 14:02

I agree 100% with the writer. Example; if Bolton, probably pushed into the administration by the Deep State, didn't sabotage Trump's talks with the N. Koreans in Vietnam, we might've had a peaceful settlement on the Korean peninsular by now. And it's no surprise that Trump on several occasions prevented the success of US-China trade talks – it was more than likely he was forced to do so. Trump wasn't a politician, much less a statesman. But he wasn't an orgre either, despite the hostility of the corporate press towards him (and I'm no fan of Trump).

Biden will represent better the real forces behind all US administrations – the forces responsible for the over 200 wars/military interventions in its 242 years of Independence.

Jeff Harrison , December 30, 2020 at 00:19

Thank you, Patrick, you have made some sense out of a nonsensical situation. "We have just been treated to four years of a recklessly chaotic foreign policy, outcome of a war the Deep State waged against a pitifully weak president who threatened it: This is the truth of what we witness as Trump and his people fold their tents." What is it that the Brits call their Deep State? It's something like the civil service but it's actually called something else.

You called Donnie Murdo a deal maker. Donnie Murdo is a New York hustler. His "negotiation" style only works when his interlocutor must make a deal with him. If his interlocutor can walk away, he will and Donnie Murdo will go bankrupt. The real problem is that the US doesn't need a deal maker – we have people for that. The Prezzy & CEO is frequently called that, the chief executive officer. But that's an administrative title. He is also frequently called the commander in chief but that really only applies if we are at war which we should be at as little as possible. What the prezzy really is supposed to be is a leader. If Donnie Murdo were, in fact, a leader, John Bolton would have been taking a commercial flight back to the US after his little stunt in Vietnam. But he didn't. So the question isn't what could Donnie Murdo do in the next three weeks, it's what can Donnie Murdo's henchmen do in the next three weeks?

Casper , December 29, 2020 at 18:19

One of the other personal things about Donald Trump, was that he had no skill nor experience in leading and manipulating a bureaucracy. He had basically directed a family business and his personal publicity machine. To the extent that Trump hotels had thousands of employees, Trump hired managers to do that. It would appear that the Trump family business largely concentrated on making of new deals for new hotels.

Thus, Donald Trump arrived in Washington completely unprepared to be the leader of a bureaucracy and completely unskilled at being able to get it to do what he wanted it do do.

I'm not a Joe Biden fan, but he's been in Washington since the 1970's. He's seen the bureaucracy from the Senate point of view for 40 years, then got at least a view of what it was like to try to direct it from watching as Veep. I still suspect the real power lies with the military command, and has since the 1950's, but this administration is going to come in with at least some skills in terms of trying to get a government to do what it wants.

PEG , December 29, 2020 at 17:46

Perfect article – and epitaph on Trump's foreign policy record.

Anne , December 29, 2020 at 14:00

Indeed, Patrick, they (the eyes of most of the electorate) will remain shut, eyelids deftly closed Only other peoples commit barbaric, heinous war crimes, invade other cultures completely without cause, bomb other peoples to death, devastation, loss of livelihood, home water supply We, the perfecto (along with one other group now ensconced – illegally, but apparently western acceptably – in the ME) people do what we do because, well, we are perfecto and thus when we commit these barbarisms, they aren't such. And are, it would seem, totally ignorable. Wake me in the morning style .

Truly, the vast majority of those – whatever their skin hue, ethnic background – who voted for the B-H duo are comfortably off, consider themselves oh so bloody "liberal" (do they really know what that means, in fact? Or don't they care?), so to the left of Attila the Hun (which obviously doesn't mean much, Left wise) .and what the MICMATT does to other people in other societies matters not flying F .After all, aren't they usually of "swarthy" skin hue and likely not western and of that offshoot religion of the one gawd, the third go around?

The west (US, UK, FR, GY etc ) really and truly need to develop a Conscience, a real morality, humanity but I fear that that is all too late

[Dec 20, 2020] Et tu, Brutus?

Dec 20, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

vk , Dec 19 2020 13:39 utc | 40

Et tu, Brutus?

Pompeo Claims Russia is 'Pretty Clearly' Behind Major Hack Attack on US

[Nov 18, 2020] Chinese reaction on Pompeo recent "talking points" about China, issued by State Department

Nov 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Nov 18 2020 20:12 utc | 13

Here's China's unofficial response via this Global Times editorial . I wish I could reproduce the art at the editorial's header as it's very spot-on:

"There is no new wording in the report, which can be seen as a collection of malicious remarks from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other anti-China US politicians and senators. Right now, only a little more than 60 days are left for the current US administration. An official from the State Department explained that the report is not meant to constrain the next US administration. But the fact is the Department of State fears that the Biden administration will adjust US-China relations, and the release of the report is part of their efforts to consolidate the current extreme anti-China path.

"But most Chinese scholars who have read the report believe it is an insult to Kennan by labeling the report as Kennan-style. Kennan, then US charge d'affaires in Moscow, sent an 8,000-word telegram to the Department of State detailing his views on the Soviet Union. At least, there was no special political motive in Kennan's report. But the latest report is trying to leave a legacy for the extreme anti-China policy adopted by the Trump administration and fawning on Pompeo, which is evil in essence .

"The impulsive and capricious governing style of Donald Trump leaves sufficient room for politicians like Pompeo to give free play to their ambitions. The Department of State has become the governmental organ that has the most serious clashes with China, outperforming the CIA and the Department of Defense.

"Diplomats are supposed to be communicators, but Pompeo and his team have chilled the communication atmosphere with China. In the China direction, today's US Department of State can close its door.

"Surrounded by such deep hostility and prejudice toward China and the wild ambition of the secretary of state, how could the Department of State's Office of Policy Planning make out anything objective about China? Their observation ability, cautious attitude toward research, and sense of responsibility for history have been severely squeezed. They are just currying favor from their seniors and manipulating extreme paths, pretending to be 'thoughtful....'

"Chinese diplomatic and academic circles look down upon the Pompeo team, which lacks professionalism, and acts like a group of gangsters suddenly taking official positions. They not only have messed things up, but also hope to build their nonsense as legacy. Pompeo's choice of opportunists like Miles Yu as advisor in particular has increased Chinese people's doubts over the 'amateurism' and 'immorality' of the Pompeo team's China policy....

"The US' China policy is very much like 'drunk driving' internally while on the international stage it's like sailing against the current." [My Emphasis]

There's not much more to add aside for asking barflies to read the entire editorial.

[Nov 18, 2020] Pompeo besides being neocon and is a fanatic, crackpot 'Christian'

As any warmonger he is a fake Christian
Nov 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
TominAZ , Nov 18 2020 19:54 utc | 5
Pompeo, if not shamed out of politics soon, will be as bad or worse than Trump, because besides being nuts is a fanatic, crackpot 'Christian'.

Dave , Nov 18 2020 19:56 utc | 6

7-10 each sound fine but given the record of recent US leaders I wouldn't expect them to be implemented with the good of mankind in mind.
karlof1 , Nov 18 2020 19:59 utc | 7
I posted this to the Biden thread, but it belongs here.

RT op/ed analysis of Pompeo's China containment policy plan, "The Elements of the China Challenge" :

"Although it is hardly atypical of the President Trump administration, the document is significant because it represents yet another attempt by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to immortalize his Cold War confrontation between the US and China, bind the succeeding administration to it and most strikingly, institutionalize anti-Beijing ideas into American bureaucracy.

"The push against China by the Trump White House is not designed to be a passing phase, but a permanent and defining change of direction, for which this entire term in office has sought to prepare. This document aims to be a blueprint for long-term ideological struggle and a series of aspirations for maintaining hegemony, an affirmation of priority and a statement that things cannot " go back to normal ". But it makes no guarantee that the US can ever adequately understand China, or that it will succeed in its aims.

"The reference to George F. Kennan in pitching this document is appealing given the historical parallels, but it is not an exact fit and this, in turn, helps shine a light on Pompeo's own ignorance of China. It might be described in one simple sentence: China is not the Soviet Union and the ideological stakes are not quite the same." [Emphasis Original]

While I'd agree that differences in ideology exist between China and the Outlaw US Empire, it is the Empire that's constructed upon and is living the Big Lie inherent within Neoliberalism, while China continues to perfect its already very efficient system of Collective Libertarianism through its revamped Democratic Centralism. The really big fundamental difference is that China has absolutely no need to lie to its people, whereas the exact opposite's true within the Neoliberal West. After a lengthy period of public input, the government meets and eventually publishes its 5-year plan of development, which is contained within an even larger plan that's also been devised with public input and once put together is also published for public consumption. And since 2010, all plans have existed within China's UN 2030 Development plan, which is also available to the public. In a great many respects. China is a more open society than the Outlaw US Empire. Why? Because it doesn't need to lie to its citizens because it fights against the corruption that provides the reason for such lies--China has no Financial Parasitism it must mask from its citizens whereas the Outlaw US Empire is drowning in a massive sea of corruption that is killing it. Clearly, Pompeo wants that to continue.

[Nov 07, 2020] U.S. Foreign Policy is a Failure, Whoever's President

It is not a failure. It is struggle for Full Spectrum Dominance, whoever is the President.
Nov 06, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org

The world recognizes what U.S. elites don't: the utter, total American failure to contain Covid-19 has damaged U.S. standing and will do so until the virus is controlled. Meanwhile, regional powers, China and Russia, cooperate and share resources, particularly vaccines. Cuba provides treatments, but the U.S. turns up its nose at Cuban medicine, even if it means more American covid patients die – this, though Cuba's pharmacopeia for this plague appears superior. China sends doctors and medicines across the globe. Russia opts for sane herd immunity – through vaccination. These countries act like adults. Not a good look for the U.S.

The Obama regime's deplorable trade and military "pivot to China," along with its sanctions against high-ranking Russians and Russian energy, financial and defense firms and the Trump regime's provocations, sanctions and insults aimed at both countries have now born fruit: There is talk of a military alliance between China and Russia. Both countries deny that such is in the offing, but the fact that it is even discussed reveals how effectively U.S. foreign policy has created enemies and united them. Even if they would have drawn closer anyway, China and Russia cannot ignore the advantage of teaming up in the face of U.S. hostility. A more idiotic approach than this hostility is scarcely imaginable. Remember, not too long ago the U.S. had little problem with its chief trading partner, China, and there were even reports some years back of actual military cooperation in Syria between the U.S. and Russia. All that is gone now, dissolved in a fog of deliberate ill-will.

So what are some of the absurd U.S. policies that have reaped this potential whirlwind? An utterly unnecessary trade war with China, with tariffs that were paid, not by China, but by importers and then passed on to American consumers. There is the Trump regime's assault on China's technology sector and its attempt to lockout Huawei from the 5G bonanza. Then there are the attacks on Russian business, like its deal to sell natural gas to Germany, attacks in which the U.S. insists Germany buy the much more expensive U.S. product to avoid becoming beholden to Russia. And of course, there are the constant mega-deals involving sales of U.S. weapons to anyone who might oppose China, Russia, North Korea or Iran.

Aggravating these economic assaults, the U.S. navy aggressively patrols the South China Sea, the Black Sea and more and more the Arctic Ocean, where Russia has already been since forever. Russia has a lengthy Siberian coast, making U.S. talk of Russia's so-called aggressive posture there just plain ludicrous. And now a NATO ally, Turkey, stirs the pot by egging on Azerbaijan in its war against Armenia, which has a defense treaty with Russia. Azerbaijan is famous for the oil fields of Baku.

Never has it been clearer that the U.S. deploys its military might to advance its corporations' interests, international law be damned. As General Smedley Butler wrote of his military service way back in the early 20 th century, he was "a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank Boys to collect revenues in," and on and on. Nothing has changed since them. It's only gotten worse. Indeed now we're in a position where it is Russia that abides by international law, while the U.S. flouts it, instead following something bogus it calls the "rules of the liberal international order."

The biggest and most consequential U.S. foreign policy failure involves nuclear weapons. Here the Trump regime has outdone all its predecessors. It withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate Range Nuclear treaty, which banned land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and certain missile launchers and which it first signed in 1987. It withdrew from the Open Skies Treaty, inked in 1992. That agreement allowed aircraft to fly over the signatories' territory to monitor missile installations.

Trump has also made clear he intends to deep-six the 2010 New Start Treaty with Russia, which limits nuclear warheads, nuclear armed bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and missile launchers. The Trump regime has made the ridiculous, treaty-killing demand that China participate in START talks. Why should it? China has 300 nuclear missiles, on a par with countries like the U.K. The U. S. and Russian have 6000 apiece. China's response? Sure we'll join START, as soon as the U.S. cuts its arsenal to 300. Naturally that went over like a lead balloon in Washington.

And now, lastly, the white house has urged nations that signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons – which just recently received formal UN ratification – to withdraw their approval. The U.S. spouted doubletalk about the TPNW's dangers, in order to head off international law banning nuclear weapons, just as it has banned – and thus stigmatized – chemical weapons, cluster bombs and germ warfare. Doubtless the Trump regime's panic over the TPNW derives from its desire to "keep all options on the table" militarily, including the nuclear one.

What is the point here? To make the unthinkable thinkable, to make nuclear war easier to happen. The Pentagon appears delighted. Periodically military bigwigs are quoted praising new smaller nuclear missiles, developed not for deterrence, but for use. Indeed, scrapping deterrence policy – which has, insofar as it posits no first use, arguably been the only thing keeping humanity alive and the planet habitable since the dangerous dawn of the atomic era – has long been the dream of Pentagon promoters of "small, smart nuclear weapons" for "limited" nuclear wars. How these geniuses would control such a move from escalating into a wider nuclear war and planetary holocaust is never mentioned.

Before he assumed office, Trump reportedly shocked his advisors by asking, if we have nuclear weapons, why can't we use them? Only someone dangerously ignorant or profoundly lacking in basic human morality could ask such a question. Only someone eager to ditch the human-species-saving policy of no-first-strike nuclear deterrence but willing to risk nuclear extinction could flirt with such madness. Later in his presidency, Trump asserted that he could end the war in Afghanistan easily if he wanted, hinting that he meant nukes, but that he did not incline toward murdering 10 million people. Well, thank God for this shred of humanity.

Some assume a Biden presidency would chart a different course, but they may be counting their chickens before they're hatched. Biden has made very hostile noises about Russia, China and North Korea and has surrounded himself with neo-con hawks. He has so far made no promise to return to the nuclear negotiating table for anything other than START. Would he try to resuscitate the INF and Open Skies treaties? Would he end Trump regime blather aimed at scotching TPNW? Maybe. Or he may have imbibed so much anti-Russia and anti-China poison that he, like Trump, sees the absence of treaties as a green light for nuclear aggression.

Biden's official Foreign Policy Plan says that he regards the purpose of nuclear weapons as deterrence, thus endorsing this at best very flawed compromise for survival. That he, apparently unlike Trump, abjures a nuclear first strike is a huge relief, but how long will it last? The Pentagon has been very persuasive over many decades of center-right rule and there is no reason to assume that it will suddenly adopt a hands-off policy with Biden just because he favors nuclear deterrence. Some military-industrial-complex sachems regard the no-first-use principle as a mistake. Also, remember, Obama okayed a trillion-dollar nuclear arms upgrade. Biden was his vp. What about that? This is no minor, petty concern. Russia is armed to the teeth with supersonic nuclear weapons and China has concluded from U.S. belligerence that it better arm up too. We are in dangerous waters here. Let's hope they don't become radioactive.

Eve Ottenberg is a novelist and journalist. Her latest book is Birdbrain . She can be reached at her website . New from
CounterPunch CounterPunch+
Member Area

Weekend Edition
November 06, 2020
Friday - Sunday RICHARD D. WOLFF
Why Capitalism Was Destined to Come Out on Top in the 2020 Election EVE OTTENBERG
U.S. Foreign Policy is a Failure, Whoever's President JEFFREY ST. CLAIR
Roaming Charges: the Fog of Bores ROB URIE
Two Capitalist Parties Compete, Humanity Loses KIM SCIPES
The AFL-CIO's Foreign Policy Program: Where Historians Now Stand RON JACOBS
The Election and the Empire PAUL STREET
An Omaha Stake in the Heart of Orange Satan? Early Reflections on the Election ROBERT HUNZIKER
A Troubling Discovery in the Arctic JOSEPH NATOLI
Nothing Sacred RAMZY BAROUD
Macron's Incitement: 'Crisis in Islam' or French Politics? DEAN BAKER
Donald Trump and Being Deplorable ROGER HARRIS
Leveraging the Ruling Class's Loss of Legitimacy JOSEPH SCALIA III
Terra & Demos: A Unified Ethics for Conservation and the Human Quest DANIEL LAZARE
At Breaking Point: Why the Constitutional Crisis Will Only Get Worse MANUEL GARCÍA, JR.
Death-Grip by Fungal Ideas JOHN FEFFER
U.S. Democracy: the Four-Year Rule? NICK PEMBERTON
It's Not Populism, It's Voter Suppression RICHARD C. GROSS
Aftermath DANIEL BEAUMONT
Prison, the Plague, Writing and Exile: an Interview With Aslı Erdoğan AJAMU BARAKA
Confronting Bipartisan Repression and the US/EU/NATO Axis of Domination Beyond Election Day ROBERT FANTINA
Amy Coney Barrett: the Latest Supreme Court Travesty PRABHAT PATNAIK
India's Move Toward a De Facto Unitary State LOUIS PROYECT
The Origins of Commercial Capitalism REBECCA GORDON
In a Looking Glass World, Our Work is Just Beginning OLIVIA ALPERSTEIN
Ending the Nuclear Age PRABIR PURKAYASTHA
Why Google is Facing Serious Accusations of Monopoly Practices ROBERT KOEHLER
Trump Talk TOM MOUNTAIN
Western Civilization? SUSAN BLOCK
RIP Betty Dodson, Sex Revolutionary NICKY REID
Democracy as Mental Illness: Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Cross 2020 ERIK MOLVAR
Killing Fields: the Seamy Side of Idaho's Wildlife Agency FRANCES MADESON
Arsonist of Three Black Louisiana Churches Sentenced to 25 Years in Prison B. R. GOWANI
Trump and the US CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI
When Trump Takes Advice DAVID YEARSLEY
Bach the Poll Worker JOHN KENDALL HAWKINS
Invasion of the Mental Snatchers ED SANDERS
Oi-Joy Teeter Totter: a Glyph November 05, 2020 PATRICK COCKBURN
Trump's Bid to Stop the Count Risks Turning America into an 'Illiberal Democracy' like Turkey VIJAY PRASHAD
U.S. is Doing Its Best to Lock Out China From Latin America and the Caribbean DAVID ROSEN
Police Violence: a Crisis of Masculinity? KATHLEEN WALLACE
Thanks Obama! LEIA BARNETT
A Call to Reclaim Our Awareness for the Wild SUSIE DAY
That's Not Gangster, That's Love: Eddie Conway and Jose Saldaña Talking KENN ORPHAN
Trump Was Never the Real Problem DOUG JOHNSON HATLEM
Biden Appears to Have Won, Why He Must be Primaried in 2024 CounterPunch
  • Tells the Facts and Names the Names
  • Published since 1996
  • Copyright © CounterPunch
  • All rights reserved.
  • [email protected]
Administration
  • Becky Grant
  • Administrative Director
  • Deva Wheeler
  • Membership and Order Support
  • [email protected]
Editorial
  • Jeffrey St. Clair, Editor
  • Joshua Frank, Managing Editor
  • Nathaniel St. Clair, Social Media
  • Alexander Cockburn, 1941 -- 2012
Mailing Address
  • CounterPunch
  • PO Box 228
  • Petrolia, CA 95558
  • Telephone
  • Nichole Stepehns, Administrative Assistant
  • 1(707) 629-3683

CounterPunch delivered to your inbox.

Get news updates from CounterPunch Sign Up

[Nov 06, 2020] Is Mike Pompeo the Worst Secretary of State in History by DOUG BANDOW

Nov 05, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Home / Articles / Realism & Restraint / Is Mike Pompeo The Worst Secretary Of State In History?

With his laughable attempts at diplomacy and general hawkishness, he's certainly in the runnings for the honor. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks at a press conference at the State Department in Washington, DC, on October 21, 2020. (Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/POOL/AFP via Getty Images) |

12:01 AM

Is Mike Pompeo the worst secretary of state ever? He's been awful, no doubt. However, there are 69 other contenders for that title.

Among modern secretaries, Colin Powell was misused by George W. Bush, who defrauded the country in selling the tragically misbegotten invasion of Iraq. Madeleine Albright, her mindset permanently stuck in Adolf Hitler's world, stands out for her enthusiastic embrace of war for others to fight. Alexander Haig achieved little beyond claiming to be in charge in the wake of the assassination attempt against Ronald Reagan. William Rogers was overshadowed by National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, who eventually took the latter's position.

https://lockerdome.com/lad/13045197114175078?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13045197114175078-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&rid=www.theamericanconservative.com&width=838

Going back a bit further, Robert Lansing helped maneuver the U.S. into World War I, one of the dumbest, most counterproductive moves in American history. The earlier one looks, the more circumstances diverge, making any comparative judgment more difficult.

Still, about the best that can be said of Pompeo is that he has not gotten America into any new wars, despite his best efforts. Most often he has played the anti-diplomat, determined to insult, hector, demand, insist, dictate, threaten, harangue, and impose. But never persuade. The results speak for themselves: the administration's record lacks any notable successes that benefit the U.S, the supposed purpose of an "America First" foreign policy. There was a bit of good, a lot of bad, and some real ugly.

A solid good was President Donald Trump's most important diplomatic initiative: his opening with North Korea. Pompeo took over in March 2018, with the first summit already planned. That initiative faltered the following year at the second summit in Hanoi, which was Pompeo's responsibility.

Alas, the secretary lost points by apparently doing nothing to disabuse the president of the belief that Pyongyang was prepared to turn over its entire arsenal with the hope that Washington would look favorably upon its future aspirations. That was never going to happen, especially after the allied double-cross of Libya, which yielded its missiles and nascent nuclear program, and after Trump dumped the nuclear accord with Iran, demanding that Tehran abjectly surrender its independent foreign policy. The North can easily imagine similar mistreatment, by this or a future administration.

me title=

00:36 / 00:59

Washington has also pursued better relations with India, which is a positive. As elsewhere, however, concern about human rights violations is almost entirely absent from Pompeo's portfolio unless it operates as a weapon against an adversary. The secretary cheerfully holds the coat of allied dictators as they jail, torture, and murder. Such is the case with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has abetted if not aided rising religious persecution.

The Abrahamic accords between Israel and Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates were a tepid good. Improved relations between Arabs and Israelis are useful, though strengthening two authoritarian regimes is not. The Bahraini Sunni monarchy sits atop a Shia population with the backing of the Saudi military, while the Emirates, nicknamed "Little Sparta," by the Pentagon -- as if that's a compliment -- has used its military to commit murder and mayhem against Yemen in a war of political aggression and economic exploitation. The related negotiations with Sudan have been worse, using an unjust terrorist state designation to force recognition of Israel, which will undermine the democracy that has yet to be fully born after last year's popular revolution.

Examples of bad are far more common. For example, Pompeo has worked to thwart the president's evident desire to exit "endless wars." Nineteen years of nation-building in Afghanistan is enough. The U.S. does not belong in the Syrian civil war. Iraq and its neighbors are capable of and should deal with whatever remains of the Islamic State.

The secretary has played an equally malign role in Europe, undercutting his boss -- and, not incidentally, the American people -- by working to spend more on, and place more troops in, the continent, even as Trump pushed the Europeans to do more on their own defense. This is an inane strategy: Washington should cut defense welfare to states with the capability to protect themselves and allow them to decide how to proceed.

Much the same policy has played out with America's relationship to South Korea. Japan has escaped most of that pressure. Yet consider the defensive capabilities against China for Japan and the region if Tokyo spent not 1 percent of GDP on its military, but 2 or 3 percent. And why shouldn't it do so, instead of expecting Americans to do the job for it?

The secretary turned human rights into a political weapon, sacrificing any credibility on the issue. He tears up while criticizing Iran but kowtows to the Saudi royals, who are far more brutal killers. He is horrified by the crimes committed by Venezuela's Maduro regime, but spreads love to Egypt's Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who has punished the slightest criticism, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is turning Turkey into an autocracy. Pompeo actually introduced a new initiative in support of unalienable rights with the support of countries like Saudi Arabia and other assorted tyrannies.

Then there is the ugly. Using sanctions to try starve the people of Syria and Venezuela in order to force their governments to yield to America is not just immoral but ineffective. Both regimes have survived much and are not inclined to surrender.

At least Venezuela is a matter of geographic interest to Washington. Syria has never mattered to U.S. security and Pompeo should have backed the president's effort to bring home all American troops. Today, U.S. and Russian troops are clashing there over the administration's bizarre and illegal seizure of Syrian oilfields. Also inexplicable is reinforcing six decades of failure by tightening sanctions on Cuba; the private business community there has suffered badly as a result, reducing what was becoming a sharp challenge to the political authorities during the waning days of the Obama administration.

The fixation on Iran, which appears to come more from Pompeo than Trump, can best be explained as turning Mideast policy over to Saudi Arabia and Israel. The result of abandoning the nuclear accord has been nothing short of catastrophic. The Iranians have refused to negotiate. Instead they ramped up nuclear reprocessing, interfered with Gulf tanker traffic, attacked Saudi oil facilities, and attacked U.S. bases and the embassy in Iraq. Far from reestablishing deterrence, as claimed, the secretary was left to whimper and whine that he might have to close America's embassy in Baghdad.

Pompeo has taken the lead in the administration's shameful policy toward Saudi Arabia, aiding it in its war of aggression against impoverished Yemen. That nation has been at war within and without for most of its existence. Riyadh decided to invade to restore a puppet regime to power, turning typical internal discord into a sectarian war in which Tehran was able to bleed the ineffective Saudi armed forces, which were armed and aided by the Pentagon. In this way, the secretary has made the American population into accomplices to war crimes.

Even more foolish geopolitically, Pompeo has matched Albright's retreat to World War II clichés with a stroll back into the Cold War. Russia is an unpleasant actor but doesn't threaten American security. Europe is capable of defending itself. Alas, constantly piling on sanctions without providing an off-ramp ensures continued Russian hostility and a tilt toward China in that burgeoning struggle. How does this make any sense for America?

Finally, Pompeo has been his blundering, maladroit, offensive self in seeking to launch an American-led campaign against the People's Republic of China. Beijing poses a serious challenge, but not primarily a security issue. No one believes that the PRC plans to launch an armada across the Pacific to conquer Hawaii. The issue is Washington's willingness to pay the cost to forever treat Asia-Pacific waters as an American lake.

As for other issues, the U.S. needs work in concert with friendly powers. Pompeo has done his best to drive away potential partners: for instance, the G-7 refused his demand to call COVID-19 the Wuhan Virus and even allies such as South Korea have remained far more measured in their relations with China, determined not to turn their large neighbor into an enemy. In what promises to be a long and complicated relationship, genuine and serious diplomacy, which obviously lies beyond Pompeo's limited capabilities, is required.

On the personal side, he appears to have abused his position for both personal and ideological advantage. For example, so committed to showing his fealty to Riyadh, he declared an "emergency" to thwart congressional opposition and rush munitions to the Saudi military so it could kill more Yemeni civilians. He then sought to impede a departmental investigation, pressuring and firing the inspector general. What prompted his determination to so avidly assist a ruler who is ostentatiously vile, reckless, and even criminal is one of the greatest mysteries of his tenure.

Tragically, Pompeo proved to be one of the greatest obstacles to the best of the president's international agenda. In a speech delivered last year in which he claimed to be implementing the Founders' foreign policy vision, he denigrated diplomacy and its successful fruits, such as opening up both Cuba and Iran to potentially corrosive outside influences, which is the most likely strategy to induce change over the long term. This approach would be more in sync with Trump's desire to deal with countries such as North Korea and Iran.

Indeed, left to his own devices, Pompeo would likely have America at war with Iran and perhaps beyond -- Venezuela, China, and/or Russia. His belligerence serves the American people badly. As does his consistent campaign, conscious or not, to thwart the president's brave but incompetent attempts to escape largely braindead practices enforced by what Ben Rhodes termed "the Blob," the foreign policy establishment that dominates the field.

The secretary has forgotten that his job is not to push his personal ideological line. Rather, it is to advance the interests of the American people, with a special emphasis on defending their lives, territory, liberties, constitutional system, and prosperity. In this, he has failed consistently. Maybe he isn't the worst secretary of state in history. But surely he is one of the worst.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire .

[Nov 06, 2020] Did the Iraq War Cause the Great Recession?'

Highly recommended!
Iran war might be too much for the US economy
Apr 07, 2013 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile ,

April 7, 2013 at 12:46 am
Western hypocrisy revealed 10 years after the event in today's Independent: "Tony Blair and Iraq: The damning evidence" . And they go on and on about those wicked, evil Russians and their tyrannical leader causing death and destruction Syria by their "support" of the Assad government whilst the West arms the "freedom fighters" there.

[Nov 02, 2020] Jackrabbit

Nov 02, 2020 | jackrabbit.blog

| Nov 1 2020 16:17 utc | 5

[Oct 21, 2020] How Trump Got Played By The Military-Industrial Complex by Akbar Shahid Ahmed

Highly recommended!
Tramp was essentially the President from military industrial complex and Israel lobby. So he was not played. That's naive. He followed the instructions.
Oct 21, 2020 | www.huffpost.com

On March 20, 2018, President Donald Trump sat beside Saudi crown prince Muhammed bin Salman at the White House and lifted a giant map that said Saudi weapons purchases would support jobs in "key" states -- including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and Ohio, all of which were crucial to Trump's 2016 election victory .

"Saudi Arabia has been a very great friend and a big purchaser of equipment but if you look, in terms of dollars, $3 billion, $533 million, $525 million -- that's peanuts for you. You should have increased it," Trump said to the prince, who was (and still is) overseeing a military campaign in Yemen that has deployed U.S. weaponry to commit scores of alleged war crimes.

Trump has used his job as commander-in-chief to be America's arms-dealer-in-chief in a way no other president has since Dwight Eisenhower, as he prepared to leave the presidency, warned in early 1961 of the military-industrial complex's political influence. Trump's posture makes sense personally ― this is a man who regularly fantasizes about violence, usually toward foreigners ― and he and his advisers see it as politically useful, too. The president has repeatedly appeared at weapons production facilities in swing states, promoted the head of Lockheed Martin using White House resources, appointed defense industry employees to top government jobs in an unprecedented way and expanded the Pentagon's budget to near-historic highs ― a guarantee of future income for companies like Lockheed and Boeing.

Trump is "on steroids in terms of promoting arms sales for his own political benefit," said William Hartung, a scholar at the Center for International Policy who has tracked the defense industry for decades. "It's a targeted strategy to get benefits from workers in key states."

In courting the billion-dollar industry, Trump has trampled on moral considerations about how buyers like the Saudis misuse American weapons, ethical concerns about conflicts of interest and even part of his own political message, the deceptive claim that he is a peace candidate. He justifies his policy by citing job growth, but data from Hartung , a prominent analyst, shows he exaggerates the impact. And Trump has made clear that a major motivation for his defense strategy is the possible electoral benefit it could have.

Next month's election will show if the bargain was worth it. As of now, it looks like Trump's bet didn't pay off ― for him, at least. Campaign contribution records, analysts in swing states and polls suggest arms dealers have given the president no significant political boost. The defense contractors, meanwhile, are expected to continue getting richer, as they have in a dramatic way under Trump.

Playing Corporate Favorites

Trump has thrice chosen the person who decides how the Defense Department spends its gigantic budget. Each time, he has tapped someone from a business that wants those Pentagon dollars. Mark Esper, the current defense secretary, worked for Raytheon; his predecessor, Pat Shanahan, for Boeing; and Trump's first appointee, Jim Mattis, for General Dynamics, which reappointed him to its board soon after he left the administration.

Of the senior officials serving under Esper, almost half have connections to military contractors, per the Project on Government Oversight. The administration is now rapidly trying to fill more Pentagon jobs under the guidance of a former Trump campaign worker, Foreign Policy magazine recently revealed ― prioritizing political reasons and loyalty to Trump in choosing people who could help craft policy even under a Joe Biden presidency.

Such personnel choices are hugely important for defense companies' profit margins and risk creating corruption or the impression of it. Watchdog groups argue Trump's handling of the hiring process is more evidence that lawmakers and future presidents must institute rules to limit the reach of military contractors and other special interests.

"Given the hundreds of conflicts of interest flouting the rule of law in the Trump administration , certainly these issues have gotten that much more attention and are that much more salient now than they were four years ago," said Aaron Scherb, the director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, a nonpartisan good-government group.

The theoretical dangers of Trump's approach became a reality last year, when a former employee for the weapons producer Raytheon used his job at the State Department to advocate for a rare emergency declaration allowing the Saudis and their partner the United Arab Emirates to buy $8 billion in arms ― including $2 billion in Raytheon products ― despite congressional objections. As other department employees warned that Saudi Arabia was defying U.S. pressure to behave less brutally in Yemen, former lobbyist Charles Faulkner led a unit that urged Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to give the kingdom more weapons. Pompeo pushed out Faulkner soon afterward, and earlier this year, the State Department's inspector general criticized the process behind the emergency declaration for the arms.

Red Crescent medics walk next to bags containing the bodies of victims of Saudi-linked airstrikes on a Houthi detention cente MOHAMED AL-SAYAGHI / REUTERS
Red Crescent medics walk next to bags containing the bodies of victims of Saudi-linked airstrikes on a Houthi detention center in Yemen on Sept. 1, 2019. The Saudis military campaign in Yemen has relied on U.S. weaponry to commit scores of alleged war crimes.

Even Trump administration officials not clearly connected to the defense industry have shown an interest in moves that benefit it. In 2017, White House economic advisor Peter Navarro pressured Republican lawmakers to permit exports to Saudi Arabia and Jared Kushner, the president's counselor and son-in-law, personally spoke with Lockheed Martin's chief to iron out a sale to the kingdom, The New York Times found.

Subscribe to the Politics email. From Washington to the campaign trail, get the latest politics news.

When Congress gave the Pentagon $1 billion to develop medical supplies as part of this year's coronavirus relief package, most of the money went to defense contractors for projects like jet engine parts instead, a Washington Post investigation showed .

https://schema.org/WPAdBlock

"It's a very close relationship and there's no kind of sense that they're supposed to be regulating these people," Hartung said. "It's more like they're allies, standing shoulder to shoulder."

Seeking Payback

In June 2019, Lockheed Martin announced that it would close a facility that manufactures helicopters in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, and employs more than 450 people. Days later, Trump tweeted that he had asked the company's then-chief executive, Marillyn Hewson, to keep the plant open. And by July 10, Lockheed said it would do so ― attributing the decision to Trump.

The president has frequently claimed credit for jobs in the defense industry, highlighting the impact on manufacturing in swing states rather than employees like Washington lobbyists, whose numbers have also grown as he has expanded the Pentagon's budget. Lockheed has helped him in his messaging: In one instance in Wisconsin, Hewson announced she was adding at least 45 new positions at a plant directly after Trump spoke there, saying his tax cuts for corporations made that possible.

Trump is pursuing a strategy that the arms industry uses to insulate itself from political criticism. "They've reached their tentacles into every state and many congressional districts," Scherb of Common Cause said. That makes it hard for elected officials to question their operations or Pentagon spending generally without looking like they are harming their local economy.

Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, a Democrat who represents Coatesville, welcomed Lockheed's change of course, though she warned, "This decision is a temporary reprieve. I am concerned that Lockheed Martin and [its subsidiary] Sikorsky are playing politics with the livelihoods of people in my community."

The political benefit for Trump, though, remains in question, given that as president he has a broad set of responsibilities and is judged in different ways.

"Do I think it's important to keep jobs? Absolutely," said Marcel Groen, a former Pennsylvania Democratic party chair. "And I think we need to thank the congresswoman and thank the president for it. But it doesn't change my views and I don't think it changes most people's in terms of the state of the nation."

With polls showing that Trump's disastrous response to the health pandemic dominates voters' thoughts and Biden sustaining a lead in surveys of most swing states , his argument on defense industry jobs seems like a minor factor in this election.

Hartung of the Center for International Policy drew a parallel to President George H.W. Bush, who during his 1992 reelection campaign promoted plans for Taiwan and Saudi Arabia to purchase fighter jets produced in Missouri and Texas. Bush announced the decisions at events at the General Dynamics facility in Fort Worth, Texas, and the McDonnell Douglas plant in St. Louis that made the planes. That November, as Bill Clinton defeated him, he lost Missouri by the highest margin of any Republican in almost 30 years and won Texas by a slimmer margin than had become the norm for a GOP presidential candidate.

President Donald Trump greets then-Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson at the Derco Aerospace Inc. plant in Milwaukee on July MANDEL NGAN VIA GETTY IMAGES
President Donald Trump greets then-Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson at the Derco Aerospace Inc. plant in Milwaukee on July 12, 2019. Trump does not appear to be winning his political bet that increased defense spending would help his political fortunes.

Checking The Receipts

The defense industry can't control whether voters buy Trump's arguments about his relationship with it. But it could, if it wanted to, try to help him politically in a more direct way: by donating to his reelection campaign and allied efforts.

Yet arms manufacturers aren't reciprocating Trump's affection. A HuffPost review of Federal Election Commission records showed that top figures and groups at major industry organizations like the National Defense Industrial Association and the Aerospace Industries Association and at Lockheed, Trump's favorite defense firm, are donating this cycle much as they normally do: giving to both sides of the political aisle, with a slight preference to the party currently wielding the most power, which for now is Republicans. (The few notable exceptions include the chairman of the NDIA's board, Arnold Punaro, who has given more than $58,000 to Trump and others in the GOP.)

Data from the Center for Responsive Politics shows that's the case for contributions from the next three biggest groups of defense industry donors after Lockheed's employees.

https://schema.org/WPAdBlock

One smaller defense company, AshBritt Environmental, did donate $500,000 to a political action committee supporting Trump ― prompting a complaint from the Campaign Legal Center, which noted that businesses that take federal dollars are not allowed to make campaign contributions. Its founder told ProPublica he meant to make a personal donation.

For weapons producers, backing both parties makes sense. The military budget will have increased 29% under Trump by the end of the current fiscal year, per the White House Office of Management and Budget. Biden has said he doesn't see cuts as "inevitable" if he is elected, and his circle of advisers includes many from the national security world who have worked closely with ― and in many cases worked for ― the defense industry.

And arms manufacturers are "busy pursuing their own interests" in other ways, like trying to get a piece of additional government stimulus legislation, Hartung said ― an effort that's underway as the Pentagon's inspector general investigates how defense contractors got so much of the first coronavirus relief package.

Meanwhile, defense contractors continue to have an outsize effect on the way policies are designed in Washington through less political means. A recent report from the Center for International Policy found that such companies have given at least $1 billion to the nation's most influential think tanks since 2014 ― potentially spending taxpayer money to influence public opinion. They have also found less obvious ways to maintain support from powerful people, like running the databases that many congressional offices use to connect with constituents, Scherb of Common Cause said.

"This goes into a much bigger systemic issue about big money in politics and the role of corporations versus the role of Americans," Scherb said.

Given its reach, the defense industry has little reason to appear overtly partisan. Instead, it's projecting confidence despite the generally dreary state of the global economy: Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun has said he expects similar approaches from either winner of the election, arguing even greater Democratic control and the rise of less conventional lawmakers isn't a huge concern.

In short, whoever is in the White House, arms dealers tend to do just fine.

[Oct 20, 2020] George Koo linked to a Youtube video of Mike Pompeous and the Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic at a press conference in Dubrovnik. Watch how Plenkovic deals with Pompeosity!

Oct 20, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MARK CHAPMAN October 19, 2020 at 4:41 pm

YES!! This.

https://asiatimes.com/2020/10/pompeos-record-a-litany-of-failure/

We all like to have our worldview affirmed by a corroborating voice, even if that, too, is an opinion. This, for me, was like lying back in a hot bath.

I have said as far back as I can remember, during Pompeo's tenure as Giant Blasphemous Cream Puff of State, that the damage he was doing to the relationship between America and her allies was significant and perhaps irreparable. The article, if accurate, reveals a China which is quite a bit like Russia in its official treatment of minorities – subordinate ethnicities are recognized as distinct societies if their population meets a reasonable threshold, and where an ethnic population is regionally dominant, an autonomous government is established to facilitate local governance by people of the same ethnic background.

I was not aware that during the term of China's one-child policy – a dreadful time which led to the abortion or other more-horrible disposals of unwanted baby girls – mothers among ethnic minorities were permitted two or even three children.

The article is obviously written in defense of China, but the authors seem to have substantiated their claims satisfactorily where such material is offered. Unsubstantiated opinion is often a close match with those offered by commenters on this forum.

JEN October 19, 2020 at 5:51 pm

George Koo linked to a Youtube video of Mike Pompeous and the Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic at a press conference in Dubrovnik. Watch how Plenkovic deals with Pompeosity!

https://www.youtube.com/embed/0SakMXPwTtk?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en&autohide=2&wmode=transparent

I swear I saw the Pompous One deflate considerably after Plenkovic's speech about China's BRI initiative. Good thing the wind was up and active otherwise the smell would have been horrific and everyone would have been knocked unconscious.

PATIENT OBSERVER October 19, 2020 at 4:51 pm

Mike Pompeo, otherwise known as the international man of catastrophe,

You knew it was going to be good from the first sentence.


[Oct 14, 2020] The Vatican's calculated snub of Mike Pompeo exposes the limits of his evangelical, ideological, China-hating foreign policy -- RT Op-ed

Oct 14, 2020 | www.rt.com

The Vatican's calculated snub of Mike Pompeo exposes the limits of his evangelical, ideological, China-hating foreign policy 30 Sep, 2020 16:19 Get short URL The Vatican's calculated snub of Mike Pompeo exposes the limits of his evangelical, ideological, China-hating foreign policy FILE PHOTO: U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo © Getty Images / Alex Wong 182 1 Follow RT on RT

Tom Fowdy is a British writer and analyst of politics and international relations with a primary focus on East Asia.

His Holiness declining to meet the US secretary of state when he visited the Vatican on his European tour further proves that his misguided America-first chauvinism is alienating more nations than it's winning as friends.

Pompeo, everyone's favourite Cold Warrior and American chauvinist, is on a European tour . Visiting Greece, Italy, Croatia, and notably, the Vatican, the secretary of state is on a roll to win support for American security and energy interests across the region. But he wasn't welcomed by all. Attending the Holy See today, the US' 'top diplomat' found himself snubbed by the Pope as he rolled into town peddling his vitriolic anti-China agenda, and demanding the Church take on Beijing and refuse to renew a deal that gives it a say in the appointment of bishops within that country. Pope Francis wasn't too impressed and refused to meet him accordingly.

The snub is significant, because it reflects more broadly how Pompeo's highly aggressive and evangelical foreign policy agenda is being received around the world. In short, it's a shambles. Rather than respectfully and constructively engage with the interests of other countries, on his watch, the State Department does nothing but pressure other nations. And it does this while parroting the clichéd talking points of American exceptionalism, hysterical anti-Communism, and a refusal to take into account the interests and practicalities faced by its partners. The Vatican has its differences with Beijing, but how would embarking on a collision course help it or the cause of Catholics in China? It wouldn't.

ALSO ON RT.COM US' failure to recognize Cuba's medical efforts during Covid is due to an innate fear of linking socialism with anything positive

Pompeo is repeatedly described by major US newspapers, the Washington Post among them, as " the worst secretary of state in American history," and it's no surprise why. Diplomacy requires the skills of understanding, prudence, compromise, calibration, and negotiation. The current man in charge of America's relations with the rest of the world has none of those in his armoury – only a one-sided diatribe about how every nation Washington holds a grudge against is evil and a threat to the world, and the US' own political system is far superior (as demonstrated by last night's presidential debate, perhaps ?). Pompeo repeatedly positions himself as speaking on behalf of other nations' people against their governments, while pushing a policy that amounts to little more than bullying.

A look at Pompeo and the State Department's Twitter feed shows it to be a unilateral, repetitive loop of the following topics: 'The Chinese Communist Party is evil and a threat to the world', 'Iran is an evil terrorist state', American values are the best', 'We stand with the people of X', and so on, ad nauseam. To describe it as hubris would be generous, and, of course, it does nothing to support the equally inadequate foreign policy of the United States in practice. This is further distorted by the unilateralist and anti-global governance politics of Donald Trump, which place emphasis only on the projection of power to force other countries into capitulating to American demands.

Against such a backdrop, it's no surprise that a toxic mixture of foreign policymaking has led to other countries not being willing to take notice of Washington. It's winning neither hearts nor minds, and it's this that has set the stage for not only the Vatican snub, but the largely fruitless outcomes of his European adventures. Pompeo's visit to Greece produced no meaningful agreements or outcomes of note , and he failed to get Athens to publicly commit to any anti-China measures or even statements. A similar non-result was achieved from his visit to the Czech Republic a month or so ago – the Czech prime minister even came out and played down Pompeo's comments , after he engaged in a spree of anti-Beijing vitriol.

So, what's at stake for the Vatican? Undoubtedly, religion is a sensitive topic in mainland China. The Chinese state sees unfettered religion as a threat to social stability, or as a potential vehicle for imperialism against the country, and thus has aimed to strongly regulate it under terms and conditions set by the state.

ALSO ON RT.COM Oxford University's 'scholarly' RT hit piece has no room for the mundane reality of how the world's news organisations work

This has caused tensions with the Roman Catholic Church, which maintains a strict ecclesiastical hierarchy, answering to the Vatican and not national governments. With China being the world's most populous country, having among its vast population nine million Catholics, this means the Church has had to negotiate and compromise with the Beijing government to maintain its influence and control, and to secure the rights of its members to worship. This has resulted in a 'deal' whereby the Vatican can have a say in the appointment of its bishops in China, rather than the Church being completely subordinate to the government.

But Pompeo doesn't care about these sensitivities – he wants one thing: Cold War. He wants unbridled, unrestrained, and evangelical condemnation of China and, as noted above, is utilizing his 'diplomatic visits' to push that demand. However, building a foreign policy on preaching America First unilateralism, chauvinism, and zero compromise not surprisingly has its limitations. As a result, Pompeo is finding himself isolated and ignored in more than a few areas. Thus it was that, rather than completely squandering the Vatican's interests in diplomacy with China, Pope Francis simply refused to meet him. For someone as fanatically religious and pious as Pompeo, that's a pretty damning indictment of the incompetence within the US State Department right now.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

[Oct 11, 2020] Islamist-Marxist MEK's history, including spying on Iran on behalf of Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran, destroying its western cities. After murdering Americans - but the Lobby always gets what it wants, so MEK is now off the terrorist list and instead being funded by the U.S., and housed in a training camp in Albania.

Oct 11, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

>

mick • a month ago

MOSSAD UNIT 8200 at work, the tail that shakes the dog. Trying to get the US to start another war for their further domination of the Middle East.

Carpenter E • a month ago

Islamist-Marxist MEK's history, including spying on Iran on behalf of Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran, destroying its western cities. After murdering Americans - but the Lobby always gets what it wants, so MEK is now off the terrorist list and instead being funded by the U.S., and housed in a training camp in Albania.

The MEK was founded in 1965 by three Islamic leftists with the goal of toppling the U.S.-supported regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

In the 1970s it undertook a campaign of assassinating U.S. advisers and bombing U.S. corporations in Iran. It supported the 1979 Revolution in Iran, but in 1981 it turned its guns against the Tehran government and began a campaign of assassinations and terrorist operations that resulted in the death of thousands of Iranians, including the executions of its own supporters by government officials, soldiers, police officers, and ordinary people.

It then moved its headquarters to Iraq, made a pact with the regime of Saddam Hussein, which was fighting a ferocious war with Iran. The MEK spied on Iranian troops for Iraq, attacked Iran at the end of Iran-Iraq war with Hussein's support, and helped Hussein put down the uprisings by the Iraqi Kurds in the north and Shi'ites in the south after the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91.

The MEK is despised by the vast majority of Iranians for what they consider to be treason committed against their homeland.

kouroi • a month ago

So funny. I remember reading Gore Vidal's novel "Creation", which deals with the Persian Empire, Zoroastrism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Socratic philosophy and morals.

The historical details in the book are relatively well researched, albeit one does get some literary licence for building up characters and story lines, etc. Now the Persian Imperial court is presented in the novel as being choke full of Greek Dissidents clamoring to the King of Kings to attack and subdue Greece/Athens, or what not. Marathon, Salamina, Thermopylae, Plateia follow... The Iranian "dissidents" should learn from their past...

The Athenian "wooden wall" (their ships) is Iran's missile force...

reaganite88 • 21 days ago

IF TRUE... a big if... this would be somewhat disturbing. One would hope that news outlets in their never-ending search for "content" would vet the authors just a tad.

But still... the rationale for going to war (with Iran or anyone else) rises or falls on its own merits. The arguments raised by these authors are of far more importance than whether the authors are real or fake. Think of how often we have seen academic credentials or military service exaggerated by AMERICAN academics and authors to goose their relevance. They may fall to the wayside as proponents of one thing or another when exposed but their arguments may still be true or false. Same goes for people who do NOT exaggerate their credentials.

I would think it would be far more dangerous if Twitter and other outlets were allowing our ADVERSARIES to create fake personalities promoting PEACE when in fact we need to take action against them.

[Oct 10, 2020] Tell me again how Trump "doesn't want to start a new war": If Trump thinks that he can win re-election by panding to Zionist lonny, he might be mistaken

It time to make him accountable at the election box. Not that it matter much as Biden is yet another neocon and Zionist, but stil...
American people are tied of sliding standard of living, permanent wars and jingoism. Trump might share Hillary fate in 2020, because any illusion that he is for common fold, who voted for him in 2016 now disappeared. So he is not better then neocon Biden and Biden is new bastard. So why vote for the old bastard if we have new, who might be slightly better in the long run
This is a very expensive foreign policy, that doesn't benefit the USA. It has potential to raise the price of oil significantly.
Notable quotes:
"... Behind the move was pressure from the Zionist lobby. President Trump is in need of campaign funds and the lobby provides those. ..."
"... I can also see this green lighting Israeli or joint American-Israeli strikes on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons development sites and other military and petro-state assets. ..."
"... It's disgusting to watch the people of the US/UK/EU go along with this. Western elites are fat, lazy, vicious, and cruel. ..."
"... Paul wrote: "Perhaps a Biden administration would be just as much a Zionist captive as the Trump administration." Yes at least as much or more zionist. Nothing about Harris or Biden (or the DNC) says they won't be. ..."
"... I nominate president Eisenhower as slightly less zionist on one occasion: during the Anglo,French, Zionist Suez invasion of 1956 Eisenhower remarked after numerous UN resolutions condemning the bandit state's aggression ' Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal?' ..."
"... "The EU is trying to prop up the US Empire in response to its decline, instead of trying to free itself. " ..."
"... Donald Trump talked up his Iran policy in a profanity-laden tirade on Friday, telling conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh that Tehran knows the consequences of undermining the United States. ..."
"... "Iran knows that, and they've been put on notice: if you fuck around with us, if you do something bad to us, we are going to do things to you that have never been done before." ..."
Oct 10, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
" Why U.S. Elections Do Not Change Its Foreign Policies | Main | The Ceasefire In Nagorno-Karabakh Is Unlikely To Hold " October 09, 2020 Europe And The New Sanctions On Iran

The U.S. has imposed new sanctions on Iran which will make ANY trade with the country very difficult:

[T]he Trump administration has decided to impose yet further sanctions on the country , this time targeting the entirety of the Iranian financial sector. These new measures carry biting secondary sanctions effects that cut off third parties' access to the U.S. financial sector if they engage with Iran's financial sector. Since the idea was first floated publicly , many have argued that sanctioning Iran's financial sector would eviscerate what humanitarian trade has survived the heavy hand of existing U.S. sanctions.

Behind the move was pressure from the Zionist lobby. President Trump is in need of campaign funds and the lobby provides those. The move is also designed to preempt any attempts by a potentially new administration to revive the nuclear agreement with Iran:

This idea appears to have first been introduced into public discourse in an Aug. 25, 2020, Wall Street Journal article by Mark Dubowitz and Richard Goldberg urging the Trump administration to "[b]uild an Iranian [s]anctions [w]all" to prevent any future Biden administration from returning to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear accord between Iran and the world's major powers on which President Donald Trump reneged in May 2018.

The new sanctions will stop all trade between the 'western' countries and Iran.

The Foreign Minister of Iran responded with defiance:

Javad Zarif @JZarif - 17:30 UTC · Oct 8, 2020

Amid Covid19 pandemic, U.S. regime wants to blow up our remaining channels to pay for food & medicine.

Iranians WILL survive this latest of cruelties.

But conspiring to starve a population is a crime against humanity. Culprits & enablers -- who block our money -- WILL face justice.

In response Iran will continue its turn to the east. Russia, China and probably India will keep payment channels with Iran open or will make barter deals.

The Europeans, who so far have not dared to counter U.S. sanctions on Iran, are likely to be again shown as the feckless U.S. ass kissers they have always been. They will thereby lose out in a market with 85 million people that has the resources to pay for their high value products. If they stop trade of humanitarian goods with Iran they will also show that their much vaunted 'values' mean nothing.

The European Union claims that it wants to be an independent actor on the world stage. If that is to be taken seriously this would be the moment to demonstrate it.

Posted by b on October 9, 2020 at 16:37 UTC | Permalink

Thomas Minnehan , Oct 9 2020 17:11 utc | 3
Unconscionable but what is new with pompass and his ghouls; treasury dept responsible for cranking up the sanctions program was formerly headed by a dual citizen woman who resigned suddenly after being exposed as an Israeli citizen-not hard to understand that sentiment in that dept has not changed.

The other aspect here is the FDD as key supporter of these severe sanctions; very virulent anti-Iranian vipers nest of ziocons with money bags from zionist oligarch funders.

karlof1 , Oct 9 2020 17:14 utc | 4
Ho-hum. As I wrote earlier, just the daily breaking of laws meaning business as usual. As noted, Russia has really upped the diplomatic heat on EU and France/Germany in particular, and that heat will be further merited if the response is as b predicts from their past, deplorable, behavior.

Much talk/writing recently about our current crisis being similar in many ways to those that led to WW1, but with the Outlaw US Empire taking Britain's role. I expect Iran's Iraqi proxies to escalate their attacks aimed at driving out the occupiers. IMO, we ought to contemplate the message within this Strategic Culture editorial when it comes to the hegemonic relationship between the Outlaw US Empire and the EU/NATO and the aims of both. The EU decided not to continue fighting against the completion of Nord Stream, but that IMO will be its last friendly act until it severs its relations with the Outlaw US Empire. With the Wall moved to Russia's Western borders, the Cold War will resume. That will also affect Iran.

james , Oct 9 2020 18:33 utc | 13
thanks b... it is interesting what a pivotal role israel plays in all of this... and why would there be concern that biden would be any different then trump in revoking the jcpoa? to my way of thinking, it is just pouring more cement and sealing the fate of the usa either way, as an empire in real decline and resorting to more of the same financial sanctions as a possible precursor to war.. frankly i can't see a war with iran, as the usa would have to contend with russia and china at this point... russia and china must surely know the game plan is exactly the same for them here as well.. as for europe, canada, australia and the other poodles - they are all hopeless on this front as i see it... lets all bow down to the great zionist plan, lol...
Daniel , Oct 9 2020 18:48 utc | 14
Yeah but at least Trump didn't start any new wars. /s

The Eurotools in Brussels are absolutely disgusting. A weaker bunch of feckless, milquetoast satraps is difficult to imagine. The EU perfectly embodies the 21st century liberal ethic: spout virtue signaling nonsense about peace, freedom, human rights and the "rules based international order" while licking the boots of Uncle Scam and the Ziofascists and going along with their war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Russia and China need to step up their game and boldly circumvent the collective punishment sanctions that are choking the life out of Iran, Syria and Venezuela. They still let the rogue states of the west get away with far too much.

augusto , Oct 9 2020 18:52 utc | 15
The Teheran men will not surrender to the yankee herds and hordes. And less so the telavivian.
It s easy to see that in the medium run this cruelly extended crime plays in chinese, russian and shia hands.
And they must start immediately a backlash handing hundreds of special forces and weapons opver to the Houthi hands.
Paco , Oct 9 2020 18:54 utc | 17
the Cold War will resume

The Cold War never ended.

Stonebird , Oct 9 2020 19:20 utc | 20
Of course there is a war on, and it has been gathering force for some time.

Iran is but one more skirmish or battle. However, Xi and Putin are using what I call the "Papou yes". You must always say "yes" as this way you avoid direct conflict, but then you go and do exactly what you were going to do in the first place . The person who does the demanding - having had his/her demands "met" has nothing further to add and will go away. (I have seen this effective technique in action).

At the moment it appears that the aim of the subversive (military/CIA/NGO) wings of the Empire are to start as many conflicts as possible. To isolate and overextend Russia, leading to it's collapse. (As they claim to have done before.)

The "Alternative axis" is just carrying on with it's own plan to overextend and eventually let the US dissolve into its own morasss. The opposition are trying to follow their own plan without giving an opening for the US/NATO to use its numerical military advantage, by not taking the bait.

The ultimate battle is for financial control of the worlds currency, or in the case of the US, to halt the loss of it's financial power. To avoid that The next step could be the introduction of a Fed. owned controlled and issued "digi-dollar", When all outstanding "dollar assets" are re-denominated into virtual misty-money which is created exclusively by the Fed. Banks become unnecessary as the Fed becomes the only "lender" available, Congress redundant, debts no longer matter and so on. Who cares about the reserves held by China and overseas "investors" if their use or even existence can be dictated by the Fed?
They have already published a "trial balloon" about introducing a digi-dollar.

Iran? the US is throwing ALL its cards into what looks like it's final battle to preserve the dollars supremacy. Why cut ALL the Iranian financial system out of their sphere of influence? Because it (thinks) it can and by doing so cower the wavering into obeying.

AtaBrit , Oct 9 2020 19:28 utc | 21
Thanks 'b', very well timed. I was actually heading to the open thread with this article until I saw your piece. This Asia Times article focuses on three key points:

- Iran has replaced the dollar with the Yuan as its main foreign currency
"This may become the east wind for the renminbi (yuan) and provide a new oil currency option for traders in oil-producing countries, including Iran," an editorial on qq.com said. "

- Several large banks in Iran are developing a gold encrypted digital currency called PayMon and had issued more than 1,000 crypto-currency mining licenses, which could promote the development of crude oil. Domestic traders use cryptocurrency to import goods and bypass American banks.

- The Iranian-Swiss Joint Chamber of Commerce
"Switzerland had received a special exemption from US supervisory authorities to allow the SHTA operations."

It remains to be seen how effective the Swiss Humanitarian Trade Agreement actually is. Some say it is nothing but a US propaganda stunt. Hopefully, that is not the case.

Richard Steven Hack , Oct 9 2020 20:37 utc | 31
Sure. Tell me again how Trump "doesn't want to start a new war." Morons.
William Gruff , Oct 9 2020 20:50 utc | 32
What does Iran need that they cannot get from China and Russia? The USA has cheap corn, and the EU has... what, cheese? Other than that I don't see why Iran needs to trade with the empire and its more servile vassals anyway.
Tollef Ås/秋涛乐 , Oct 9 2020 20:55 utc | 33
Strange, that ther is a jewish or Israeki ´ animosity agains Iran (or agains tthe Medtans -- as thy are all named in all Greek records(H, that theer is a jewish animosity against, that ther is a jewish anikisit agains Iran (or the Medtans -- as thy are old ptt in all Greek Strenge(Hellemistic) tales, Cyrur+s the Great is reported to have liberatet the Jews of Babilon end sent them back to Jerusalem . So, "PRIMO SON VENETANO, SECUNDO SON CHRISTANO" -- STILL A COMMONLY ACCEPTED SAYING INVENEZIA WHEB I VISITED ABD AKED IT IN THE THE YEAR OF 1´2917! Iran (or the Medtans -- as thy are old ptt in all Greek Strenge(Hellemistic) tales, Cyrur+s the Great is reorted to have liberatet te´he Jews of Babilon end sent them back to Jerusalem . So, "PRIMO SON VENETANO, SECUNDO SON CHRISTANO" -- STILL A COMMONLY ACCEPTED SAYING INVENEZIA WHEB I VISITED ABD AKED IT IN THE THE YEAR OF 1´2917! ellenistic) tales, Cyrur+s the Great is reorted to have liberatet te´he Jews of Babylon end sent them back to Jerusalem . So, "PRIMO SON VENETANO, SECUNDO SON CHRISTANO" -- STILL A COMMONLY ACCEPTED SAYING INVENEZIA WHEB I VISITED ABD AKED IT IN THE THE YEAR OF 2017
Paco , Oct 9 2020 21:05 utc | 34
Quite impressed with all the theories about Europe and its behavior. The answer is very simple, Europe is occupied by a foreign power, it is a colony. And all the qualifiers are quaint.
davenitup , Oct 9 2020 21:09 utc | 35
It's the world's loss that great cultures like the Persians have been suppressed for so long. The madness needs to end.
Passer by , Oct 9 2020 21:11 utc | 36
Posted by: Red Ryder | Oct 9 2020 20:06 utc | 23

I disagree. What did the EU did on Iran, compared to Russia and China? It stopped most trade with Iran, including the purchase of iranian oil, and it stopped all investment projects. INSTEX is a joke. Meanwhile Germany recently banned Hezbollah.

Yes, they did vote for the JCPOA in the UN. I look at actions rather than words though, and EU has imposed de facto sanctions on Iran.

Moreover, German FM Maas told Israel recently that efforts are underway to keep the Iran arms embargo. (He is also a big "Russia fan" - sarc off)

In other words, we "support" the JCPOA, but in practice with arms and trade embargoes on Iran continuing.

Yeah right.

Posted by: powerandpeople | Oct 9 2020 20:15 utc | 24

No, its not so simple, unless you claim that european russophobia started with the US and did not exist before it. Guy Mettan has a good book on it. It is a thousand years old issue, involving Catholicism, France, Germany, Sweden, Britain, and others.

Yes, the US wants to divide the EU and Russia. But the EU itself is rotten from within.

Politics are more important than the economy, German Chancellor Merkel said in relation to Russia.

"Drang nach Osten" - "Drive to the East".

Germany dreams of capturing Eastern Europe and using is as some sort of colonised labor pool similar to what Latin America is for the US.

And this is why the EU, without any prodding, eagerly took the lead in the attempt of colour revolution in Belarus, where it played far bigger role than the US.

m , Oct 9 2020 21:24 utc | 37
I have to disagree with your assessment.

Signing and adhearing to the JCPOA turned Europe and Iran from opponents into partners. This is a great diplomatic achievement. However, no part of the JCPOA made the two allies or obliged the European side to wage an economic war with the USA on behalf of Iran. On the contrary, the Iranians would be the first to say they are no friends of Europa. They have been complaining about "Western meddling" in their region for years. (Note that they don`t differentiate but always speak collectively of "the West").

So that`s their chance to show the world how much of a sovereign nation they are and that they can handle their problems without the "meddling" of the "despicable" Europeans. There is no obligation - neither legal nor moral - for Europe to take the side of Iran in the US-Iran conflict.

And actually it is both sides - both Iran and the USA - who are unhappy with the current European neutrality.

_K_C_ , Oct 9 2020 21:31 utc | 38
Thanks to MoA for being one of the only honest brokers of news on Iran in the English language. As an American citizen living abroad (in EU) I have a more jaded and at the same time worried feeling about this.

Along with all the other stuff, including the current threat to close the U.S. embassy in the Iraqi "Green Zone" and the accompanying military maneuvers, which would spark war in the region, I see this hardening and expansion of sanctions as yet the next clue that the U.S. and Donald Trump's regime are looking toward re-election and a hot war with/on Iran. Rattling the cage ever more and backing Iran into the corner with brutal, all-encompassing sanctions is already an act of war, usually the first prior to bombs falling. I can also see this green lighting Israeli or joint American-Israeli strikes on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons development sites and other military and petro-state assets.

I hope I'm wrong but we've all seen this before and it never ends well. If the EU shows a spine, or more likely Russia and/or China step in directly, perhaps the long desired neocon/neolib/Zionist hot war against Iran can be avoided.

Perimetr , Oct 9 2020 21:32 utc | 39
I think it is very important for the US to kill another 500,000 children via sanctions, in order to demonstrate the importance of freedom and democracy and observing international law.
AriusArmenian , Oct 9 2020 21:48 utc | 40
While reading this post I was thinking what MoA wrote in the last two paragraphs. And also that Iran will just continue to turn to China, Russia, and others in the East.

It's disgusting to watch the people of the US/UK/EU go along with this. Western elites are fat, lazy, vicious, and cruel.

claudio , Oct 9 2020 22:17 utc | 41
@17 passer by
(and others)
"Europeans can not be helped. Ironically, it is their own rejection of their WW2 past that causes them to reject the multipolar world and sovereignty as "primitive things from the past"

plus, as you point out elsewhere, there are longer histories at play: the Crusades against the Slavs, the Moors and the Turks (and the Arabs, in fact), the invention of "western civilization" in the 19th century (Arians vs Semites, Europe vs Asia, ecc) ...

plus, there is the persisting aspiration for world domination, partly frustrated by WW1 and the upheavals of the XXth century, which transformed the UK and the whole of Europe (with Japan, Australia, etc) in a junior partner of the new US Empire

(that's the other lesson learned from WW2: no single european power could dominate the continent and the world, but they could dominate as junior partners under the new young leader of the wolf pack, the US)

plus, there are is a class war that can be better fought, by national oligarchies, within globalist rethoric and rules

plus, there are the US deep state instruments of domination over european national states

but Europeans (and Usaians) do understand the language of force, and they have - at the moment - encountered a wall in their attempts at expansion, in Iran, China, Russia, Venezuela, ecc; an alternative multipolar alliance is taking shape

so they might attempt to win a nuclear war by 20 million deaths to 2 (or 200 to 20, who cares), but they might also decide to tune down their ambitions and return to reality; maybe

wj2 , Oct 9 2020 23:28 utc | 45
@m (#35)
EU promised to uphold JCPOA. They can't because of the US and they are doing next to nothing to change that. EU isn't neutral. They are stooges. Iran is right to complain about it, the US isn't.
Boss Tweet , Oct 9 2020 23:54 utc | 48
Trump is a man of peace, he hasn't started any new wars - whatever that means, lol.

As far as I know economic blocade is tantamount to war. If he wins reelection expect renewed kinetic attacks on venezuela and Iran. He's already lined up his zionist coalition with arabic satraps to launch his Iran quagmire. Trump is a deal maker, he understands the economy and will bring back manufacturing jobs to Murikkka, lol. I'm sure Boeing execs in deep trouble would love to sell plane to the Iranians but Mr. MIGA just made that impossible. Nothing to worry about, there's always the next socialist bailout for Boeing funded by taxpayers - suckers as Trump would call them. So much for winning, can't fix deplorable and stupid...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/08/iran-deal-fallout-boeing-may-lose-20-billion-in-aircraft-deals.html

Btw b, Trump's opposition to the Iran deal has nothing to do with money or the zionist lobby. Stable genius opposed JCPOA in 2015 even before announcing his run for the presidency. It's not about the mula but all about the mollah's, lol: The Donald in his own words at a tea party event in 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIDNonMDSo8

kooshy , Oct 10 2020 0:00 utc | 49
Ever since the Iranian revolution of 1979 multiple US regimes in DC have been totally successful in making majority Iranian people everywhere in the world, understand that the US is their chronic strategic enemy for decades to come. At same time, these US regimes have equally been as successful in making American people believe Iran is their enemy.
The difference between this two side's belief is, that, Iranian people by experiencing US regime' conducts have come to their belief, but the American people' belief was made by their own regime' propaganda machinery. For this reason, just like the people to people relation between the US and Russian people, Before and after the fall of USSR the relation between US and Iran in next few generations will not come to or even develop to anything substantial or meaningful. One can see this same trajectory in US Chinese relations, or US Cuban. Noticeably all these countries relation with US become terminally irreparable after their revolutions, regardless of the maturity or termination of the revolution. As much as US loves color revolutions, US hates real revolutions. The animosity no longer is just strategic it has become people to people, and the reason and blame goes to Americans since they never were ready to accept the revolutions that made nations self-servient to their interests. The bottom line truth is the US / and her poodles in europe know, ever since the revolution Iran no longer will be subservient to US interests.
Hermius , Oct 10 2020 0:23 utc | 51
This is leverage to bargain away the oil pipeline to germany. That is what is behind it. You scratch my back, the US is saying to the EU, in particular, Germany....
karlof1 , Oct 10 2020 0:25 utc | 52
It's an Economy based on Plunder! , so that's why sanctions here, there and everywhere!! But the real problem is we aren't participating in the Plunder!! Sometimes you gotta use extreme sarcasm to explain the truth of a situation, and that's what Max and Stacey do in their show at the link. 13 minutes of honest reporting about the fraudulent world in which we live. As for Jerome Powell, current Fed Chair, he's complicit in the ongoing criminal activity just as much as the high ranking politicos. Bastiat laid it out 180 years ago, but we're living what he described now. And that's all part of what I wrote @40 above. The moral breakdown occurred long ago but took time to perfect.
joey_n , Oct 10 2020 0:34 utc | 54
Patrick Armstrong did a Sitrep article last month
https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2020/09/24/russian-federation-sitrep-24-september-2020/
where he cited an article on Sputnik titled "Macron: Europe 'Will Not Compromise' With Washington on Iran Sanctions"
https://sputniknews.com/world/202009221080541258-macron-europe-will-not-compromise-with-washington-on-iran-sanctions/
Make of it what you will.
Xingu , Oct 10 2020 0:46 utc | 55
I think it is crazy that EU allows US to manage SWIFT to the point they invent new entities to sidestep SWIFT and US sanctions (which are weak and ineffective, but that is the trajectory of their weak attempts at independence). Force SWIFT to equally service all legal transactions according to EU law, and let US cut itself off from all international financial transfers if it doesn't like using EU's SWIFT. US corps won't allow that to happen, it's just that EU refuses to call US bluff. Of course they are now praying for Biden presidency, but if they can't assert themselves it is all ultimately the same thing.
dh , Oct 10 2020 1:17 utc | 58
These 'foreign policy experts' think the trade war with China has been a mistake. But they think Trump is too soft on Russia and he hasn't been tough enough on NK, Iran and Venezuela.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/foreign-policy-experts-rebuke-trump-administration-for-policies-that-emboldened-rivals-alienated-allies-135205214.html

Paul , Oct 10 2020 1:34 utc | 59
It has become a standard trick for outgoing US administrations to saddle the incoming administration with set in stone policies and judicial appointments.

"Behind the move was pressure from the Zionist lobby. President Trump is in need of campaign funds and the lobby provides those. The move is also designed to preempt any attempts by a potentially new administration to revive the nuclear agreement with Iran."

Perhaps a Biden administration would be just as much a Zionist captive as the Trump administration.

The danger for the world is the Trump administration may go even further than additional sanctions. So I refer to the previous post, US policy remains the same whatever bunch are the frontmen.

Theodore Herzl even tried to drag Kaiser Wilhelm11 into the Zionist spider web: https://middleeastrealitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/07/theodor-herzl-first-photoshopper.html

When that attempt failed they worked on convincing the Sultan of Turkey to give them someone else's homeland. The Zionist Zealot Mr Kalvariski became the administrator of the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association with the aim of establishing a jewish suprematist ghetto. Following that flop the Zionists turned to the hapless British and were rewarded by Balfour with his notorious British government double cross of the Arabs. Now it's the turn of the US and assorted captive nations to uphold and support tyranny and Talmudic violence.

Crush Limbraw , Oct 10 2020 1:59 utc | 60

I am SLOWLY coming to the conclusion that DaTrumpster understands DaDeepState better than any of us armchair pundits. His patient - and yes, perhaps faulty strategy - he's still standing after ALL DaCrap that's been thrown at him.
All the 'EXPURTS' - including MoA - can only see part of DaPicture at best.

I've been as hard on DaTrumpster as anyone on DaConservative side - but I am SLOWLY coming to understand WTF just might be going on.

Point - don't be too sure of your immediate inclinations - we ALL see through DaGlass DARKLY!

Don Bacon , Oct 10 2020 2:27 utc | 61
SWIFT is only a messaging system – SWIFT does not hold any funds or securities, nor does it manage client accounts. Behind most international money and security transfers is the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) system. SWIFT is a vast messaging network used by banks and other financial institutions to quickly, accurately, and securely send and receive information, such as money transfer instructions.
Sunny Runny Burger , Oct 10 2020 2:29 utc | 62
Paul wrote: "Perhaps a Biden administration would be just as much a Zionist captive as the Trump administration." Yes at least as much or more zionist. Nothing about Harris or Biden (or the DNC) says they won't be.

And hasn't it always been that way from one president to the the next? Was there ever one that was less zionist than the predecessor? (Maybe they're all so close this is an impossible question to answer, that too could be the case).

The sitting executive branch gives the favors right now and anyone incoming gives the favors after they win and thus each election becomes a double windfall for the lobby group?

A zionist double dip . Maybe most US voters could grasp it like that.

I can't back this up (much like my previous comment in this thread) but it's my impression. It would probably take a lot of work to make sure it's right; one would have to scrutinize so much over so many decades.

Paul , Oct 10 2020 3:29 utc | 63
@Sunny Runny Burger 60

I nominate president Eisenhower as slightly less zionist on one occasion: during the Anglo,French, Zionist Suez invasion of 1956 Eisenhower remarked after numerous UN resolutions condemning the bandit state's aggression ' Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal?'

This could be a useful quote for todays world.

Later, in 1964, Eisenhower approved his hand picked emissary's US $150 million so called Johnston Plan to steal the waters of the Jordan River and further marginalize the Palestine Arabs and surrounding Arab states.

ARI , Oct 10 2020 3:36 utc | 64
Sanctions aren't the story. Once all the players have left the JCPOA, either Israel or the US can claim Iranians are at the point of producing a nuclear weapon. Without the JCPOA and inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities it will be impossible to prove or deny the allegations. Thus giving either the US or Israel justification it wants to conduct military strikes against Iran. The only things stopping this from happening is if the EU stays in the JCPOA...
_K_C_ , Oct 10 2020 3:53 utc | 65
Fully agree with ARI | Oct 10 2020 3:36 utc | 62

Exactly the aim. I said so in an earlier post. This is all part of the program to create a false justification to conduct military strikes inside Iran. At this point, I'm really surprised that the U.S. even tries to construct these narratives after Obama's Syria and Libya operations didn't even really bother, save for a few probably fake "chemical weapons" attack they alleged Assad committed. Libya I don't remember hearing anything. The embassy maybe? After the Soleimani strike and the shootdown of the U.S. drone, not to mention the alleged Iranian attacks on ARAMCO's oil facilities, I'm really quite surprised something more serious (not to minimize the awful acts of war which the sanctions definitely are) hasn't already happened. It will soon, especially if Trump gets re-elected. Wonder what all of his "no new wars" supporters will say then?

Everybody reading knows what SWIFT is. That's a nice attempt to circumscribe the overall sanctions regime and paint it as "no big deal."

Crush Limpbro - Checked out your site. You've got a long way to go before you can criticize MoA. Hope that comment draws a few clicks to keep you going, but I would caution other barflies to use a proxy; could be a honey trap to collect IP addresses.

El Cid , Oct 10 2020 4:10 utc | 66
This United States imposed and Zionist inspired siege on Iran and its people will only further strengthen the political and economic bonds with Russia and China. Meanwhile, the US collapses from its internal social limitations and its abandonment of public healthcare responses to the Corvid 19 pandemic. Europe it close behind the US in this respect.
ARIES , Oct 10 2020 4:17 utc | 67
IRGC Commander-In-Chief: U.S. Is Incapable Of Waging War Against Iran, Its Weapons Are Outdated:

https://toranja-mecanica.blogspot.com/2020/10/irgc-commander-in-chief-us-is-incapable.html

Paul , Oct 10 2020 4:20 utc | 68
ARI @62

What exactly is this 'Justification'.. . 'to conduct military strikes against Iran' that you refer to hasbara boy? Failure to obey foreign imposed zionist diktats?

Would this 'justification' apply to the bandit state if it refused to abide by the NNPT for example?
No double standards pass the test here.

kiwiklown , Oct 10 2020 4:42 utc | 69
Yet another proof that "Western values" and their "rules based international order" mean exactly nothing.

In the past, the West at least kept up some pretense that it was wrong to target unarmed civilians (still, they flattened Driesden; Hiroshima; North Korea, Vietnam, Laos). Today, they do not care to be seen openly, cruelly, brutally, sadistically killing civvies. These American bastards say, "... it is not killing if the victims drop dead later, like, not right now. " Or, "... it became necessary to destroy Iran in order to save Iran."

Iran is perfectly correct to call this a crime against humanity for the West to starve a population of food and medicine. This will boomerang just as the opium-pushing in China will boomerang on the West.

Meanwhile, just as those drug-pushing English bastards earned themselves lordships and knighthoods; just as presidential bastards retire to their Martha Vineyard mansions; so the current crop of bastards in American leadership will retire to yet more mansions, leaving the next couple generations to meet Persian wrath. The American way is to "win" until they are tired of winning, no?

But in truth, in objective reality, only those who have lost their human-ness are capable of crimes against humanity.

michaelj72 , Oct 10 2020 4:50 utc | 71
The US is cruising for a bruising in the middle east fucking with Iran like this. Not that the US hasn't deserved a good knockout punch the past 19 years since invading and destroying Afghanistan and Iraq, etc, etc. Regardless of their rhetoric, how the European rogues and rascals (France, Germany and the UK) can sleep at night is beyond me.
snake , Oct 10 2020 7:00 utc | 75
Yes Psychochistorian @ 1, At the nation state level, EU support for blockade terror and sanction torture (BT&ST), against reluctant nation states and non compliant individuals within those nation states, logically suggests EU nation states are not independent sovereign countries <=EU nation states exist in name only? Maybe its just like in the USA, these private monopoly powered Oligarcks (PMPO), own everything (privately owned copyrights, patents, and property) made possible by rules nation states turn into law. The citizens of those privately owned EU nation states are victims <=in condition=exploitable. Maybe PMPOs use nation states <=as profit support weapons, to be directed against <=any and all <=competition, whereever and however <=competition appears.

The hidden suspects <=capital market linked crowds through out the world..

Media is 92% owned by six private individuals, of the seven typical nation state layers of authority and power: 5 are private and two are public. Additionally, few in the international organizations have allegiance to historic cultures of the nation state governed masses. It is as if, the named nation states are <=threatened by knee breaking thugs, but maybe its not threat, its actual PMPO ownership.

If one accepts PMPO <=to be in control of all of USA and all of allied nation state, one can explain <=current BT&ST events. But private Oligarch scenarios <=raise obvious questions, why have not the PMPO challenged East eliminated <=Israel, MSM propaganda repeatedly blames or points to Israel <=to excuse the USA leaders for their BT&ST policies. Seems the PMPO are <=using the nation states, they own <=to eliminate non complying competition.

What is holding the East back? Russia and China each have sufficient oil, gas and technology to keep things functional, so why has not the competition in the East taken Israel out, if Israel is directing the USA to apply BT&ST against its competitors? Why is the white House so sure, its BT&ST policies will not end up destroying Israel? Maybe because Israel has no real interest <=in the BT&ST policy <=Israel is deceptions:fall guy? The world needs to pin the tail on the party driving USA application of BT&ST because no visible net gain to Governed Americans seems possible from BT&ST policies?

I think Passer @ 17 has hit the nail on its head. "The EU is trying to prop up the US Empire in response to its decline, instead of trying to free itself. "

Norwegian , Oct 10 2020 7:11 utc | 76
@ARI | Oct 10 2020 3:36 utc | 62
Sanctions aren't the story. Once all the players have left the JCPOA, either Israel or the US can claim Iranians are at the point of producing a nuclear weapon.

So you put that forward as a justification for attacking Iran militarily, but that means according to your logic you also have justification for attacking Israel or the US militarily. The rules are the same for all, right?

robin , Oct 10 2020 8:12 utc | 77
Economic warfare is certainly effective. However, time is running out for these weapons as America's lock on the world economy grows weaker. With a rapidly approaching expiry date, the word out may be to use em or lose em.

In a zero-sum great game, it makes sense to deploy such weapons now insofar as an opponent's loss is always a gain for oneself.

jscott , Oct 10 2020 9:26 utc | 79
Donald Trump talked up his Iran policy in a profanity-laden tirade on Friday, telling conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh that Tehran knows the consequences of undermining the United States.

"Iran knows that, and they've been put on notice: if you fuck around with us, if you do something bad to us, we are going to do things to you that have never been done before."

Uncle Samuel is setting up a provocation for war.

uncle tungsten , Oct 10 2020 9:45 utc | 81
psychohistorian #1
What a shit show we are seeing. What is the next phase of this civilization war that is not a war because there are not enough dead bodies for some I guess?...but it sure looks like war to me.

Well for the first time in history Iran's symbolic "Red Flag" is still flying above the popular Jamkaran Mosque Holy dome. Perhaps the USA and its running dogs body count has risen in Iraq and Afghanistan? How would we know. These things are disguised from the fearless press in those countries ;)

Perhaps the dead and mangled are many but we do know that the US chief killer in Afghanistan was reduced to ashes immediately following General Shahid Qassem Suleimanis murder by the USA whilst on a diplomatic mission in Iraq.

In respect of b's observation above, the illegal occupier of Palestine is more likely tipping millions into the Harris Presidency as well as the possible Trump Presidency. I doubt either Harris or the biden bait and switch stooge would restore the JCPOA. Besides they would not be invited to sit at the table any time soon IMO. They would likely refuse to any conditions of reversing the sanctions and then carry on about all that 'unreasonable demands by a terrorist state' stuff etc etc.

No, Iran will be getting on with its future in a multilateral world where the United Nations has been reduced to pile of chicken dung by the USA while most other nations go along with global lunacy.


Circe , Oct 10 2020 12:56 utc | 87
You know what's telling about the bootlickers who hem and haw about U.S. policy with the T Administration, but never mention Trump as the real source of it even when profuse Zionist shit spills from his mouth on Limbaugh's show proving he's a Ziofascist pig?

What's telling is that these usual suspects jumped all over ARI @64 for zeroing in on Trump's precise intentions with Iran but they gave a pass to the real HASBARIST in the room, Crush Limbraw @60, exposing himself, putting his HARD-ON FOR TRUMP on full display.

@60 we ALL see through DaGlass DARKLY!
Speak for yourself- you Zionist MORON!

Ahhhhhh, you can always count on the DUPLICITY of MOA'S weathervane james and friends. Me, I ain't here to win a popularity contest like weathervane; I'm here to kick ass when I witness duplicity in action. My friend here is the truth that I'll defend to the grave.

********

Noooo, dum-dums Putin will not come to Iran's rescue when he's warm in bed with his Zionist Oligarchs and Russian squatters whom he pays homage to from time to time when he visits Ziolandia thanking them for choosing the stolen West Bank over Russia.

Iran knows that, and they've been put on notice. That's Trump blowhard driving the drumbeat.

Just rescue me from my self-destructive self for 4 more years, oh kings of Zion and Wall Street, and I'll give you WAR!!! all in CAPS with three exclamation points. The GREATEST war you've ever seen.

Linda Amick , Oct 10 2020 13:07 utc | 88
When I read the Great Reset article on the World Economic Forum website it seems to me that the western Globalists, in concert align the US and EU. That accounts for the basic vassal arrangements that predominate but allow for some nonalignments on certain issues.
Paco , Oct 10 2020 13:24 utc | 89
Posted by: vk | Oct 10 2020 0:58 utc | 56

That is precisely what the Belarusian authorities announced when Tikhanovskaya left Minsk, that she was helped in her way out, but we know how the MSM acts, they stick to their own script, just like a Hollywood movie.

The Belarusians must be watching with great attention what is happening in Kirguizia, riots and complete chaos, and thinking how lucky they were to avoid the color rev that was in the menu for them, which the same methods, discredit the oncoming election, claim fraud after it, use similar symbols like the clenched fist and the heart, new flag, start transliterating family and geographical names to a mythical and spoken by a very small minority language and then nobody knows if to spell Tikhanovskaya, Tsikhanouskaya or like the politically incorrect but street wise Luka called her, Guaidikha. And that is Kirguizia, how about a shooting war in Armenia and Azerbaijan, all those conflicts were unimaginable when the USSR existed, but the empire even on his way down is insatiable.

Circe , Oct 10 2020 13:25 utc | 90
@88 Linda Amick

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=RDPIAXG_QcQNU&feature=share&playnext=1

Paco , Oct 10 2020 13:35 utc | 91
Posted by: Circe | Oct 10 2020 12:56 utc | 87

There is over a million jews of Russian origin living in Israel, 20% of the population, with deep roots in Russia, language, culture and relatives. Do not let partisanship for the Dems blind you, a true successful leader is someone that defends his country's interests while at the same time tries to have good relations with everybody else, obviously that balance is not easy to achieve in a world full of conflicting interests, but so far Putin seems to be balancing his act while not loosing sight of the main thing, Russia.

Circe , Oct 10 2020 13:52 utc | 92
Paco, strange name for a Russiabot, oh well...

Nice way of putting: Putin belongs to the Zionist Club.

FYI, I'm not blind. I'm one of those special beings who was born with two extra eyes...in the back of my head.

Jackrabbit , Oct 10 2020 13:56 utc | 93
Circe @Oct10 12:56 #87
Putin will not come to Iran's rescue when he's warm in bed with his Zionist Oligarchs

If Putin is so close to Zionists, then why does Russia block the Zionist regime-change in Syria? Why has Russia denied Israel and USA entreaties to allow them to bomb Iran?

Russia Warns U.S. and Israel That Iran Is Its 'Ally' and Was Right About Drone Shoot Down

!!

Paco , Oct 10 2020 14:03 utc | 94
Posted by: Circe | Oct 10 2020 13:52 utc | 92

Not as strange as a mythological demigoddess that turned sailors into swain and that now enjoys to plunge into the mud with her creatures. A bot, what an easy label, it has lost any meaning.

Paco , Oct 10 2020 14:12 utc | 95
special beings who was born with two extra eyes...in the back of my head.

Alaska yellow fin sole, not bad, from Bristol Bay, but the Melva -a tunafish species with more oil in its meat- I cooked for lunch, just caught, has a lot more fish oil with its rich contents of vitamin D, add sunny Mediterranean weather and that is my pill for today, trying to keep the bug at bay.

expat , Oct 10 2020 14:39 utc | 96
Circe, why don't you do what your namesake would have done and whip yourself up some meds to calm down? You're starting to lapse into excessive use of upper case, italics, exclamation points, bolding, profanity, and of course, insults.

This may help. It looks like the orange man is in fact going down, so you will soon have Joe and Kamal empowered to dismantle the evil Putin-Netanyahu-Trump axis, and put the US back on the path to truth and justice.

Circe , Oct 10 2020 14:41 utc | 97
@93 Jackrabbit

It's called... lip service.

@94,95 Fransisco

A bot by any other name will smell as fishy. 🤭
Just messing with you!

ptb , Oct 10 2020 14:44 utc | 98
The unilateral and illegal-under-JCPOA sanctions mean it's time for EU to either confront the extraterritorial US policy it has clearly rejected in principle, or (more likely) acknowlege that it remains in practice just a collection of 'client states'. A sad moment for me, but useful for clarity.
Paco , Oct 10 2020 14:48 utc | 99
Posted by: Circe | Oct 10 2020 14:41 utc | 97

Hard to understand but you guys are incapable of spelling the name of a once great US city, San Francisco. I heard it has changed a lot, got to see long time ago, before the digital craze.

juliania , Oct 10 2020 15:51 utc | 100
This is a brief but subtle post by b, with quiet but telling headline. Perhaps, just guessing, a new take on the post he was having difficulty with earlier? The question of the EU is an interesting one - not to be considered as virulent as the former Soviet Union, but somehow as tugged at by the components thereof...

Sanctions on Iran? We do know what Iran is capable of; surely we have not forgotten? Indeed, by pressing these sanctions at this late date, the Trump administration surely has not forgotten either the effect sanctions had on Russia. They were postive to that country's independent survival, though the immediate effect was demonstrably harsh. So now, sanctions on Iran? One doesn't have to be a world leader to suppose similar cause, similar effect.

Ah, Paco has a wonderful meal of a beneficial fish called the Melva! Bravo, Paco; all is not lost! But you have hooked the sea-serpent as well -- take care! That one - carefully remove the hook and set it free ;)

p> next page "

Post a comment Name:

Email:

URL:
Allowed HTML Tags:

<B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
<U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
<A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)

" Why U.S. Elections Do Not Change Its Foreign Policies , Main | The Ceasefire In Nagorno-Karabakh Is Unlikely To Hold "

next page "

Post a comment Name:

Email:

URL:
Allowed HTML Tags:

<B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
<U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
<A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)

" Why U.S. Elections Do Not Change Its Foreign Policies | Main | The Ceasefire In Nagorno-Karabakh Is Unlikely To Hold "

[Oct 10, 2020] psychohistorian

Oct 10, 2020 | www.lettinggobreath.com

1

next page " Nice posting b

Yes, it is time for EU countries to show their true colors which will be ass kissers for empire, most likely.

Folks are saying Nord Stream II is being finished but will it ever go into use?

And of course this is not war because Trump hasn't started any wars, right?

What a shit show we are seeing. What is the next phase of this civilization war that is not a war because there are not enough dead bodies for some I guess?...but it sure looks like war to me.

bevin , Oct 9 2020 17:07 utc | 2
The next phase would appear to be Kyrgyzstan: from Belarus east to Sinkiang and Hong Kong the subversion and the attempts at regime change are constant.

While Eurasia seeks to unite for peace and prosperity, the United States and its sleazy satrapy is constantly trying to divide and weaken, to undermine and to intimidate. In doing so it relies heavily on abusing the tattered lineaments of democracy- electioneering and propagandising, the relics of a western culture which has become nothing more than a hollow shell containing an increasingly totalitarian plutocracy.

Joseph Dillard , Oct 9 2020 17:32 utc | 5
All this simply moves Iran into closer confederation with Russia and China and strengthens its resolve to send US middle eastern troops packing. Soon there will be a strong Russia-China-Iran axis that is immune to all Western sanctions. Those countries who are part of the BRI will get privileged economic treatment. The advantages will become increasingly apparent and the economic disadvantages of staying allied with the US will become increasingly apparent as well, particularly in light of the approaching collapse of the dollar. As long as we manage to avoid a hot war the civilizational die is cast; the US has chosen its destiny, in the dustbin of history, at least as a neoliberal oligarchy. When and how it will reinvent itself is an open question, but it is not unreasonable to think it will take decades. While Europe will eventually align with Eurasia, it will take another generation of politicians before that happens.
Loftwork , Oct 9 2020 17:36 utc | 6
If Iran isn't self-sufficient now, it will be by the time the US is finished with it. That isn't a comfortable place to be but with key sector support from the Eastern bloc it's at least as manageable as Cuba. The question is whether and how fast the Eastern bloc can consolidate its resources by e.g. petrodollar replacement and better shared infrastructure. The Eastern bloc isn't ideal, but when the West is apparently encouraging something like a holocaust of suffering humanity, it's the only other game in town.
Nathan Mulcahy , Oct 9 2020 17:39 utc | 7
No, this is not the moment. This is the last chance. Oh, these vassals with zero integrity and character!
Hoyeru , Oct 9 2020 17:40 utc | 8
High time for both Russia and China and Iran/Cuba/Venezuela to really get together and start speaking with one voice and show the despicable USA/West/NATO that they will stand together and defend each other. Otherwise it's all over.

Specific steps to implement:
1. create and begin using an alternative to the SWIFT and invite anyone who is being sanctioned by USA/West to join them
2. openly and officially declare that their currencies are backed by gold
3. openly and officially begin to speak against USA's actions around the world at the UN and invite anyone who is being sanctioned by USA/West to join them
4. get together and openly declare to the world they stand as one and to invite
anyone else who is being harassed by USA/West/NATO to join them
5. immediately begin clean up of all the terrorists/CIA Operatives in in Central Asia otherwise they will be in deep trouble

what are Putin and Xi doing?? Come on guys, wake up!

MichaelW , Oct 9 2020 17:46 utc | 9
EU and US. Just playing classical
And Trump don't make Amerika "Too big to fail" alone. But double down
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a510221c9228a7d1b9f383b3428db349
When you owe 5000€, you're afraid of your crédit or but when You owe 5000 T$, Who is afraid ?

Financial House of Card let them no choice but to S***MyD***, and wait

David G , Oct 9 2020 18:14 utc | 10
In March, Germany announced that the first transaction had been completed using Europe's INSTEX system to skirt sanctions -- more than a year after the scheme had supposedly been put in place.

I haven't seen anything further about it. Has it enabled any significant level of trade?

One Too Many , Oct 9 2020 18:20 utc | 11
Now I understand why Javad Zarif is in China for a two-day meeting:

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-10/08/c_139426303.htm

I guess it wasn't for the National Holiday?

Don Bacon , Oct 9 2020 18:28 utc | 12
Why would anyone need anything not Made in China? Plus China is the EU's second highest trade partner (after US) so Iran could have access to some of that if for some reason they needed an EU product. . . .Meanwhile Iran will be even more self-sufficient, as Russia has become with EU sanctions. . . .The US has been trying self-imposed "sanctions" (China uncoupling) to become more self-sufficient but it's not working.
Caliman , Oct 9 2020 18:53 utc | 16
EU continues its self-imposed slide into irrelevance. I suppose a servant's life is an easier life: you don't have to think for yourself and just need to please master. But it can hardly be a satisfactory experience, can it? Especially when the collar is held by such as Trump and Pompass.

The winds of change are coming and they will be interesting. China's economy is already greater than the US and that will expand many fold over the next few decades. The $ economy will not survive this, especially not as the US has shown it will use its power corruptly. The EU batter consider this; do they want to be part of the past or the future?

Passer by , Oct 9 2020 19:09 utc | 19
There is something much more significant happening with Europe, that is more than the Iran issue.

The EU is trying to prop up the US Empire in response to its decline, instead of trying to free itself.

The EU has chosen the side of the US against the multipolar world. It will be trying to prop up the Empire.

It is becoming increasingly hostile to any country that isn't a puppet to the US, like itself, and is lashing out at those countries. Like a zombie, it wants to infect others with its infection, and turn every other country into US puppets too. It thinks that this is normal and it wants to spread that "normality" to the rest of the world too.

Many analysts are already mentioning that the EU is becoming increasingly hostile to Russia.

Recently, serious statements came from Russian officials:

"Russia will not follow EU and US rules".

"There will be no more business as usual between Russia and France and Germany".

"France and Germany are now leading the anti-russian block within Europe".

"Russia will no longer be dependent on the EU".

"Europeans have delusions of grandeur".

These are all statements by Lavrov and Zacharova.

Recently, we have seen Germany and France banning Huawei, Europe together with US blocking the OPCW investigation at the UN, and Germany leading the charge at the UN stage against China. EU also took the lead in the colour revolution in Belarus.

There are two recent statesments by the french foreign minister and by the EU commision chief:

"Europe needs to unite against Russia and Turkey".

Surveys also show rising levels of anti-chinese hatred in Europe, and not only in the US.

What has happened is far more serious than the europeans being "feckless U.S. ass kissers". It is worse than that.

The EU chose the side of the US against the multipolar world. It does not want to free itself from the US. Actually it thinks that it is normal to be a puppet, that others should be US puppets too, and that a joint EU-US Empire should be supported, so that some kind of world wide liberal utopia can be build by it.

Europeans are psychologically damaged by WW2 and this is affecting their geopolitical behavior, turning them into forever puppets of the US.

They can not free themselves because when they were free once, they "did very bad things". Therefore they should always follow their "better" and "Big Daddy" US, who "freed them from themselves" and "put them in the right way".

Europeans can not be helped. Ironically, it is their own rejection of their WW2 past that causes them to reject the multipolar world and sovereignty as "primitive things from the past", and thus support a transnational globalist western empire that is here "to bring Utopia on Earth". For them Russia, China, Iran, India, Turkey etc. are just a bunch of primitives that are tryng to turn back the clock.

And thus it will increasingly start to lash out at any country that isn't a US puppet as those countries prevent the coming of Utopia.

[Sep 28, 2020] No wonder Pompey and his friend Jeffries won't give up on Syria! No wonder

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Virtually every aspect of the Syrian opposition was cultivated and marketed by Western government-backed public relations firms, from their political narratives to their branding, from what they said to where they said it. ..."
Sep 28, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

"Western government-funded intelligence cutouts trained Syrian opposition leaders, planted stories in media outlets from BBC to Al Jazeera, and ran a cadre of journalists. A trove of leaked documents exposes the propaganda network."

"Leaked documents show how UK government contractors developed an advanced infrastructure of propaganda to stimulate support in the West for Syria's political and armed opposition.

Virtually every aspect of the Syrian opposition was cultivated and marketed by Western government-backed public relations firms, from their political narratives to their branding, from what they said to where they said it.

The leaked files reveal how Western intelligence cutouts played the media like a fiddle, carefully crafting English- and Arabic-language media coverage of the war on Syria to churn out a constant stream of pro-opposition coverage.

US and European contractors trained and advised Syrian opposition leaders at all levels, from young media activists to the heads of the parallel government-in-exile . These firms also organized interviews for Syrian opposition leaders on mainstream outlets such as BBC and the UK's Channel 4.

More than half of the stringers used by Al Jazeera in Syria were trained in a joint US-UK government program called Basma, which produced hundreds of Syrian opposition media activists.

Western government PR firms not only influenced the way the media covered Syria, but as the leaked documents reveal, they produced their own propagandistic pseudo-news for broadcast on major TV networks in the Middle East, including BBC Arabic, Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and Orient TV .

These UK-funded firms functioned as full-time PR flacks for the extremist-dominated Syrian armed opposition. One contractor, called InCoStrat, said it was in constant contact with a network of more than 1,600 international journalists and "influencers," and used them to push pro-opposition talking points.

Another Western government contractor, ARK, crafted a strategy to "re-brand" Syria's Salafi-jihadist armed opposition by "softening its image ." ARK boasted that it provided opposition propaganda that "aired almost every day on" major Arabic-language TV networks."

"The Western contractor ARK was a central force in launching the White Helmets operation.

The leaked documents show ARK ran the Twitter and Facebook pages of Syria Civil Defense, known more commonly as the White Helmets.

ARK took credit for developing "an internationally-focused communications campaign designed to raise global awareness of the (White Helmets) teams and their life saving work."

ARK also facilitated communications between the White Helmets and The Syria Campaign , a PR firm run out of London and New York that helped popularize the White Helmets in the United States.

It was apparently "following subsequent discussions with ARK and the teams" that The Syria Campaign "selected civil defence to front its campaign to keep Syria in the news," the firm wrote in a report for the UK Foreign Office." thegreyzone

--------------

Using really basic intelligence analytic tools; Occam's Razor, Walks like a duck, Smileyesque back azimuth's, etc. it has been clear that the UK government has been deeply involved in sponsoring and influencing the Syrian/ jihadi opposition in that miserable country. The wide spread British Old Boys network of aspirants to the tradition of imperial manipulation has been visible just below the surface if you had eyes to look and a brain to think.

A lot of the money for this folly came right out of USAID.

pl

https://thegrayzone.com/2020/09/23/syria-leaks-uk-contractors-opposition-media/

ISL , 27 September 2020 at 04:03 PM

Dear Colonel agreed.

I object to the line in the article that they "played the media like a fiddle" - as it implies the mainstream media is a victim as opposed to willing accomplice.

The American public very strongly told Obama they didn't want another invasion and war in the middle east (red lines or not) so rather ineffective propaganda.

Moreover, I suspect that given the US public inattention to overseas events that do not involve much US blood (in places they can not find on a map). Today's mess would be where more or less the same if the entire IO had never happened - though maybe with less cynicism of US/UK gov'ts and media.

OTH, it is curious how well the British Old Boys network (and US) aligns with Israeli interests (and runs counter to US or British interests). Maybe grayzone will investigate that (impressive) IO campaign. I think a small country in the middle east played US and UK elites like a fiddle.

The Twisted Genius , 27 September 2020 at 04:48 PM

I've only given this article a cursory reading so far and it is clear that the Brits are going balls to the wall on the PSYOPS/perception management front. This campaign flows naturally from the strong material support for the Syrian "moderate rebels" provided by the US, the Brits and probably others for years. We may still be blowing up IS jihadis, but we're also supporting our own brand of jihadis around Al-Tanf, giving free hand to Erdogan's jihadis along the Turkish-Syrian border and doing our best to stymie R+6 efforts to crush the remaining jihadis and unite Syria.

The article focuses on the contractors role in PSYOP. I'm not sure if it mentions the British government's role in this. The GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) probably manages most of those contractors. The British Army also has the 77th Brigade. This brigade's slogan is: "behavioural change is our unique selling point". Gordon MacMillan, a reserve officer with the 77th Brigade, is now Twitter's head of editorial operations for the Middle East.
The 77th was formed in 2015 and subsumed the 15th Psychological Operations Group which was headed by Steve Tathan, who went on to head the defence division of SCL, the now defunct parent of Cambridge Analytica. I'm sure the 77th is capable of managing some of those contractors, as well. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few of contractors were also reservists in the 77th.

I bet we're not letting the Brits have all the fun. The CIA Special Activities Center (formerly SAD) includes the Political Action Group for PSYOP, economic warfare and cyberwarfare. That dovetails nicely with what CENTCOM is doing in Syria. I knew some of those guys a while back. I remember scaring them with some of my own anarchist hacker rantings when I was penetrating those hackers.

Our Army has fours PSYOP groups brigade-sized), two active and 2 reserve. I would think they have advanced their methodology since I took the course at Bragg. For a few years, they were called military information support operations (MISO) groups rather than PSYOP groups. They have since reverted to their PSYOP name although their activities are referred to as MISO. I don't know what the difference is.

Babak makkinejad , 27 September 2020 at 05:10 PM

ISL

No, no, no.

There is no such small country as you describe in the Near East.

There is an self-disciplined proxy force masquerading as a state which is mostly funded by the United States to further the religious policies of the WASP Culture Continent.

It is no accident that in this context, the names of US and UK occur often in the same sentences; one declared a crusade to wrestle control of Plastine from Muslims, and the otber one carried out that crusade and escalated it.

That is also the reason that US cannot end the war over Palestine or leave Islamdom

(Oil, Geostrategic considerations, arms sales, Realpolitik are just pseudo-rationications to obscure the real war.)

Diana Croissant , 28 September 2020 at 07:45 AM

Where is Candide (aka Voltaire) when we need him?

BABAK MAKKINEJAD , 28 September 2020 at 09:14 AM

Ishmael Zechariah

How WASP-dom has arrived in this crusade is not, in my opinion, as significant as that it has been waging it for more than a hundred years.

fakebot , 28 September 2020 at 10:43 AM

"WASP Culture" is into golfing, not crusading. Erik Prince and the religious fundamentalists, maybe, but they don't drive US policy.

Russia and/or Chinese dominion over Eurasia cannot be permitted. Their means to achieve that would be less ethical, not that the US or UK have been prince among men and salts of the earth, as noted in the article.

The US has tried in vain to win over hearts and minds. It has been a mostly noble effort to bring countries like Iraq and Afghanistan into the 21st century, but it was always more of a losing game. The problem lies too much in Islam and tribal rivalries.

[Sep 25, 2020] I see Pompeo as the quintessential opportunist of this moment (beyond his spiritual master of course, B-Nut.)

Sep 25, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

vinnieoh , Sep 22 2020 21:41 utc | 27

Probably counting on the desperate vanity and ego of Trump with the looming election to not shorten the length of the leash on Pompass. Pompass must also have noticed that Trump is willing to shove the homeland into civil war in order to claim victory, so maybe Pompass finally has the latitude to slake his bloodthirstiness.

Since I'm wondering down the path of speculation, a bit further into the murk. If there is one thing that characterizes the US today from the highest to the low, it is corruption. I submit that this corruption finds its zenith in the military, and especially the procurement train: any engagement with a near-peer (or the coalition/bloc we're talking about here,) and the rot and corruption will collapse this empire in upon itself. I've had this suspicion for some time, and believe if the going got rough the collapse would come rather quickly and completely.

[Sep 25, 2020] US standard "negotiating" techniques

Highly recommended!
Sep 25, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Ashino , Sep 23 2020 9:23 utc | 67

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2020/09/russia-steals-everything.html
Comment by Reader Dark Fate
EXCERPTs

Following a long line of very arrogant american imperial "negotiators", mr oblivion billingslea used standard "negotiating" techniques like

(a) accusing the other side of crimes Americans have committed first and forever, eg, extreme lying, bad faith argumentation, military aggression, foreign government security breaching, assassination and poisoning [as in american presidents and independent thinkers], and of course, electoral cheating;

(b) putting the opponent in the "negotiation process" on the defensive or back foot by stating false news allegations amplified by the media controlled by the american empire;

(c) offering nothing useful or commitable to be done by the empire, and yet "magnanimously" demanding the moon as opponents' concessions, eg, russian, iranian and chinese nuclear weapons limits, but not for nato's development and deployment, and; (d) after making impossible demands, the imperials accuse the opponents of hostility and unwillingness to "negotiate".

The russians can skillfully agree by stating that they only require the americans to reduce their nukes to 320 pieces like china, and in less than five years.

This is why it is very important for sovereign nations to read the guidebook, called the "idiot's guide on running the american empire", and developing deep and lasting solutions.

As for the other american imperial military "advantages", eg, constellation of "aggression" satellites, andrei forgot to mention that these can be shot or burned down in minutes easily by russia, china and even iran, as these stations cannot hide or run away in earth orbits.

Replenishment of weapons and military supplies after 3 months is rather doomed as the cheap, mass production and manufacturing facilities do not exist. Which must be re-created somehow but now
American lands are the targets. Much, Much Different Than WW2 !!

And of course, russia can always nuke down the USA and its vassal countries, and thus permanently ruin their economies for a decade or more, they don't know how to run defense -- this was always the fatal weakness of all bullies - if they'll have enough time to "learn it"... let's see... I doubt this.

Let's see americans try to start and conduct a nuclear war after too many spy, internet and gps satellites are shot down. Russia can even do this today using conventional explosives, and the world will be shocked how helpless the american military and economy can be made even without using russian nukes.

There are countries still immune to the numerous american imperial diseases that are already documented daily in zerohedge postings. The better countries still have lots of parents telling their kids to study and work hard so they can have better lives than their ancestors.

In oregon and california, they teach unemployable kids to burn something or somebody sometime before dinner.

CdVision • 11 hours ago
I was about to say that what now comes out of the US & Trump's mouth in particular, is Orwellian. But that credits it with too much gravitas. The true comparison is Alice in Wonderland:
"Words mean whatever I want them to mean".

Ashino , Sep 23 2020 9:29 utc | 68
Reminiscence of the Future.. ( http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2020/09/russia-steals-everything.html)
Russia "Steals Everything" !! (Not just China, oops... ???!!!!)
And Jesus Christ was an American and was born in Kalamazoo, MI. It is a well-known fact. So Donald Trump, evidently briefed by his "utterly competent and crushingly precise aids", knows now that too! !!! LOL

Time For Daily Auto-Hypnosis, Comrades. !!!

https://vz.ru/news/2020/9/19/1061259.html
https://www.Путин-сегодня.ru/archives/108431
https://vk.com/deebeepublic?w=wall-197487820_23447
(Digital Translation)

> US President Donald Trump claims that Russia developed hypersonic weapons after allegedly stealing information from the United States.

> According to him, "Russia received this information from the Obama administration," Moscow "stole this information." Trump said that "Russia received this information and then created" the rocket, reports TASS.

> "We have such advanced weapons that President Xi, Putin and everyone else will envy us. They do not know what we have, but they know that it is something that no one has ever heard of. "

->We are the foremost and always number one. Everything is invented only by us, the rest can only either steal, or be gifted with our developments for good behavior. This situation is eternal, unchanging, everyone lags behind American Tikhalogii at least 50 years (the time frame was chosen so that even a 20-year-old would lose heart, "what's the point of trying to catch up, it won't work anyway, in my lifetime"). It was, is, and will be, this is the natural course of events.

All this is delivered in the format of the classic Sunday sermon of the American provincial Protestant church, coding the parishioners for further deeds and actions. And it worked effectively, creating in some basalt confidence "we are better because we are better", in others - "I don't mind anything for joining this radiant success, I'm ready for anything, I'll go for any hardships and crimes, if only There".

Only now it worked. In a situation where the frequency of pronouncing such mantras is more and more, emotions are invested in them too, but in fact everyone understands that this is what autohypnosis does not work.

The poor have stolen from the United States, if you look at it, literally everything. And 5G and the superweapon of the gods. Moreover, a pearl with a characteristic handwriting is not copy / paste, but move / paste, you bastards. Therefore, the United States does not even have any traces of developments left - the guys just sit in an empty room, shrug their hands, "here we have a farm of mechanical killer dolls, with the faces of Mickey Mouse overexposed, and now look - traces of bast shoes and candy wrappers from "Korkunov" only, ah-ah-ah, well, something like that, ah. "

At the same time, there are no cases of sabotage, espionage - whole projects were simply developed, developed, brought to a working product, and then the hob - and that's it, and disappeared. And this became noticeable only after years. And all the persons involved are like "wow, wow."

Psychiatric crazy fool of the head, no less.

But due to the fact that all of the above theses are driven very tightly into the template for the perception of the world, both those who voiced these theses and the listeners are satisfied.

Because the post-American post-hegemonic world is not terrible because in some ratings another country will be higher there, and Detroit will never be rebuilt "as it was". It is scary because it is not clear how to live for people who had no support in the form of global goals, faith, philosophy of life, and all this was replaced by narcissism on the basis of "successful success is my second self".

This means that the moment when this issue has to be resolved must be delayed to the last. Leaving the whole topic on the plane "we were offended, we are offended, we were dishonest, which means we have the right to any action" is not a bad move.

It's a pity that it doesn't really affect the essence of what is happening.

< >

[Sep 22, 2020] Americans had talent in diplomacy but they've lost it, Russian FM Lavrov says, as US triggers 'null and void' Iran sanctions -- RT Russia Former Soviet Union

Sep 22, 2020 | www.rt.com

US diplomacy is turning into the not-so-subtle art of making demands and ultimatums, Sergey Lavrov has lamented, as the Americans go it alone in restoring anti-Iran sanctions under a 2015 deal that no longer legally applies.

Washington's reasoning behind bringing back the UN sanctions against Iran looks "funny," as the majority of UN Security Council members – 13 out of 15 – do not support activating the 'snapback' mechanism, the Russian Foreign Minister said, in an exclusive interview with the Al Arabiya news channel.

The council "clearly stated that there is no legal position or moral reasons for anything close to the snapback and all the statements to the contrary are null and void," he reminded his audience. The 'snapback' issue leaves Washington at loggerheads with even its closest allies.

ALSO ON RT.COM US faces 'more' isolation after 'null & void' move to unilaterally reimpose UN sanctions, Tehran warns

Earlier on Sunday, the three European signatories to the Iran deal – Germany, France and the UK – stated the return of the sanctions will have no legal effect whatsoever.

However, the Trump administration continues to insist Washington now has the authority to target any country breaching the "re-imposed" sanctions. For Lavrov, this is telling, in terms of understanding the quality of US diplomacy.

The Americans lost any talent in diplomacy, unfortunately; they used to have excellent experts, [but] now what they're doing in foreign policy is to put a demand on the table, whether they're discussing Iran or anything else.

If their counterpart disagrees and refuses to toe the line, "they put an ultimatum, they give a deadline and then they impose sanctions, then they make the sanctions extra-territorial." Regrettably, the European Union also "is engaging in the same tricks more and more," Lavrov noted.

On Saturday, Washington moved to bring back sweeping UN sanctions against Tehran, insisting it was acting within its own right to do so as an original party to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 pact Iran sealed with major world powers. The US left the deal in 2018 following a decision by President Donald Trump.

ALSO ON RT.COM 'We've been through this in the Skripal case': West's Navalny poisoning claims driven by 'sanctions itch', Sergey Lavrov says

"I can only remind them that they should respect the hierarchy of the American administration, because their boss, President Trump, has personally signed an official decree withdrawing the United States from the JCPOA," Lavrov added sarcastically.

Sanctions aside, Washington is also busy trying to prevent the lifting of the UN arms embargo on Iran, set to expire on October 18. This endeavor doesn't make much sense either, the Russian minister commented. "There is no such thing as an arms embargo against Iran," he clarified. The UN Security Council reiterated the embargo will end on that date, and "there would be no limitations whatsoever after the expiration of this timeframe."

[Sep 21, 2020] Pompous Pompeo continues his antics: Pompeo mocked for saying 'no other state' can block MULTILATERAL sanctions US wants to impose on Iran despite UNSC pushback

Sanctions will cost money not only to Iran, but to the USA too.
Sep 21, 2020 | www.rt.com

"If at any time the United States believes Iran has failed to meet its commitments, no other state can block our ability to snap back those multilateral sanctions," Pompeo declared in a statement posted on his official Twitter account on Sunday evening.

The top US diplomat was referring to the avalanche of sanctions Washington has been hellbent on slapping on Tehran after the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) overwhelmingly rejected the US resolution to extend a 13-year arms embargo against the Islamic Republic past October earlier this week.

The humiliating defeat , which saw only one member of the 15-nation body (the Dominican Republic) siding with the US, while China and Russia opposed the resolution, and all other nations, including France and the UK, abstained, did not discourage Washington, which doubled down on its threat to hit Iran with biting sanctions.

... ... ...

"Of course other states can block America's ability to impose multilateral sanctions. The US can impose sanctions by itself, but can't force others to do it," Nicholas Grossman, teaching assistant professor at the Department of Political Science, University of Illinois, tweeted.

"That's what 'multilateral' means. Is our SecState really this dumb?" Grossman asked.

Daniel Larison, senior editor at the American Conservative, suggested that Pompeo might be having a hard time grasping the meaning of the word 'multilateral'.

Some argued that Pompeo could not be unaware of the contradictory nature of his statement. Dan Murphy, former Middle East and South Asia correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor, called it "one of the most diplomatically illiterate sentences of all time."

"I guess the end game here is [to] alienate the rest of the world even further to feed his persecution complex?" Murphy wrote.

John Twomey, 16 August, 2020

Explanation. What Pompeo understands and what many others can't grasp is that the US decides if their sanctions are "multilateral" because the USA speaks for all other countries whether they like it or not.

My Opinion, 17 August, 2020

Reminiscing of his shady past as a new CIA recruit he said. "We lied, we cheated and we stole". Apparently, Mikey didn't do all too well in his literature classes, either and that's why the most suitable candidate from zionists perspective.

[Sep 18, 2020] Middle East Peace and Trump's New Art of the Deal by Larry Johnson - Sic Semper Tyrannis

Notable quotes:
"... He thinks the Palestinians will accept permanent helot status? Maybe so... But is that something we should relish? ..."
"... And what of Syria? What of Syria? Evidently Trump considered murdering President Assad two years ago. Is he going to abandon regime change now? is he going to abandon the policy of Pompeo and Jeffries? ..."
"... My guess is that the acceptability for Helot status of Palestinians will depend on how much worse it is compared to the status of Palestinian equivalents elsewhere. Syria and Lebanon certainly look far less attractive. ..."
"... Also, from my admittedly limited experience, Palestinians aren't exactly homogenous, Gaza =! West Bank. ..."
"... If the Israelis are smart (and I think they are), they will continue to exploit Palestinian disunity by not having one helot status but several, with privileges to repress and boss around the lesser helots (perhaps even some less desirable Israelis) awarded to the higher helots. ..."
"... The neocons have been firmly ensconced in ME policy since Reagan. At least Trump made a little bit of lemonade. Nothing earth shattering IMO but moved the ball forward 10 yds and away from own goals under the so-called experts & strategists of the past decades. ..."
"... Support for Israel and its maximalist dreams has always been bipartisan. ..."
"... The colonel has a much more realistic take on this: the intention is to co-opt the Arab states into forcing the Palestinians to accept permanent helot status. Not quite slaves but closes to it. ..."
"... There would be many ways to describe that, but I suspect "peace plan" would rank amongst the less accurate ones. ..."
"... I also remember when the Trump admin killed the Gen. Suleimani late last year the same people also touted it a national security success. This is shameful pattern. ..."
"... Just because Jared Kushner, Berkowitz (Kushner's mini-me), David Friedman and the Zionist anti-American paid shills of Christians United For Israel et.al put Israel's interest first does not make it a success for American interests abroad. Trump does not know two things about the ME. He just obeys orders from this outside 'advisors' when it comes to ME policy. ..."
"... When I read that " If you look at relatively successful integration/assimilations in history, jointly overcoming something that was threatening to both typically ranked pretty highly as a cause." I think that The Islamic Republic of Iran is what is being offered or used as that cause. ..."
"... But if the present and future Israelis believe this means that the total advantage is totally theirs to press, then present and future Palestinians will continue searching for ways to make their unhappiness felt. But that outcome would not be Trump's fault. That outcome would be the majority-likudnic Israelis' choice. ..."
"... the problem with "outside in" strategy is that implies that if conditions are bad enough for the Palestinians, they will agree to any deal Trump can force down their throats. Instead, Palestinians have been offered terrible deals since 2000 (ie., a state that is never going to be a real state with permanent Israeli control over its borders, air space, and water tables ..."
"... The smarter plan is to acknowledge that the Zionists killed the Two-State Solution, and Palestinians might as well push this into an anti-Apartheid struggle. ..."
Sep 18, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

turcopolier , 16 September 2020 at 08:52 AM

All

It is clear that the heat has gone away in the fabled "Arab Street" over the issue of Israel. If that were not so, the rulers would not have dared to do this. That being so ... It will be very interesting to see how many people from these two countries go to Israel to visit holy sites like the al-Aqsa Mosque. There have not been many religious tourists from Egypt and Jordan. This is what the Israelis call pilgrims. Trump thinks that he can bring Saudi Arabia into such a deal? Good! Let's see it. He thinks that Iran can be brought into such a deal? Wonderful! Let's see it.

He thinks the Palestinians will accept permanent helot status? Maybe so... But is that something we should relish?

And what of Syria? What of Syria? Evidently Trump considered murdering President Assad two years ago. Is he going to abandon regime change now? is he going to abandon the policy of Pompeo and Jeffries?

I suggest that security should be very tight on airline flights from Bahrein and the UAE.

eakens , 16 September 2020 at 10:03 AM

I suspect this has less to do with peace and more to do with lining up a coalition against Iran. He's signing peace deals at the white house the same day he not only threatens Iran for a make believe assassination plot against our South African Ambassador, but admits he wanted to assassinate Assad.

He's making a big mistake though if he thinks Iranians will behave and respond similarly to the Arabs, and they are certainly not North Koreans.

He's being frog marched into a war with Iran while his ego is being stroked under the guise of a Nobel peace prize.

nbsp; tjfxh , 16 September 2020 at 11:17 AM

What say about Alastair Crooke's "Maintaining Pretence Over Reality: 'Simply Put, the Iranians Outfoxed the U.S. Defence Systems'" at Strategic Culture Foundation?

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/09/14/maintaining-pretence-over-reality-simply-put-iranians-outfoxed-us-defence-systems/

A.I.S. , 16 September 2020 at 11:49 AM

@ turcopolier:

Excellent questions.

My guess is that the acceptability for Helot status of Palestinians will depend on how much worse it is compared to the status of Palestinian equivalents elsewhere. Syria and Lebanon certainly look far less attractive. The other issue is the degree with which Arab elites can "reroute" Anti Israeli into Anti Iranian sentiments on the Arab street.

Also, from my admittedly limited experience, Palestinians aren't exactly homogenous, Gaza =! West Bank.

If the Israelis are smart (and I think they are), they will continue to exploit Palestinian disunity by not having one helot status but several, with privileges to repress and boss around the lesser helots (perhaps even some less desirable Israelis) awarded to the higher helots.

I think this will be fairly hard though. Various Historical, religion and cultural issues specific to the situation make it quite hard for Arabs to actually assimilate into Israeli society. There is also a lack of a unifying foe to unite against. If you look at relatively successful integration/assimilations in history, jointly overcoming something that was threatening to both typically ranked pretty highly as a cause.

Leith , 16 September 2020 at 12:01 PM

"I suggest that security should be very tight on airline flights from Bahrein and the UAE."

Bingo! I won't be flying on Gulf Air or FlyDubai.

Jack , 16 September 2020 at 02:12 PM

The neocons have been firmly ensconced in ME policy since Reagan. At least Trump made a little bit of lemonade. Nothing earth shattering IMO but moved the ball forward 10 yds and away from own goals under the so-called experts & strategists of the past decades.

The TDS afflicted media couldn't bear that some lemonade was made. Wolf Blitzer interviewing Jared Kushner was all about pandemic nothing about the implications or process to having couple gulf sheikhs recognize Israel. The fact is that these gulf sheikhs only paid lip service to the plight of the Palestinians in any case. This formalizes what was reality. The "Arab Street" have always been a manifestation of whatever were powerful manipulations. The manipulators have been coopted in the current lemonade making. In any case Bibi must be very pleased. He didn't have to give up anything in his difficult domestic political predicament.

Jack , 16 September 2020 at 02:44 PM

https://twitter.com/partynxs/status/1306015487273377792?s=21

Support for Israel and its maximalist dreams has always been bipartisan.

Serge , 16 September 2020 at 05:18 PM

The arabs simply do not care anymore, from Morocco to Oman. Their spirit totally broken by the "Arab spring", youth disillusioned and jobless. The only dream left for most is to ape the western lifestyle. The others are fighting in wars.

I can see one of two futures, a Clean Break: Securing the Realm-style one in which all of the arabs live life as helots under the thumb of a Greater Israel. This would bring relative economic prosperity to most of the helots.

Yeah, Right , 16 September 2020 at 06:03 PM

I think I see the flaw in this article: ..."If that turns out to be the case and this maneuver succeeds in ultimately bringing about a two state solution for Israel and the Palestinians,"...

Surely you don't believe that these maneuvers are intended to bring about a Palestinian state?

The colonel has a much more realistic take on this: the intention is to co-opt the Arab states into forcing the Palestinians to accept permanent helot status. Not quite slaves but closes to it.

There would be many ways to describe that, but I suspect "peace plan" would rank amongst the less accurate ones.

Polish Janitor , 16 September 2020 at 06:14 PM

One running theme that I have been seeing from the former so-called neocon critics and ME wars opponents (Michael Scheuer comes to mind) is their uncontrollable exhilaration for any terrible so-called F.P. 'success' that the Trump admin achieves in the ME.

I also remember when the Trump admin killed the Gen. Suleimani late last year the same people also touted it a national security success. This is shameful pattern.

Just because Jared Kushner, Berkowitz (Kushner's mini-me), David Friedman and the Zionist anti-American paid shills of Christians United For Israel et.al put Israel's interest first does not make it a success for American interests abroad. Trump does not know two things about the ME. He just obeys orders from this outside 'advisors' when it comes to ME policy.

It it exactly what it is. Israel normalized relations with the most notorious dictatorships and wants to implement Pegasus spying program and wide-scale surveillance (among other nefarious things) in UAE and Bahrain. How is that a success for America? America should stay out of these Israeli-first trouble making schemes and stay neutral or out of there.

Let me tell you what a F.P. success is, OK? It would have been a huge success if America was able to lure Iran into its orbit to fend of the Chinese communists out of the region and out of our lives and have a stronger alliance with regards to its upcoming Cold War with China.

It would have been successful for America to balance China out with Iran, India, Turkey and Afghanistan, and not let China to invest billions in Haifa port (close to U.S. military forces there) a major hub of its Belt and Road initiative and a huge blow to U.S. new Cold war effort against China.

Think about it.

Allow me to raise a few points: first of all , every single one of these brutal backward Arab dictatorships has had low key but crucial relations with Israel since the Cold War and they just made it open, Big deal! Second, this joyfulness for a hostile anti-american country is quite sad for two reasons:

1. that Larry touts it as a success for America, which is anything but a success for America. It is a success for Bibi and Trump's evangelical/zionist sugar daddies to cough up some Benjamins for Trump's campaign and his GOP/Likudniks. I guess nowadays our judgement is so clouded and inverted that MAGA and MIGA are considered inseparable.

2. The delusion that dems are bitterly angry and anti-Israel (because they are anti-Trump) and therefore it automatically becomes an issue of partisan support for Trump and whatever he does. This idea is so absurd that I won't get into it. Dems were the first to congratulate Israel.

I would like Larry to tell me what he thinks of H.R. 1697 Israel Anti-Boycot Act which punishes American citizens for practicing their god-given 2nd Amendment rights. or the 3.8 billion of aid, or the the gifting of Golan heights to Bibi? Are these big foreign policy success too?

What the Arab-Israeli normalization means:

*The U.S. wants out of the ME to focus on China, a wet dream that Israel favors especially post Cold War. It does not want secular, (semi) democratic sovereign states around it, and if anyone pays attention close enough they do whatever they can to prevent any kind of political reform and change of government to occur among Arab nations. Israelis are staunch supporters of Saudi, Bahraini, UAE, Jordanian, and Egyptian dictatorships in the MENA region.

Israel will now be better positioned to roll-back any kind of grassroots reform in the ME with the help of their now openly pro-Israeli Arab rulers by directing policies to these backward rulers to divest from human development and political reform and instead invest more in security, tech, surveillance.

This trend also explains Israeli constant opposition to the Iran Deal, which would have had further ramifications for political reform and accelerated weakening of Hardliners in Tehran and a better position for America to pivot to China with the help of a moderated Iran. Israel does not want a powerful democratic nation near its borders, and especially not in Iran. Just take a look at Israel's neighbors and tell me how many of them are democratic and friendly with Israel and how does Israel behave when there are secular Arab democratic states around it?

  • There is a developing coalition of powerful states as a reaction to the Arab-Israeli normalization that observers call "the rejectionists". They are, Turkey, Qatar, Pakistan (impending), Malaysia (impending), Iran, and EU (impending).
  • It is true that Iran has now a target on its back and if it were smart, it would try its best to develop some kind of alliance with the secular democratic humanists in EU to try to remove itself from isolation, save what is left of the Iran Deal, and try to isolate and condemn Israelis, Arab dictators and their cohorts internationally and through diplomacy back portraying them as illiberal and anti-democratic or similar things. Although I am not too hopeful that Iran is be able to do this for a number of obvious reasons.
  • This Arab-Israeli normalization is a MIGA (Make Israel Great Again) vision of very tightly controlled development for the MENA region and extremely' special' attention has been given to the cyber tech development (call it surveillance) to control the 'Arab Street' from social revolt and the prevention of next rounds of Arab Springs, which again goes back to Israel's long-standing regional doctrine of propping pro-U.S. and now pro-Israeli Arab dictatorships in the region.
John Merryman , 16 September 2020 at 10:17 PM

In the end, it's all just tribal superstition. Logically a spiritual absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell. The fact we are aware, than the myriad details of which we are aware.

One of the reasons we can't have a live and let live world is because everyone thinks their own vision should be universal, rather than unique. So the fundamentalists rule.

The reason nature is so diverse and dense is because it isn't a monoculture. Irrespective of our technology, we are still fairly primitive, in the grand scheme of things.

different clue , 17 September 2020 at 02:42 AM

A.I.S.,

When I read that " If you look at relatively successful integration/assimilations in history, jointly overcoming something that was threatening to both typically ranked pretty highly as a cause." I think that The Islamic Republic of Iran is what is being offered or used as that cause.

If this all ends up in the longest run leading to today's and tomorrow's Israelis accepting the lesser Israel that Rabin ended up deciding would be necessary for a lesser-but-still-real Palestine to emerge as a real country resigned with both resigned enough to that outcome that they would tolerate eachother's separate independence over the long term, then this will go somewhere good.

But if the present and future Israelis believe this means that the total advantage is totally theirs to press, then present and future Palestinians will continue searching for ways to make their unhappiness felt. But that outcome would not be Trump's fault. That outcome would be the majority-likudnic Israelis' choice.

Mathias Alexander , 17 September 2020 at 04:53 AM

To have a two state solution Israel will have to leave enough of Palestine without Jewish settlement for there to be room for another state. Their actions show that they have no intention of doing that.

Matthew , 17 September 2020 at 09:26 AM

Larry: the problem with "outside in" strategy is that implies that if conditions are bad enough for the Palestinians, they will agree to any deal Trump can force down their throats. Instead, Palestinians have been offered terrible deals since 2000 (ie., a state that is never going to be a real state with permanent Israeli control over its borders, air space, and water tables)

The smarter plan is to acknowledge that the Zionists killed the Two-State Solution, and Palestinians might as well push this into an anti-Apartheid struggle. The gerontocracy that rules the PA will soon pass away. The younger generation of Palestinians are much more sophisticated.

As a trial lawyer, I see this type of behavior all the time. If you offer someone essentially nothing, they lose nothing by rejecting it. The Arab dictators will not be around forever. And before Camp David, the Palestinians have suffered far worse than they are suffering now.

BABAK MAKKINEJAD , 17 September 2020 at 09:55 AM

Matthew:

For any kind of Peace in Palestine, Jerusalem must revert back to Muslim Sovereignty.

It is all about who calls the shots there; just as it was 800 years ago.

Artemesia , 17 September 2020 at 10:35 AM

Matthew: Your description of Trump's strategy is no different from Vladimir Jabotinsky's 1923 Iron Wall doctrine
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm
and
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/quot-the-iron-wall-quot

In short: "We Jews know that Arabs (Palestinians) will never, ever voluntarily give up hope of resisting Jewish demands, and Jews will never stop with Jewish demands: that all of Palestine become Jewish.
Since 'voluntary' will not work, only force -- an Iron Wall -- will suffice.
Jabotinsky defines "Iron Wall" as the enforcement capacity of an outside power:

"we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say "no" and depart from Zionism. Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.

Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not. What does the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate mean for us? It is the fact that a disinterested power committed itself to create such security conditions that the local population would be deterred from interfering with our efforts."

Be aware that Benjamin Netanyahu's father, Benzion, was Jabotinsky's administrative assistant, then replacement, in New York; that Bibi is very much heir to the ideological fervor of Jabotinsky & of Benzion; and that Benzion and Benjamin laid out the blueprint for the GWOT at the Jerusalem Conference July 4, 1979
https://www.amazon.com/International-Terrorism-Challenge-Benjamin-Netanyahu/dp/0878558942

Trump plays only a walk-on role in this carefully scripted 150 year old zionist drama.

turcopolier , 17 September 2020 at 10:58 AM

Babak

To "Muslim Sovereignty?" No. It should be an international city.

turcopolier , 17 September 2020 at 11:30 AM

james

"there isn't a lot of difference between KSA and these fiefdoms of uae and bahrain.." A total crock. you obviously have never been to either of these places.

BABAK MAKKINEJAD , 17 September 2020 at 11:46 AM

Col. Lang:

Who or what Legitimate Authority would administer such an International City?

None has ever existed.

Artemesia , 17 September 2020 at 12:00 PM

Jews can have Jerusalem if they return Washington, DC to full USA sovereignty.

[Aug 21, 2020] Pompeo reveals some deep parallel, but experts vary if this is between China and Nazi Germany, or himself and Goebbels

Jun 07, 2020 | www.rt.com

7 Jun, 2020

The editor-in-chief of a major Chinese tabloid slammed Mike Pompeo for comparing his country to Nazi Germany, likening his words to those of Hitler's propaganda chief and reminding the secretary of state of America's endless wars.

Hu Xijin took to Twitter on Sunday venting his anger about Mike Pompeo's remarks.

"You are inciting radical hostility and ripping the world apart. You aren't like a top diplomat, instead, you talk like Goebbels of Nazi Germany. I'm worried that world peace will eventually be destroyed by extreme politicians like you," he wrote.

[Aug 18, 2020] Rules for thee but not for me: Pompeo denounces proposed Russian law that would require labeling of propaganda content

Notable quotes:
"... "This decree will impose new burdensome requirements that will further inhibit RFE/RL's and VOA's ability to operate within Russia," ..."
"... "vital sources of independent news and information for the people of Russia" ..."
"... "more than 70 years." ..."
"... "be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States" ..."
"... "provide a surge capacity to support United States foreign policy objectives during crises abroad." ..."
"... "foreign agents" ..."
"... "feel like criminals, or believe that they are in danger when they watch or read our materials." ..."
"... "state-affiliated," ..."
Aug 18, 2020 | www.rt.com

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has voiced his opposition to a proposed Russian rule that would require labeling of propaganda content, saying it would burden "independent" information work by outlets such as Voice of America.

"This decree will impose new burdensome requirements that will further inhibit RFE/RL's and VOA's ability to operate within Russia," Pompeo said Monday, commenting on the draft rule published by the media regulator Roskomnadzor.

Pompeo called VOA and its sister outlet Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty "vital sources of independent news and information for the people of Russia" for "more than 70 years."

Far from independent, however, they were both established as US propaganda outlets at the dawn of the Cold War. They are fully funded by the government, and the charter of their parent organization – now known as US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) – mandates that they "be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States" and "provide a surge capacity to support United States foreign policy objectives during crises abroad."

The 1948 law that established these outlets outright prohibited their content from being broadcast in the US itself, until the Obama administration amended it in 2013.

The proposed rule would require all content produced by designated "foreign agents" in the Russian Federation to be clearly labeled. When the draft of it was made public last month, acting RFE/RL president Daisy Sindelar protested that its purpose was to "intimidate" her audience and make them "feel like criminals, or believe that they are in danger when they watch or read our materials."

Yet the Russian regulation is the mirror image of the requirement imposed under the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) on RT, Sputnik and China Global Television Network (CTGN) since 2017, which only a handful of groups such as the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) condemned as an attack on free speech. The USAGM remained conspicuously silent even as the designated outlets were denied credentials to access government press conferences.

US-based social media companies have also bowed to political pressure and labeled Russian- and Chinese-based outlets as "state-affiliated," while refraining from using that descriptor for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), German outlet Deutsche Welle, the French AFP, Turkish TRT, or any of the USAGM outlets, once again showcasing the double standard.

jangosimba 10 August, 2020

He cheats, he lies, he murders, he steals.
Zogg jangosimba 11 August, 2020
That's a small part of CIA job description.
Harbin

William Johnson 1 hour ago

Mike reminds me that character from "Godfather" series, the old , dumb henchman ready to follow any order...

[Aug 09, 2020] NYT as an amplifier for the mislabeled US 'Intelligence' Agencies rumor and baseless claims about foreign interferences in US elections

The first and the most important fact that there will no elections in November -- both candidates represent the same oligarchy, just slightly different factions of it.
Look like NYT is controlled by Bolton faction of CIA. They really want to overturn the results of 2020 elections and using Russia as a bogeyman is a perfect opportunity to achieve this goal.
Neocons understand very well that it is MIC who better their bread, so amplifying rumors the simplify getting additional budget money for intelligence agencies (which are a part of MIC) is always the most desirable goal.
Notable quotes:
"... But a new assessment says China would prefer to see the president defeated, though it is not clear Beijing is doing much to meddle in the 2020 campaign to help Joseph R. Biden Jr. ..."
"... The statement then claims: "Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's confidence in our democratic process." ..."
"... But how do the 'intelligence' agencies know that foreign states want to "sway preferences", "increase discord" or "undermine confidence" in elections? ..."
"... But ascribing motive and intent is a tricky business, because perceived impact is often mistaken for true intent. [...] Where is the evidence that Russia actually wants to bring down the liberal world order and watch the United States burn? ..."
"... Well there is none. And that is why the 'intelligence' agencies do not present any evidence. ..."
"... Is there a secret policy paper by the Russian government that says it should "increase discord" in the United States? Is there some Chinese think tank report which says that undermining U.S. people's confidence in their democratic process would be good for China? ..."
"... If the 'intelligence' people have copies of those papers why not publish them? ..."
"... Let me guess. The 'intelligence' agencies have nothing, zero, nada. They are just making wild-ass guesses about 'intentions' of perceived enemies to impress the people who sign off their budget. ..."
"... Nowadays that seems to be their main purpose. ..."
Aug 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
No Evidence Of Foreign Interference In U.S. Elections, U.S. Intelligence Says

Yesterday the mislabeled U.S. 'Intelligence' Agencies trotted out more nonsense claims about foreign interferences in U.S. elections.

The New York Times sensationally headlines:

Russia Continues Interfering in Election to Try to Help Trump, U.S. Intelligence Says
But a new assessment says China would prefer to see the president defeated, though it is not clear Beijing is doing much to meddle in the 2020 campaign to help Joseph R. Biden Jr.

But when one reads the piece itself one finds no fact that would support the 'Russia Continues Interfering' statement:

Russia is using a range of techniques to denigrate Joseph R. Biden Jr., American intelligence officials said Friday in their first public assessment that Moscow continues to try to interfere in the 2020 campaign to help President Trump.

At the same time, the officials said China preferred that Mr. Trump be defeated in November and was weighing whether to take more aggressive action in the election.

But officials briefed on the intelligence said that Russia was the far graver, and more immediate, threat. While China seeks to gain influence in American politics, its leaders have not yet decided to wade directly into the presidential contest, however much they may dislike Mr. Trump, the officials said.

The assessment, included in a statement released by William R. Evanina, the director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, suggested the intelligence community was treading carefully, reflecting the political heat generated by previous findings.

The authors emphasize the scaremongering hearsay from "officials briefed on the intelligence" - i.e. Democratic congress members - about Russia but have nothing to back it up.

When one reads the statement by Evanina one finds nothing in it about Russian attempts to interfere in the U.S. elections. Here is the only 'evidence' that is noted:

For example, pro-Russia Ukrainian parliamentarian Andriy Derkach is spreading claims about corruption – including through publicizing leaked phone calls – to undermine former Vice President Biden's candidacy and the Democratic Party. Some Kremlin-linked actors are also seeking to boost President Trump's candidacy on social media and Russian television.

After a request from Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal attorney, a Ukrainian parliamentarian published Ukrainian evidence of Biden's very real interference in the Ukraine. Also: Some guest of a Russian TV show had an opinion. How is either of those two items 'evidence' of Russian interference in U.S. elections?

The statement then claims: "Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's confidence in our democratic process."

But how do the 'intelligence' agencies know that foreign states want to "sway preferences", "increase discord" or "undermine confidence" in elections?

As a recent piece in Foreign Affairs noted :

The mainstream view in the U.S. media and government holds that the Kremlin is waging a long-haul campaign to undermine and destabilize American democracy. Putin wants to see the United States burn, and contentious elections offer a ready-made opportunity to fan the flames.

But ascribing motive and intent is a tricky business, because perceived impact is often mistaken for true intent. [...] Where is the evidence that Russia actually wants to bring down the liberal world order and watch the United States burn?

Well there is none. And that is why the 'intelligence' agencies do not present any evidence.

Even the NYT writers have to admit that there is nothing there:

The release on Friday was short on specifics, ...

and

Intelligence agencies focus their work on the intentions of foreign governments, and steer clear of assessing if those efforts have had an effect on American voters.

How do 'intelligence' agencies know Russian, Chinese or Iranian 'intentions'. Is there a secret policy paper by the Russian government that says it should "increase discord" in the United States? Is there some Chinese think tank report which says that undermining U.S. people's confidence in their democratic process would be good for China?

If the 'intelligence' people have copies of those papers why not publish them?

Let me guess. The 'intelligence' agencies have nothing, zero, nada. They are just making wild-ass guesses about 'intentions' of perceived enemies to impress the people who sign off their budget.

Nowadays that seems to be their main purpose.

Posted by b on August 8, 2020 at 18:08 UTC | Permalink

[Aug 08, 2020] -No Difference Between John Bolton, Brian Hook Or Elliott Abrams-- Iran FM -

Aug 08, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

"No Difference Between John Bolton, Brian Hook Or Elliott Abrams": Iran FM

by Tyler Durden Fri, 08/07/2020 - 22:45 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

"There's no difference between John Bolton, Brian Hook or Elliott Abrams," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said in a tweet with the hashtag #BankruptUSPolicy on Friday.

"When U.S. policy concerns Iran, American officials have been biting off more than they can chew. This applies to Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump and their successors," Mousavi added.

Indeed in perhaps one of the greatest symbols or representations of the contradictions and absurdity inherent in US foreign policy of the past few decades, and a supreme irony that can't be emphasized enough: the new US envoy to Iran who will oversee Pompeo's 'maximum pressure' campaign remains the most publicly visible face of the 1980's Iran-Contra affair .

Elliott Abrams has been named to the position after Brian Hook stepping down. This means the man who will continue to push for the extension of a UN arms embargo against Iran once himself was deeply involved in illegally selling weapons to Iran and covering it up .

Most famously, or we should say infamously, Abrams pleaded guilty to lying to Congress in 1991 following years of the Iran-Contra scandal engulfing the Reagan administration; however, he was also pardoned by outgoing president George H.W. Bush at around the same time.

"Pardoned by George H.W. Bush in 1992, Abrams was a pivotal figure in the foreign-policy scandal that shook the Reagan administration, lying to Congress about his knowledge of the plot to covertly sell weapons to the Khomeini government and use the proceeds to illegally fund the right-wing Contras rebel group in Nicaragua ," NY Mag reviews.

Some are noting this heightens the chances that Washington could get dragged into a war involving Israel and Iran.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1291802541223809025&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Fno-difference-between-john-bolton-brian-hook-or-elliott-abrams-iran-fm&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=www.zerohedge.com&width=890

Recall too that Abrams has been Trump's point man for ousting Maduro from Venezuela, and it appears he'll remain in the post of special envoy for Venezuela as well.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1291783763945574402&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Fno-difference-between-john-bolton-brian-hook-or-elliott-abrams-iran-fm&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

The Grayzone journalist, Anya Parampil, who has frequently reported from Venezuela, alleged this week that Abrams will "try and destroy Venezuela and Iran at the same time".

me name=

https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4879&num_ads=18&cf=1258.5.zerohedge%20190919&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Fno-difference-between-john-bolton-brian-hook-or-elliott-abrams-iran-fm
Wild Bill Steamcock , 14 hours ago

Abrams is a disgrace. This Administration should be dying in it's own shame bringing this swine back into government.

He's a leach. He's about lining his own pockets. He can't even own a .22 single shot, yet he's shaping international policy.

This country is dead. And the fact Trump has democrat and zionist Kushner as advisor, bringing in guys like Bolton and Abrams, Reince Priebus, H.R. McMaster and that Ukranian pet goblin of his, in not firing Comey et. al day 1 means he's not the answer. Face it.

And to be fair, it doesn't matter anymore who is POTUS. It hasn't really mattered in quite some time. The Plan rolls along.

Kinskian , 15 hours ago

Trump is a clumsy and transparent Zionist stooge.

PT , 14 hours ago

Gotta admit, if you're going to have a Zionist stooge then you are better off having a clumsy and transparent one.

Dank fur Kopf , 14 hours ago

Elliott Abrams is a moron. He's been running the exact same stupid coup strategy for decades, and can't conceive of a world where the enemy has worked out how to defeat that.

Venezuela was set to be US foreign policies most embarrassing failure--but maybe Iran will be worse.

Dank fur Kopf , 14 hours ago

Let's predict what Abrams will attempt:

Running out of the US/UK embassies, Abrams will attempt to identify a potential alternative leader who is corrupt and controllable. They'll throw political support behind this false leader, and try and find enough military to support him. Then, protests in the streets, and the small faction of the military--supported by foreign forces--will attempt to establish control.

Counter: China and Russia will import anti-coup specialists. Individuals in the Iranian military will pretend to be on board claiming to have thousands at call, and when the false leader gives the call, they won't answer. All the conspirators will be caught out on the street, and have to flee to embassies for political asylum. Like what happened in Venezuela recently, and Turkey in 2016. This will allow Iran to do a purge of all the real threats (remembering that Iran has the death penalty for sedition), and give them enough justification to end diplomatic missions in the country that are being used as launch pads.

[Aug 06, 2020] Is War With China Inevitable by J

Notable quotes:
"... "When I analyze the current situation, I understand that this is a rehearsal for biological warfare," ..."
"... "I am not saying that this virus was created by humans... but this is a test of the health system's strength, including the country's biological defense." ..."
"... More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic power (already the case) and Technology ..."
"... China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range. ..."
"... More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic power (already the case) and Technology ..."
"... China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range. ..."
"... Of course having moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success. ..."
"... "There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..." Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. ..."
"... Of course having moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success. ..."
"... "There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..." Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. ..."
Aug 06, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The rattling of sabres between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the U.S. is becoming louder, and causing many to ponder if World War III is not far off. There are those in the international community increasingly alarmed given the COVID situation, the South China Sea imbroglio, and China's growing threat that they intend to invade and absorb Taiwan into Communist China within a year. These items have led to the belief that World War III is on the horizon.

Just recently, Dr.Leonid Roshal, a noted Moscow physician, hostage negotiator, and advisor to the WHO remarked that the COVID pandemic is a dry run for World War III, and that COVID-19 is practice for future biological warfare. Covid-19 pandemic has functioned as a "rehearsal for biological warfare," Dr. Roshal also believes that the rapidly-spreading virus was a test for the world's healthcare systems.

In an interview with Forbes, Professor Roshal, President of the Research Institute of Emergency Pediatric Surgery and Traumatology, explained that not all nations were ready for a mass influx of patients, and their lack of preparation has been exposed by the pandemic.

"When I analyze the current situation, I understand that this is a rehearsal for biological warfare," he explained. "I am not saying that this virus was created by humans... but this is a test of the health system's strength, including the country's biological defense."

In addition, Hong Kong-based virologist Yan Li-Meng, currently in hiding at an undisclosed location, claims that the COVID-19 coronavirus came from a People's Liberation Army lab, and not from a Wuhan wet market as Beijing has claimed. Speaking on a live stream interview on Taiwan's News Agency Lude Press, she said, "At that time, I clearly assessed that the virus came from a Chinese Communist Party military lab. The Wuhan wet market was just used as a decoy." Yan has been in hiding in the U.S. after fleeing Hong Kong in April.

Chinese PLA Senior Colonel Ren Guoqiang stated recently that TAIWAN WILL be reunified with the rest of China - and any attempt by the United States to interfere is futile and dangerous. Senior Colonel Guoqiang is Deputy Director of the Ministry of Defense's Information Office, and Chinese Defense Ministry Spokesman. J

entrybody comment-odd comment-has-avatar">

Well, this is certainly a depressing and frightening post. I can't say, however, that I have been thinking along the same lines. However, since I am basically a nobody, I have tried to assure myself that I am being paranoid. So, it's not helping that some people who are much more knowledgeable have expressed in print some of the fears I have been feeling over these months dealing with the pandemic.

All I can do is pray and hold fast to my faith in God. Perhaps He will lift up the people who can deter us from the predictions of this post. (But are we worthy of being saved?)

Posted by: Diana Croissant , 05 August 2020 at 03:44 PM

Well, this is certainly a depressing and frightening post. I can't say, however, that I have been thinking along the same lines. However, since I am basically a nobody, I have tried to assure myself that I am being paranoid. So, it's not helping that some people who are much more knowledgeable have expressed in print some of the fears I have been feeling over these months dealing with the pandemic.

All I can do is pray and hold fast to my faith in God. Perhaps He will lift up the people who can deter us from the predictions of this post. (But are we worthy of being saved?)

Posted by: Diana Croissant 05 August 2020 at 03:44 PM

entrybody comment-even comment-has-avatar">

J

I don't believe there will be any direct military conflict. However, we can expect some saber rattling from both sides.

Sec.Azhar is leading a US delegation to Taiwan. On another note Taiwan ain't HK. They have an independent government. While they will eventually be overwhelmed in any military conflict with China if no other country intervenes on Taiwan's side, they definitely have the capability to inflict a black eye.

The CCP has been emboldened precisely because the US government has actively abetted their rapaciousness for many decades under both parties. From Clinton's MFN designation to Bush & Obama administrations actively supporting the shuttering of US manufacturing.

Trump is making the first course correction albeit in a limited manner with tariffs. He has however changed the tone in an important manner by no longer just kowtowing to whatever the CCP wants.

This story of ARM China exemplifies CCP long-term policy of requiring JVs to access the Chinese market and once technology and know-how have been successfully transferred, then expropriating it. The west in general and the US in particular have turned a blind eye. Huawei got going by stealing cisco source code and design.
https://www.businessinsider.com/arm-conflict-china-complicates-acquisition-prospects-2020-8

It is high time for the US to make the totalitarian Chinese communists pay a price and directly take the fight to them economically and financially. The CCP must be doing their best to insure a Biden win to return to the status quo or wait another Trump term and hope an establishment Democrat or Republican wins after. They have bought and paid the establishment politicians, entire think-tanks, many in academia and the media.

Posted by: Jack , 05 August 2020 at 03:58 PM

J

I don't believe there will be any direct military conflict. However, we can expect some saber rattling from both sides.

Sec.Azhar is leading a US delegation to Taiwan. On another note Taiwan ain't HK. They have an independent government. While they will eventually be overwhelmed in any military conflict with China if no other country intervenes on Taiwan's side, they definitely have the capability to inflict a black eye.

The CCP has been emboldened precisely because the US government has actively abetted their rapaciousness for many decades under both parties. From Clinton's MFN designation to Bush & Obama administrations actively supporting the shuttering of US manufacturing.

Trump is making the first course correction albeit in a limited manner with tariffs. He has however changed the tone in an important manner by no longer just kowtowing to whatever the CCP wants.

This story of ARM China exemplifies CCP long-term policy of requiring JVs to access the Chinese market and once technology and know-how have been successfully transferred, then expropriating it. The west in general and the US in particular have turned a blind eye. Huawei got going by stealing cisco source code and design.
https://www.businessinsider.com/arm-conflict-china-complicates-acquisition-prospects-2020-8

It is high time for the US to make the totalitarian Chinese communists pay a price and directly take the fight to them economically and financially. The CCP must be doing their best to insure a Biden win to return to the status quo or wait another Trump term and hope an establishment Democrat or Republican wins after. They have bought and paid the establishment politicians, entire think-tanks, many in academia and the media.

Posted by: Jack 05 August 2020 at 03:58 PM

entrybody comment-even comment-has-avatar">

More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic power (already the case) and Technology .

There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising Trump. Certainly, US Naval Intel and PACCOM (now INDOPACCOM) brass who would love a grand Coral Sea 2.0 battle to destroy PLAN vessel on the seas. However, no one, except few Marine 4 stars want any land war. The Marines think they can defeat the PLA on some islands. That kind of warfare is for hollywood movies. China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range.

There won't be any war in SE Asia or East Asia. This area now has a circuit breaker, Russia. Russia is building a naval presence, expanding it's aerospace arm, has basing rights in the zone in Vietnam and has long range radars that cover a lot of the zones, and submarines the US is having issues tracking.

The signals from China and Russia to the US military is very clear. You can walk and talk like the Hegemon but the days of regional hegemony are over. ASEAN nations will not accepting accept a return to gunboat diplomacy and colonization. All these nations want prosperity and progress, not western hegemony and military destruction.

This is why the hybrid war of sanctions, trade war, Infowars, cyberwar, proxies in Central Asia (ISIS and AQ), color revolution attempts in Hong Kong, hysterics about Tibet and Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia (Bannon front) are on the front burner. Military action is a losing proposition for the US. They simply cannot win anything anywhere in the Asia Pacific, western Asia or even against near peer powers proxies like Venezuela.

China simply has to do what Russia does and tell the US to pound sand.

Posted by: Horatio , 05 August 2020 at 04:51 PM

More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic power (already the case) and Technology .

There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising Trump. Certainly, US Naval Intel and PACCOM (now INDOPACCOM) brass who would love a grand Coral Sea 2.0 battle to destroy PLAN vessel on the seas. However, no one, except few Marine 4 stars want any land war. The Marines think they can defeat the PLA on some islands. That kind of warfare is for hollywood movies. China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range.

There won't be any war in SE Asia or East Asia. This area now has a circuit breaker, Russia. Russia is building a naval presence, expanding it's aerospace arm, has basing rights in the zone in Vietnam and has long range radars that cover a lot of the zones, and submarines the US is having issues tracking.

The signals from China and Russia to the US military is very clear. You can walk and talk like the Hegemon but the days of regional hegemony are over. ASEAN nations will not accepting accept a return to gunboat diplomacy and colonization. All these nations want prosperity and progress, not western hegemony and military destruction.

This is why the hybrid war of sanctions, trade war, Infowars, cyberwar, proxies in Central Asia (ISIS and AQ), color revolution attempts in Hong Kong, hysterics about Tibet and Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia (Bannon front) are on the front burner. Military action is a losing proposition for the US. They simply cannot win anything anywhere in the Asia Pacific, western Asia or even against near peer powers proxies like Venezuela.

China simply has to do what Russia does and tell the US to pound sand.

Posted by: Horatio 05 August 2020 at 04:51 PM

entrybody comment-odd comment-has-avatar">

Bjorn H

... BTW, "J" is a farmer in Oklahoma who served a long time in USAF.

Posted by: turcopolier , 05 August 2020 at 05:04 PM

Bjorn H

... BTW, "J" is a farmer in Oklahoma who served a long time in USAF.

Posted by: turcopolier 05 August 2020 at 05:04 PM

entrybody comment-even comment-has-avatar">

We've been in a war with China for a few decades now, and losing. Of course having moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success.

Horatio,

"There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..." Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

Posted by: Fred , 05 August 2020 at 05:05 PM

We've been in a war with China for a few decades now, and losing. Of course having moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success.

Horatio,

"There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..." Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

Posted by: Fred 05 August 2020 at 05:05 PM

entrybody comment-odd comment-has-avatar">

The rattling. of sabres between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the U.S.

That line as introduction gives away the article as plain and unsofisticated propaganda. Nobody refers to the USA as the Republican Party, the red scare is a momified bogey..

Posted by: Paco , 05 August 2020 at 05:28 PM

The rattling. of sabres between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the U.S.

That line as introduction gives away the article as plain and unsofisticated propaganda. Nobody refers to the USA as the Republican Party, the red scare is a momified bogey..

Posted by: Paco 05 August 2020 at 05:28 PM

[Aug 02, 2020] A couple of relevant section from the NPR which I think Putin was replying to.

Aug 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU1 , Aug 1 2020 16:34 utc | 119

A couple of relevant section from the NPR which I think Putin was replying to.

https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF
From page 21...
"The United States would only consider the employment of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances
to defend the vital interests of the United States, its allies, and partners. Extreme circumstances
could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks. Significant non-nuclear strategic attacks
include, but are not limited to, attacks on the U.S., allied, or partner civilian population or
infrastructure, and attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning
and attack assessment capabilities.
The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons
states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
Given the potential of significant non-nuclear strategic attacks, the United States reserves the right
to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation
of non-nuclear strategic attack technologies and U.S. capabilities to counter that threat."

And page 34...
"Our deterrence strategy is designed to ensure that the Iranian leadership understands that
any non-nuclear strategic attack against the United States, allies, and partners would be
defeated, and that the cost would outweigh any benefits. There is no plausible scenario in
which Iran may anticipate benefit from launching a strategic attack. Consequently, U.S
deterrence strategy includes the capabilities necessary to defeat Iranian non-nuclear,
strategic capabilities, including the U.S. defensive and offensive systems capable of
precluding or degrading Tehran's missile threats. The United States will continue to
strengthen these capabilities as necessary to stay ahead of Iranian threats as they grow.
Doing so will enhance U.S. security and that of our regional allies and partners."

The page 34 section states plainly that US is willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran's non nuclear capabilities.

Peter AU1 , Aug 1 2020 16:47 utc | 121

I should have highlighted this in my previous post.

The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons
states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.

Jackrabbit , Aug 1 2020 17:03 utc | 123

After the drone shoot-down last week, Israel and USA sought to convince Russia to allow a strike against Iran. The Russians rebuffed this request as well as the depiction of Iran as a terrorist state

Newsweek: Russia Warns U.S. and Israel That Iran Is Its 'Ally' and Was Right About Drone Shoot Down

"In the context of the statements made by our partners with regard to a major regional power, namely Iran, I would like to say the following: Iran has always been and remains our ally and partner , with which we are consistently developing relations both on bilateral basis and within multilateral formats,"

!!

[Aug 02, 2020] Iran launching very clever non-silo dug down ballistic missiles. Anyone can copy the idea in earth or sand, it looks relatively simple and perhaps genius.

Aug 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sunny Runny Burger , Aug 1 2020 0:42 utc | 41

News I noticed:

...Iran launching very clever non-silo dug down ballistic missiles. Anyone can copy the idea in earth or sand, it looks relatively simple and perhaps genius. It should only require minimal additions similar to when missiles are "containerized"/vertical on ships.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dytSOhfg1UM for the video.

· "W93/MK7 Navy Warhead -- Developing Modern Capabilities to Address Current and Future Threats" - Pentagon, Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), unclassified 5-page white paper, May 2020 is still not "leaked". Seems a dud: reading between the lines not written no one was convinced and instead complained about anyone saying there's any problems (how "exceptional").

Grieved , Aug 1 2020 0:54 utc | 43

@41 Sunny Runny Burger

That's a great little video clip. Missiles erupting out of the ground. Trying to guess where the next one's coming from. I'll call it genius.

Peter AU1 , Aug 1 2020 1:54 utc | 49

Millenium Challenge 2002

"Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World-War-II-style light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.

Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. The losses were as follows: one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected."

Iranians are not part of the rules based order it seems - not that the bad guys in the war game was played by Iranians.

Grieved , Aug 1 2020 4:29 utc | 69

@50 Peter AU1 & #55 Bemildred

In the 2002 war game, the US was defeated in 2 days - lost a massive part of its fleet or some such. So they stopped the game and changed the rules. I think that's when Van Riper quit the game in disgust, and of course ultimately went public. But even with the rules changed, the US still lost.

The point about these exercises is that they are real endeavors to create a playbook that will result in victory. Millennium cost about $200 million to stage, and even for the Pentagon that was war-fighting money spent to try to get somewhere. The next point even more crucial is that in EVERY exercise the Pentagon has undertaken since this game, the US is ALWAYS beaten by Iran.

This is the point I frequently try to hammer home here - the Pentagon has no map whatsoever that leads to victory in warfare against Iran. Any warfare will always result in defeat for the US - and we know how unpalatable a public defeat would be for the whole MIC stream of income. The fundamentals are stacked against the US. It's very similar to Israel's position right now against Hezbollah. For both the US and Israel, neither one can move forward along the path it wants to go because its foe simply cannot be beaten by any stratagem it can devise.

Sharmine Narwani talked about this extensively in her interview with Ross Ashcroft last year on Renegade, Inc. It's an excellent interview. She's expert on the geopolitics of the ME and laid out many of the fundamentals that create and support Iran's unwavering position in this theater and in the great game:

What's the real plan with Iran?

I keep this episode bookmarked largely to share it here from time to time. You will both enjoy the interview. The takeaway is that the US can bluster all it wants, but it dare not cross a red line with Iran - such as it already has, for example, with Soleimani's murder, and for which it has not yet suffered its full punishment, which is complete banishment from the ME (and which I am convinced Iran will ultimately achieve).

~~

When your generals tell you constantly, daily, that you can't go into battle in a certain theater, you are free to bluster all you want. In fact, it's all you have left, and you pour all your feeble energy into it. Thus, the US.

Sakineh Bagoom , Aug 1 2020 6:44 utc | 75

Peter AU1 50 & 55 Bemildred & Grieved 70
RE: Millenium Challenge 2002
And yet, I keep pointing out that, that was 18 long years ago, when Iran did NOT have the following:

Terminal guidance for it's ballistics
Armed drone technology
Satellite to map out the battlefield
Proximity to Israel (two countries sat between Iran and Israel)
Electronic surveillance and response, like spoofing a drone to land in Iran.
S300 and home built variations
Cyber
Experience watching coalition forces fighting in ME
Etc, etc,

Peter AU1 , Aug 1 2020 9:03 utc | 84

Re Iran

US could not attack Iran conventionally but with Trump's earlier fixation on nuclear weapons I think he was going to give that a try. Putin must have thought so to as he very publicly laid Russia's nuclear umbrella over Iran and maintained the status quo.

It was after this meeting the Russian envoy made the point plain and public in the presser that Iran was an ally of Russia.
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-iran-us-israel-drone-ally-1445802

Richard Steven Hack , Aug 1 2020 9:55 utc | 86

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 1 2020 9:03 utc | 88 US could not attack Iran conventionally

The US is perfectly capable of *attacking* Iran conventionally. The only thing to question is whether the US can *defeat* Iran in the sense that Iran "surrenders" officially to the US. *That* is in my view impossible short of the US actually killing thirty million Iranians by nuking Iran.

Which in turn I believe even Trump would not do. He really would get Pentagon pushback on that, as well as from every US ally and the UNSC, because no one wants to get the geopolitical hear from being the first country to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country (this isn't WWII any more, before anyone brings up Hiroshima.)

As for Putin declaring Iran an ally, that does *not* mean that Putin would risk a nuclear confrontation with the US over Iran. Not going to happen - even if the US nuked Tehran. Putin's charge is to take care of Russian interests - and having Iran as an "ally and partner" does qualify as an "interest". But it is *not* an *overriding* interest. Putin would not be authorized by the Russian people to risk their country being nuked over a bunch of Persians and if he did, they'd kick his butt out at the next election - and rightly so.

Current Russian military doctrine (discussed here specifies the following:


The section on use begins by repeating the formulation in the last two Russian military doctrines (translation from the Russian Embassy in the U.K.): "The Russian Federation shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy." Like the doctrines, Foundations underlines that the president of the Russian Federation makes any decision to use nuclear weapons. However, unlike the doctrines, it then, in paragraph 19, outlines four conditions that could allow for (not require) nuclear use:

credible information that Russia is under ballistic missile attack (the missiles don't have to be nuclear -- this isn't specified -- but in many cases, it's hard to tell before they land);
the use of nuclear or other WMD by an adversary against Russian territory or that of its allies;
adversary actions against Russian critical government or military infrastructure that could undermine Russia's capacity for nuclear retaliation (so, for example, a cyber attack on Russia's command and control -- or perhaps one that targets Russian leadership could also qualify); and, finally,
conventional aggression against Russia that threatens the very existence of the state.

The primary requirement is the use of nukes or "WMDs" against Russia, or conventional weapons where their use is an "existential threat", i.e., Russia is about to be defeated on a conventional battlefield.

the phrase "and/or its allies" almost certainly does *not* include Iran. There are two "alliances" to which Russia is a party, according to Wikipedia:
1) Collective Security Treaty Organization: Military alliance with 6 former Soviet republics: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan.
2) Union State: an alliance between Russia and Belarus (also already covered by 1).

Russia and Iran do not have any formal military or mutual-defense alliance agreements. Russia and Iran are "allied" only with regard to Syria and Islamic terrorism in general. Russia is willing to sell Iran arms, obviously. Equally obviously, that does not indicate a willingness to risk nuclear war.

Putin made the following statement in June of 2019:

After talks Friday with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek, Putin said that "relations between Russia and Iran are multifaceted, multilateral" and that "this concerns the economy, this concerns the issues of stability in the region, our joint efforts to combat terrorism, including in Syria."

Nothing in that statement indicates a willingness to use Russia's nuclear arsenal to threaten the US to prevent a US attack on Iran.

It is of course *possible* that some in the Pentagon, the Deep State, and/or Congress, may interpret that to be the case. But I think the primary restraint on any President would be the heat for a first use of nukes on a non-nuclear country - even if the alleged "reason" was that Iran was developing nukes.
Even severe damage to US Navy assets in the region would not be sufficient to justify the use of nukes against Iran, in particular because the only viable target for nukes would Tehran or some other major Iranian city.

It is just possible that a tactical nuke would be used against a heavily buried facility involved in nuclear weapons development (or more precisely, alleged to be so - because Iran won't be developing nukes regardless of any US attack.) But even that would likely produce more heat than the US would want - and if it was done, it would be done as covertly as possible and then denied by the US. And even in that case, Russia would not threaten a nuclear response over that.

Of course, if the US leadership were to become even more unhinged than Trump, or say, the Russian leadership after Putin were to become more hawkish, then all bets are off. But under current conditions, it's not going to happen.

Peter AU1 , Aug 1 2020 10:52 utc | 90

Putin's speech March 1 2018

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56957
"In this connection, I would like to note the following. We are greatly concerned by certain provisions of the revised nuclear posture review, which expand the opportunities for reducing and reduce the threshold for the use of nuclear arms. Behind closed doors, one may say anything to calm down anyone, but we read what is written. And what is written is that this strategy can be put into action in response to conventional arms attacks and even to a cyber-threat.

I should note that our military doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons solely in response to a nuclear attack, or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against the country or its allies, or an act of aggression against us with the use of conventional weapons that threaten the very existence of the state. This all is very clear and specific.

As such, I see it is my duty to announce the following. Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, weapons of short, medium or any range at all, will be considered as a nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation will be immediate, with all the attendant consequences."

Patrushev from my link above.
"In the context of the statements made by our partners with regard to a major regional power, namely Iran, I would like to say the following: Iran has always been and remains our ally and partner, with which we are consistently developing relations both on bilateral basis and within multilateral formats"


Patrushev went to the meeting as a presidential envoy. After Putin's 2018 speech, I wondered who Russia considered an ally as I had not seen Russia name any. I tend to think Patrushev had reason to publicly name Iran as an ally at that presser. My guess is Israel and US were trying to get Russia to stand aside while they attacked Iran.

Richard Steven Hack , Aug 1 2020 13:20 utc | 96

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 1 2020 10:52 utc | 95 I tend to think Patrushev had reason to publicly name Iran as an ally at that presser. My guess is Israel and US were trying to get Russia to stand aside while they attacked Iran.

Nonetheless, the two statements do not constitute an official declaration that Iran is an ally in the sense of being under the Russian nuclear umbrella, as the countries in the list I quoted from Wikipedia are. The Collective Security Treaty Organization "charter reaffirmed the desire of all participating states to abstain from the use or threat of force. Signatories would not be able to join other military alliances or other groups of states,[3] while aggression against one signatory would be perceived as an aggression against all."

That's a military alliance which specifically declares those countries as "allies" in the military sense and specifically states that an attack on any of them is an attack on all of them.

Putin nor anyone else in Russia has specifically stated that Iran is an ally in those same terms. Putin's reference to Iran as an ally applied to economic matters and the security of Syria.

There is an article at Stratfor which I cannot access, but the tagline says: "Nikolai Bordyuzha, secretary-general of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), said Feb. 25 [2020] that Moscow's nuclear umbrella has been extended to other CSTO member countries..." In other words, the nuclear umbrella didn't even cover the former Soviet Union countries until this year, apparently. From another article I found, Russia extended the umbrella to Belarus in 2000. Another article I found says this:


Finally, Russia has created its own military alliance through the Collective Security Treaty (1992) or "Tashkent treaty". In 2002, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) was created, with a view to parallel NATO. As of June 2009, the organization included Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, which are implicitly covered by a Russian nuclear guarantee. Even though Russian officials refer sometimes to all Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS) countries being protected by Moscow's nuclear forces, it is reasonable to assume that only CSTO countries are effectively under the Russian nuclear umbrella.

So I simply don't see any reference anywhere to Russia explicitly extending its nuclear umbrella outside of the former Soviet Bloc countries. Again, all of the references made by Russians - Putin or otherwise - to Iran as an "ally" do not reference a military dimension. Of course, it's always *possible* that Putin or some future Russian leader *would* extend that umbrella to Iran, depending on future circumstances. But it seems highly unlikely.

I repeat: There is no chance that Russia will go to nuclear war over Iran. Or even conventional war against US military assets engaged in an attack on Iran because that would risk escalation to a nuclear level. The most Russia will do is supply arms and intelligence to Iran.

[Aug 01, 2020] Pompeo Vows US To Take -Necessary Action- If UN Arms Embargo On Iran Ends -

Aug 01, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

For months the US has been in a full court diplomatic press on fellow UN Security Council members in an attempt to ensure that a UN arms embargo against Iran does not expire.

The embargo on selling conventional weapons to Iran is set to end October 18, and is ironically enough part of the 2015 nuclear deal brokered under Obama, which the Trump administration in May 2018 pulled out of.

But now Pompeo vows the US will "take necessary action" -- no doubt meaning more sanctions at the very least, and likely military action at worst. He told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week that "in the near future... we hope will be met with approval from other members of the P5."

And he followed with :

"In the event it's not, we're going to take the action necessary to ensure that this arms embargo does not expire," he said.

"We have the capacity to execute snapback and we're going to use it in a way that protects and defends America," Pompeo told the committee further.

Speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continued to call on the world to accept extending the UN arms embargo against Iran. The embargo is scheduled to expire on October 18.

But it's clear at this point that the UN is not intent on extending the embargo . Russia for one has promised as much. Both Russia and China also have recent weapons deals in the works with the Islamic Republic.

LibertarianMenace , 55 minutes ago

"protects and defends America"

Nothing is farther from the truth, fat man. We know (((who))) it is we're "protecting".

bumboo , 37 minutes ago

Is this fat guy being blackmailed to saying stupid things all the time

monty42 , 35 minutes ago

He works for the Council on Foreign Relations who have been bankrupting the States with perpetual war since they fomented WW2.

LibertarianMenace , 30 minutes ago

Yes, him and the rest of the USG. When you can assassinate a U.S. President in broad daylight and get away with it, you can get away with more extravagant illusions, like 09/11, or if people are finally catching on, throw in just a smidgen of reality like CV-19. Sky is the limit.

This is Trump's redeeming value: he's showing all, including the densest among us (((who))) it is that runs the country. Whether he does it intentionally or not, as in kowtowing to (((them))), is ultimately irrelevant. (((They))) have to be a bit uncomfortable from the unaccustomed exposure. The censoring just proves it.

Tag 'em And Bag 'em , 36 minutes ago

This pneumatic bull frog is a deep state sock puppet with a Zionist hand way up his ***.

When his lips move, Satanyahoo's voice comes out

This has zero to do with the interests of real Americans.

**building 7 didn't kill itself**

Tag 'em And Bag 'em , 23 minutes ago

TRUMP: "Larry Silverstein is a great guy, he's a good guy, he's a friend of mine."

https://youtu.be/o62aUVobO04

**building 7 didn't kill itself**

Fluff The Cat , 43 minutes ago

The reason that the US government are trying to get Iran is because Epstein/Mossad has blackmailed them all into doing their bidding.

Why don't you cover that in the news, huh?

El Chapo Read , 31 minutes ago

"Necessary Action" = Call Israel and ask what they want him to do.

jaser , 43 minutes ago

Protect America? Protect corrupt Netanyahu more like it. Your nation is about to implode and you just cut off the $600 welfare payment to your citizens hey but let's ban TikTok and protect America from Iran.

malMono , 39 minutes ago

This why Biden might win...idiots like pompeo are a turnoff.

Grouchy-Bear , 34 minutes ago

Sometimes it looks like Pompeo is actually in charge. Okay, most of the time he is in charge. Why go through the election process at all? Pompeo is running the country and was never elected...

malMono , 39 minutes ago

This why Biden might win...idiots like pompeo are a turnoff.

Grouchy-Bear , 34 minutes ago

Sometimes it looks like Pompeo is actually in charge. Okay, most of the time he is in charge. Why go through the election process at all? Pompeo is running the country and was never elected...

rwe2late , 43 minutes ago

Embargo Iran to make them as desperate as possible.

Then accuse them of being "aggressive" while one attacks and bombs Iran's near neighbors (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen).

Sounds like a plan of aggressive war if done by any but an "exceptional" nation.

(It's not like the US denies it)

https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166

Ron_Paul_Was_Right , 17 minutes ago

If Russia and China want to trade with Iran, how in the world is it the US Government's right to tell them not to? If we want to put sanctions on Iran, go for it. But at this point, the dollar is collapsing as world reserve currency. Iran should well be able to buy anything they need, from China/Russia and the rest of the world which doesn't respect US sanctions, or so I would think.

My point - there's really getting nothing that the US even can do about Iran. So maybe...we should just stop and give it a rest.

Einstein101 , 13 minutes ago

Iran should well be able to buy anything they need, from China/Russia

Fact is Russia and China sell almost nothing to Iran, fearing US sanctions.

Cassandra.Hermes , 2 minutes ago

Don't forget Turkey, Azerbaijan and Europe! Turkish stream is not only bypassing Ukrain but it is connected to Azeri pipeline that is 10km from Iranians border.

monty42 , 15 minutes ago

"Obviously the Iranian army has a bunch of non thinkers..."

Hypocrisy much? The US regime employs paid mercenaries who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, yet lie and unthinkingly "just follow orders" and believe that absolves them of their oathbreaking and actions.

"Dude, I am FREE. I have firearms that are deadly." Heh, only a very limited arsenal permitted by the Central Committee in D.C., to maintain firepower supremacy in the empire's favor. Your firearms may be deadly, but the empire mercenary can take you out without you ever seeing their face.

Clearly having firearms and ammo alone do not prevent tyranny, the States under the D.C. regime prove that.

vipervenom , 17 minutes ago

pompass the fat boy coward sending our troops to die while he hides behind his own extra large rear end.

[Jul 30, 2020] Bolton is a typical crazy neocon who wants to dominate the world

Jul 30, 2020 | www.amazon.com

Pseudo D 3.0 out of 5 stars , June 24, 2020

superhawk

Ambassador John Bolton hinted that he doesn't like being called a hawk, since foreign policy labels are simplistic.

But first of all, he labeled libertarian Sen. Rand Paul an isolationist, rather than say, a non- interventionist. And after nearly 500 pages (all but the epilogue), what you will absorb is absolutely the worldview of a geopolitical hawk. He is not technically a neoconservative (like, say, Paul Wolfowitz) because the latter were more focused on nation building and spreading democracy. Bolton sees what he's promoting as defense, but it requires a constant offense.

Bolton is very bright, as Jim Baker noted decades ago, and very well-read, even endorsing his fellow Baltimorean and my teacher Steve Vicchio's book on Lincoln's faith. But his intelligence is all put into an ideological reading of situations. As Aristotle would put it, the problem is not lack of theoretical wisdom, but the deficiency in practical wisdom and prudential judgment. Certainly there are bad actors in the world, and vigilance is required. But when is aggressive action called for, and when is it better to go with diplomacy? In this book, I find few cases of such restraint. For Bolton, it seems that the goal of peace and security requires the constant threat of war and presence on every continent. All this intervention around the world requires troops, soldiers, real men and women and their lives and those of their families, requiring lots of sacrifice. At times, his theorizing seems distant from these realities on the ground.

So Bolton is critical of the "axis of adults" in the Trump administration, the "generals", but not Kelly and not much on his predecessor McMaster, much less the eccentric Flynn. So his beef is with Mattis, another fine student of history. Bolton says he went by the rules, as James Baker had said that Bush 41 was "the one who got the votes". He tried to influence Trump within the rules, while Mattis, Tillerson and Haley pursued their own foreign policy. I'm sure that Mattis was sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but I would trust his prudential judgment above that of the equally bright Bolton, because of his life experience, being the one on the ground and knowing what war is like.

When Bolton was considered for secretary state right after the 2016 election, I said, well I don't care for the guy, but at least I've heard of him and we know what we're dealing with. His opponent in GOP foreign policy is the libertarian and non-interventionist Sen. Rand Paul. What does Bolton say about the big players in the Trump administration? Nikki Haley is dismissed as a lightweight who was posing for her political future. Well, that's basically what Trump, "the one that got the votes", put her there for. But it's interesting that Bolton is so anti-Haley, when she was for Rubio and the more hawkish platform.

Tillerson's successor Mike Pompeo had sort of a love-hate relationship with Bolton.

Steve Mnuchin is the epitome of the globalist establishment, along with Javanka. Jared Kushner is dismissed as no Kissinger, but when it comes to China, his soft stance is blamed on Kissinger! While Bolton didn't testify in the impeachment, Fiona Hill is mentioned only with respect in this book.

Everybody's flaw, from Bolton's point of view, is being less belligerent than Bolton. (Even in the Bush administration, the only name I can think of would be Michael Ledeen). He even defends the concept of Middle Eastern "endless wars" on the grounds that we didn't start them and can't dictate when they end. Obama was a dove, but in 2016 the GOP marked a shift, with Trump, Paul, Ben Carson and even Ted Cruz opposing the "invade every country on earth" philosophy that this book promotes. It's true that Trump is not an ideologue and thinks in terms of individual transactions. But the movement I see is a dialectic of alternating between aggression and diplomacy, or as he sees it, friendly relationship among leaders.

Bolton is a superhawk on North Korea and Iran throughout, while China and Russia are our hostile rivals. Other matters are Syria, Iraq and ISIS, Venezuela, Afghanistan and finally Ukraine, which by the end of the book I had almost forgotten. If Bolton is dovish anywhere, it's on the Saudis, the rivals with Iran in the Sunni-Shiite dispute chronicled recently in the book "Black Wave".

You can learn a lot from this book, but just keep in mind that it's filtered through the mind of a strong ideologue, so other people's faults are seen through that lens. But he has great knowledge of the details of policy. Bolton would like to be an inter-generational guru like Henry Kissinger or Dean Acheson, but both parties have turned away from the "endless wars" philosophy.

If you are looking for anti-Trump material, I don't really see the point of investing this time and intellectual effort. The more sensational parts have been reported-the exchanges involving Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un, and to a lesser extent Erdogan. As most reviewers have said, it's about 100 pages too long, but Bolton is looking for a scholarly work like Kissinger's Diplomacy or World Order, and this is the one that he hopes people will read.

C Wm (Andy) Anderson

Not Only is Bolton's Take on Trump Being Dangerous; Bolton Himself is a Danger to America

#1 HALL OF FAME TOP 10 REVIEWER 3.0 out of 5 stars Not Only is Bolton's Take on Trump Being Dangerous; Bolton Himself is a Danger to America Reviewed in the United States on June 23, 2020 Verified Purchase Two reviewers did better at explaining why this book is not rated by me as a must-read. Linda Galella and gammyjill. Bolton laid out some truly explosive allegations but let his own ego cloud his message.

John Bolton, on some fundamental level, is a brilliant, dedicated conservative intent on improving the future of the country he and I love. THAT similarity is probably the only point we share.

I wanted to love this book, because I knew it would be jam-packed with juicy tidbits that justify me derision of the biggest failure ever to assume the office of POTUS. Instead, quite early on, I realized the reason Trump became President was the enormous ineptitude of those otherwise brilliant people who, in short, simply felt that somebody opposing those the person they despise, on principle, was better for America than the other guy or gal.

Throughout this book, Bolton reminds us of Trump's inability to focus attention on the information provided by his handlers. Yes, Trump is naive and intellectually lazy. Yes, so, too, are many of those aiding and abetting Mr. Trump. But, yes, Mr. Bolton also suffers from gross naïveté, and, is just plain foolish. His ego led him to join the Trump Administration, as he admits in "The Room Where It Happened."

Bolton's greatest error, however, was in refusing to tell the country what he chose to sell to the public through this book.

The writing is, mechanically, quite good. But, Bolton comes across as thinking he is the only person of intelligence. That becomes clear by page two, and never changes, except for his insight that he was wrong about Trump.

Unfortunately, Bolton also was wrong about Bolton.

Whoa. Hold on. Just about everyone in both political parties is no better than Bolton. A few exceptions would be Former governor John Kasick and Utah Senator Mitt Romney. Oh, and former Vice President Joe Biden, I believe. Yet, to be honest, I need to see him prove me right. I would hate to make the same mistake regarding Biden as Bolton did regarding Trump.

Americans need to take a good, hard look at how we are governed and at those whom we support.

BOTTOM LINE

Writing quality, passable. But don't expect to gain a great deal of new knowledge.

Three stars out of five.

[Jul 30, 2020] It s Official: Pompeo Has Declared Cold War With China It s Official- Pompeo Has Declared Cold War With China - The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo is a disgusting man. The US Oligarchic Regime is projecting a lot. It is this Regime that does not recognize any other order than its own, and always puts a messianic spin on its discourse. ..."
"... Mike Pompous can be counted upon to do everything possible to torpedo legitimate US interests below the waterline, and then nuke any survivors. ..."
Jul 29, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Mike Pompeo declared the start of a new Cold War with China last week.

...Pompeo's speech was an expression of this unreasonable and unrealistic view, and it is likely to leave most U.S. allies in East Asia and elsewhere cold. Our allies do not wish for deepening antagonism and strife between the U.S. and China, and if push comes to shove Washington may find itself without much support in the region. Calling for a "new alliance" to oppose China when Trump and Pompeo have done such an abysmal job of managing existing alliances in the region just drives home how divorced from reality the speech was.

... ... ...

The Secretary also relied on a familiar mix of simplistic analysis and threat inflation that he has used so often when talking about Iran: "It's this ideology, it's this ideology that informs his decades-long desire for global hegemony of Chinese communism." Pompeo is falling back on two of the stalest talking points from the Cold War. He interprets the behavior of another state primarily in terms of its official ideology rather than its concrete interests, and he attributes to them a goal of "global hegemony" that they are not pursuing to make them seem more dangerous and powerful than they are. China does seek to be the leading state in its own part of the world, but there is no evidence that they aspire to the global domination that Pompeo claims. A hard-line ideologue and hegemonist himself, Pompeo wrongly assumes that the things that motivate him must also drive the actions of others.

... ... ...

Most of the people on the receiving end of this "engagement" and "empowerment" will likely resent the condescension and interference from a foreign government in their country's affairs. Even if we assume that the vast majority of people in China might wish for a radically different government, they are liable to reject U.S. meddling in what they naturally consider to be their business. But, of course, Pompeo isn't serious about "empowering" the Chinese people, just as he isn't serious about supporting the people of Iran or Venezuela or any of the other countries on Washington's list of official foes. We can see from the economic wars that the U.S. has waged on Iran and Venezuela that the administration is only too happy to impoverish and strangle the people they claim to help. Hard-liners feign concern for the people that they then set out to harm in order to make their aggressive and destructive policies look better to a Western audience, but they aren't fooling anyone these days.

Pompeo's bombastic, caustic style and his personal lack of credibility make him an unusually poor messenger, and the Trump administration is uniquely ill-suited to rally a group of states in common cause. But the main problem with the policy Pompeo promotes is that an intensifying rivalry with China is not in the American interest. The U.S. has found that it is virtually impossible to change the behavior of adversaries when that behavior concerns what they believe to be their core security interests. ...

Fred Bowman • a day ago • edited

I was reading the words that Nixon wrote about China that Pompeo quoted and it occurred to me that if you took out the word "China" and replaced it with the "United States" then that statement would be completely accurate in describing how America acts in the world. In OTW, it's "the Pot calling the Kettle black".

daveyl123 Fred Bowman • a day ago

I wouldn't enjoin the American people with our out-of-touch, out-of-control and (In the cases of Hillary, Waters, Biden and Pelosi..) out of their minds government.

We're so conditioned to global conflicts now, it's merely a matter of the U.S. population learning how to spell the names of foreign leaders and their capitals marked for "Regime Changes", while crossing our fingers in hopes that our buildings will not again be subjected to airliner collisions and collapses in the wake of this aggression.

It would behoove Americans to start pulling on the reins of our bellicose administrations to confine their authority and actions to benefit our citizens.

KennesawJack • a day ago • edited

Your comment that we have coexisted with China for 70 years is not quite accurate. There was this little dust-up called the Korean Conflict as I recall...

kouroi BobPM • a day ago

The main purpose of TPP was to force the Chinese to privatize the State Owned Enterprises, likely via Wall Street.

L RNY • a day ago

The communist Chinese can control our movie, sports, news and entertainment industries by denying them access to China if they don't show China in a positive light or if they show China in a negative life...

daveyl123 John Achterhof • 2 hours ago

You define with accuracy the core tenets of Socialists. Once a government expands to the proportions needed to implement that form of socioeconomic leadership, the character of those leaders becomes tyrannical, while they target segments of their populations for reeducation or elimination. (Abortions would fit that scenario nicely..) Obama was just such a leader, and had he somehow been able to ignore term limits, his administration would have resembled those of any Socialist State.

rayray L RNY • a day ago

All of the policies you mention above would achieve absolutely nothing while inflaming conflict - thus increasingly the problems you outline. These hawkish responses prove the point...the issue isn't that there are or aren't issues, but that the US has lost the ability to have real discussions of these issues with world players and allies.

Much of that is because Trump patently hasn't the temperament, sophistication, or intelligence for discussion and diplomacy - this was proven again and again in the zero sum ineptitude of his private ventures.

The rot of that malignant ineptitude flows down from the head and into every aspect of government, both domestic and foreign. Thus we see his response to every domestic crisis is to inflame division. And the same in the foreign theater. He cannot be gotten rid of soon enough.

daveyl123 L RNY • a day ago • edited

I don't believe our government is so foolish as to contemplate a shooting war with the Chinese. They have nuclear warheads. Their populations are fanatics when it comes to conflicts against them...

L RNY daveyl123 • 21 hours ago

Men will not fight another war nor will women leave their jobs when the men return from war as they did with WWII. There will be no war in Europe simply because Europe (including Russia) is depopulating at such a rapid rate they cant afford a losing more of their population through conflict. I dont see a shooting war with China either. I think that is the purpose of the tariffs and detachment of economies. US intelligence says that China does not want war with the US either. I don't think there is any country that would jump to a pre-emptive nuclear attack in case of a hot war. They dont have the air force superiority or the Navy or superiority in space yet.

Its not the Chinese way. The Chinese wait until they have superiority then they act otherwise they like to fly below the radar and get away with as much espionage and intimidation as possible. The opium wars came about because of the Chinese culture of trade exporting much but importing little thus creating a trade imbalance and indebting their trading partners.

Chinese culture has many forms of achieving superiority without restoring to conflict. The think tanks and experts are predicting that Xi may be pushed out of power by his competitors in the politburo which could defuse the situation. I don't think it will change detaching the economies. After COVID, countries are shifting focus from lowest cost possible to lowest cost and lowest risk possible.

That's why medical instruments, pharmaceuticals, etc are either moving out of China or moving part of their production to the US or they can win against a declining, an indebted power, an over stretched power, etc. Take a lesson with Russia and the US. Russia did not confront the US directly. It used proxies elsewhere around the world. Russia did not want a war with NATO or with the US. That balance kept the peace. If you want peace with China then there is going to have to be some sort of parity or superiority of China's neighbors via an alliance and/or superiority in trade/technology/economy. If you want war then you pacify and try to avoid war leaving a strategic space where your competitor thinks they can win. To avoid war, you need parity or superiority.

kouroi • a day ago

Pompeo is a disgusting man. The US Oligarchic Regime is projecting a lot. It is this Regime that does not recognize any other order than its own, and always puts a messianic spin on its discourse.

The US itself is not a democracy, but as B. Franklin put it from the beginning, is a Republic, which from the birth was design to promote and preserve the haves, the existing Oligarchy. While they looked for a balance of power in order to prevent the rise of an autocrat (the other bugbear of Oligarchy), the main fear of the framers was democracy and the threat of the mob voting for re-distribution...

The success of the socialist state of China is an indication of what might have happened if the socialist block in ensemble wouldn't have suffered the containment enforced by the US. Given the ability to engage in normal economic intercourse with the world, China developed and lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Vietnam is another example. But look what is happening with Cuba or North Korea or Venezuela. It is not the socialist system per se, but the blockade of those countries and the crushing economic war that ruins them.

Fortunately, Russia has learned from the mistakes of the past.

It is good that the cards are on the table to see that US Oligarchy wants to rule everything, because it is a corrupting way of life and mind. Because of this, the march for more open societies, with more, no less democracy, and people representation and input is halted.

And of course, in this new Cold War, a lot of civil liberties and freedom of speech will be curtailed. In my neck of the woods we have already experienced individuals assaulting people of Chinese ethnicity. Way to go America!

Jeff Dickey kouroi • 2 hours ago

Mike Pompous can be counted upon to do everything possible to torpedo legitimate US interests below the waterline, and then nuke any survivors. He, along with Barr, Graham, and the rest of the Trump circus, are a cautionary tale for what happens to governments that let ideologues deliberately divorced from reality run a country. They've turned what was once the United States from a superpower to a failed state in an absurdly short period of time. History will be far less kind to these political Bernie Madoffs than to the original financial exemplar.

daveyl123 • a day ago

Wars ain't nothing to bandy about among administration subordinates. Pompeo is not supposed to be declaring wars--hot or cold. Wars cost big money, lives and property. Only the most grave threats against our country should prompt our leaders to even consider conflicts, much less initiate them. The American people cannot just sit back and absorb such profound adjustments to our national security posture and defense expenditures being unilaterally decided by Washington. It is also a condition of conflicts that our civil rights will be under increased constraints. I chuckled a little when China was listed as our 'new' foe. We won't fight the Chinese because we'll have another Vietnam War on our hands. Our troops aren't used to our enemies fighting back. They've been deployed into banana wars against poorly trained and ill equipped armies of Middle East camel holes. The U.S. Armed Forces' new culture, consisting of socially-engineered, politically-corrected soldiers-of-tolerance have yet to confront true fanatics. These facts were known waaaaay back during our Korean War Adventure.

I've always said that if the Chinese are good at anything, it's making more Chinese.

Adriana Pena • a day ago

Because we did not have enough problems already.

"Eramos pocos y pario la abuela"

hooly • a day ago

New Cold War? Bring it on. Competition is good. A strong rival is desired. Instead of a struggle over Ideology, this will be a Civilizational struggle, Western Civilization VS Central Civilization, liberal democracy VS Confucian/Legalist authoritarianism, Euro-America VS the Han Chinese. But this time, is America up to the tast?

During the Cold War we were led by 'Greatest Generation' who lived through the Great Depression and fought in World War II, is today's America of Facebook, Twitter, conspiracy theories, selfies, BLM, safe spaces, Diversity, mass immigration and Woke political correctness run amok up to the task?

While China is a predator, homogeneous, nationalist, revanchist and bent on returning to the glory it thinks it deserves. All I can say is, thank god for nuclear weapons and the Chinese Communist Party for keeping a short leash on the patriotic passions of the Han Chinese.

Myron Hudson • a day ago

We had "an alliance of democracies" in the TPP which was developed to counter China. Of course, it handed much of our domestic sovereignty over to multinational corporations, but that's what you can expect from a corporatist like Obama. Still, might have been better than this.

Anton • 20 hours ago

On point analysis.

Ho Hum • 14 hours ago

I wonder if the Nixon family knew in advance that Pompeo was going to trash Richard Nixon's greatest legacy?

A war between China and the U.S. would not simply be costly for the US - it could end in the destruction of the world as we know it if it turns nuclear. Trump and Pompeo are sociopathic madman. I would not put it past Trump to use Nukes against China. He is just that stupid and evil.

peter mcloughlin • an hour ago

President Nixon's détente with China had an important geopolitical consideration, leverage on Russia. "We're using the China thaw to get the Russians shook", he is quoted to have said. There is much talk among hawks these days of a "new Cold War", with that the confidence it will end like the first one: victory for the west and no nuclear annihilation. But this is a danger illusion: today America is in a hegemonic struggle with China for global dominance. It seems neither side can back down. The present crisis is like the Cold War in one crucial sense – world war must be avoided at all costs. The powers are not heeding the warning of history.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...

[Jul 26, 2020] China reaction to Mike Pompeo's 'new Iron Curtain speech'

Notable quotes:
"... Attempting to neutralise a global competitor is the main goal of Americans. Neutralising China's rapid, dynamic development is the essence of the American strategy ..."
Jul 26, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Jul 26 2020 17:41 utc | 17

Recap from today's Global Times where the argument is to continue to stay the course and counterpunch in the typical martial arts fashion, as this op/ed from today's Global Times says :

"Chinese analysts said Sunday the key for China to handle the US offensive is to focus on its own development and insist on continued reform and opening-up to meet the increasing needs of Chinese people for better lives. In the upcoming three months, before the November US presidential election, the China-US relationship is in extreme danger as the Trump administration is likely to launch more aggressions to force China to retaliate, they said."

Stay the course; Trump's shit is just an election ploy. However,

"The US' posturing is serving to distract from domestic pressure over President Trump's failure in handling the pandemic when Trump is seeking reelection this year, Chinese observers said. However, the Trump administration's China stance still reflects bipartisan consensus among US elites, so China should not expect significant change in US policy toward China even if there is a power transition in November, which means China should prepare itself for a long fight."

Don't stray from the Long Game. An international conference was held that I'll try to get a link for. Here's GT's summation:

"According to the Xinhua News Agency on Saturday, international scholars said at a virtual meeting on the international campaign against a new cold war on China on Saturday that 'aggressive statements and actions by the US government toward China poses a threat to world peace and a potential new cold war on China goes against the interests of humanity.'

"The meeting gathered experts from a number of countries including the US, China, Britain, India, Russia and Canada.

"Experts attending the meeting issued a statement calling upon the US to step back from this threat of a cold war and also from other dangerous threats to world peace it is engaged in.

"The reason why international scholars are criticizing the US rather than China is that they can see how restrained China remains and the sincerity of China to settle the tension by dialogue, even though the US is getting unreasonably aggressive, said Chinese experts.

"Washington has made a huge mistake as it has chosen the wrong target - China - to be 'the common enemy or common fear' to reshape its declining leadership among the West. Right now, the common enemy of humanity is COVID-19, and this is why its new cold war declaration received almost no positive responses from other major powers and even raised concern, said Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, on Sunday."

Today's Global Times lead editorial asked most of the questions everyone else's asking:

"People are asking: How far will the current China-US confrontation keep going? Will a new cold war take shape? Will there be military conflicts and will the possible clashes evolve into large-scale military confrontation between the two?

"Perhaps everyone believes that China does not want a new cold war, let alone a hot war. But the above-mentioned questions have become disturbing suspense because no one knows how wild the ambitions the US ruling team has now, and whether American and international societies are capable of restraining their ambitions."

IMO, the editor's conclusions are quite correct:

"The world must start to act and do whatever it can to stop Washington's hysteria in its relations with China.

"Right now, it is no longer a matter of whether China-US ties are in freefall, but whether the line of defense on world peace is being broken through by Washington. The world must not be hijacked by a group of political madmen. The tragedies in 1910s and 1930s must not be repeated again ."

Trump is elevated to the same plane as Hitler and Mussolini, and the Outlaw US Empire is now the equivalent of Nazi Germany and the Fascist drive to rule the world--a well illustrated trend that's been ongoing since 1991 that only those blinded by propaganda aren't capable of seeing. I think it absolutely correct for China to focus its rhetoric on the Outlaw US Empire's utter failure to control COVID, which prompts some probing questions made from the first article:

"Shen Yi, a professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Fudan University, told the Global Times on Sunday that there is wide consensus among the international community that the COVID-19 pandemic is the most urgent challenge that the world should deal with. Whether on domestic epidemic control or international cooperation, the US has done almost nothing right compared to China's efforts to assist others and its successful control measures for domestic outbreaks .

"In response to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's 'new Iron Curtain speech' at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library on Thursday declaring a new cold war against China, Shen said, ' We can also ask 'is Pompeo an ally of coronavirus?' Because he wants to confuse the world to target the wrong enemy amid the tough fight against the pandemic, so that the virus can kill more people, especially US people, since his country is in the worst situation .'

Shen said, 'In 2018, US Vice President Mike Pence already made a speech which the media saw as a new 'Iron Curtain speech,' and in 2020, Pompeo made a similar speech again, which means their cold war idea is not popular and brings no positive responses from its allies, so they need to try time and again. Of course, they will fail again.'" [My Emphasis]

Wow! The suggestion that Trump, Pompeo, Pence, and company want to "kill more people, especially US people" seems to be proven via their behavior which some of us barflies recognize and have discussed. Now that notion is out in the public, internationally. You don't need Concentration Camps and ovens when the work can be done via the dysfunctional structure of your economy and doing nothing about the situation.

Shen provides the clincher, what Gruff, myself, and others have said here:

"'So if we want to win this competition that was forced by the US, we must focus on our own development and not get distracted. The US is not afraid of a cold war with us, it is afraid of our development .'" [My Emphasis]

My synopsis of both articles omitted some additional info, so do please click the links to read them fully.

karlof1 , Jul 26 2020 18:02 utc | 19

Sputnik offers this analysis of the China/Outlaw US Empire issue , where I found this bit quite apt from "Alexey Biryukov, senior adviser at the Centre for International Information Security, Science and Technology Policy (CIIS) MGIMO-University":

"'The US is fighting with a country that is developing very rapidly, gaining power, increasing its competitiveness in areas where previously there was undeniably US leadership. Attempting to neutralise a global competitor is the main goal of Americans. Neutralising China's rapid, dynamic development is the essence of the American strategy . Meanwhile, China is interested in developing friendly relations with all countries. Recently, it presented the idea of building a community of common destiny for humanity. That's what Sino-American relations should be built around . It would seem that the pandemic should have brought people together around the idea of building a prosperous world for all, not just someone. But the Americans didn't understand that: they started looking for the guilty ones. This is the favourite strategy of Anglo-Saxons, Americans including, to look for the guilty . As a result, they found their main competitor – China'". [My Emphasis]

That is the "guilty ones" that aren't within the Outlaw US Empire. Many more opinions are provided in the article, but they all revolve around the one theme of Trump's actions being motivated by the election and his morbidly poor attempts to corral COVID.

[Jul 26, 2020] Watch- China Answers Houston Closure With Raid On US Consulate In Chengdu

Closing consulates is far from the best foreign policy and fat Pompeo known it. It just starts the unnecessary and counter productive spiral of retaliation and Chinese have more leverage over the USA as more the USA diplomatic personnel woks in China than the china diplomatic personnel in the USA. They were always burned in Russia and now they stepped on the same rake again.
Jul 26, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Musum , 8 hours ago

One good turn deserves another.

Maybe fat Pompeo knows he's on his way out and desperate to make a lasting mark on the geopolitical stage on behalf of the West Point mafia and his brothers-in-arm at the Jweish mafia.

QABubba , 8 hours ago

Quit stealing Russian consulates, Chinese consulates, etc.

It serves no purpose.

Haboob , 7 hours ago

Closing diplomacy with nations as USA shrinks on the world stage shows America's juvenile behavior.

Salisarsims , 7 hours ago

We are a young twenty something nation what do you expect but drama.

Haboob , 7 hours ago

It is funny how the young and arrogant always think they are right and have manifest destiny over the old and wise. The young never listen to the old and as the story goes they are defeated everytime. China is older than America, older than the west, they understand this world we are living in far more than we do.

me or you , 9 hours ago

He is right!

The world has witnessed the US is not more than a banana Republic with a banana healthcare system

To Hell In A Handbasket , 9 hours ago

I love seeing how gullible the USSA dunces are susceptible to hating an imaginary enemy. Go on dunces wave the star spangled banner, and place the hand over the heart, you non-critical thinking imbeciles. I told you fools years ago we are going to invoke the Yellow Peril 2.0, and now we are living it. China bad, is just as stupid as Russia bad, while the state stenographers at the MSM netowrks do all in their power to hide our rotten behaviour.

Who falls for this ****? The poorly educated, and the inherently stupid.

To Hell In A Handbasket , 8 hours ago

No, it's called nationalism or self preservation.

What are the citizens of the US suppose to do,

You are wrong on so many levels, but ultimately the Chinese have beaten us at our own rigged game. When I was riling against unfettered free-markets, and the movement of capital, that allowed the west for centuries to move into undeveloped foreign markets and gain a stranglehold, I was called a communist, and a protectionist.

While the USSA money printing b@stards was roaming around the planet like imperialists, and their companies was not only raping the planet, but gouging foreign markets, the average USSA dunce was brainwashed into believing USSA companies were the best.

Now these same market and economic rules we the west have set for the last several hundred years no longer work for us, we want to change the rules. Again, my point is "where was you on this position 5-10-20-30 years ago?" I've always seen this outcome, because logic said so. To reject our own status quo, and return to mercantilism, makes us look like the biggest hypocrites ever.

[Jul 23, 2020] Iran's top security official: Harsher revenge awaits perpetrators of Gen. Soleimani's assassination

Jul 23, 2020 | www.presstv.com

News / Politics Iran's top security official: Harsher revenge awaits perpetrators of Gen. Soleimani's assassination Wednesday, 22 July 2020 4:29 PM [ Last Update: Wednesday, 22 July 2020 4:29 PM ]

Members of the Iraqi honor guard walk past a huge portrait of Iran's late top general Qassem Soleimani (L) and Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, both killed in a US drone strike near Baghdad airport last month, during a memorial service held in Baghdad's high-security Green Zone on February 11, 2020. (Photo by AFP)

Iran's top security official says harsher revenge awaits the perpetrators of the attack that killed senior Iranian anti-terrorism commander Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani and his companions.

In a post on his Twitter page on Wednesday, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani said that US President Donald Trump had admitted that the American, upon his direct order, committed the crime of assassinating General Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the second-in-command of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) counter-terrorism force, who were two prominent figures of the anti-terrorism campaign.

"The two Iranian and Iraqi nations are avengers of blood of these martyrs and will not rest until they punish the perpetrators," read part of the tweet.

"Harsher revenge is one the way," it concluded.

The two commanders and a number of their companions were assassinated in a US airstrike near Baghdad airport on January 3, as General Soleimani was on an official visit to the Iraqi capital.

Both commanders were extremely popular because of the key role they played in eliminating the US-sponsored Daesh terrorist group in the region, particularly in Iraq and Syria.

UN experts calls US drone attack on Gen. Soleimani 'unlawful' killing A senior UN human rights investigator says the United States' assassination of top Iranian commander Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad was an "unlawful" killing in violation of the international law.

In retaliation for the attack, the IRGC fired volleys of ballistic missiles a US base in Iraq on January 8. According to the US Defense Department, more than 100 American forces suffered "traumatic brain injuries" during the counterstrike. The IRGC, however, says Washington uses the term to mask the number of the Americans, who perished during the retaliation.

Iran has also issued an arrest warrant and asked Interpol for help in detaining Trump, who ordered the assassination, and several other US military and political leaders behind the strike.

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said on Tuesday Iran will never forget Washington's assassination of General Soleimani and will definitely deliver a "counterblow" to the United States.

Leader: Iran to deal US 'counterblow' for Gen. Soleimani's assassination Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei meets with visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi in Tehran.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran will never forget this issue and will definitely deal the counterblow to the Americans," Ayatollah Khamenei said in a meeting with visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi in Tehran.

"They killed your guest at your own home and unequivocally admitted the atrocity. This is no small matter," Ayatollah Khamenei told the Iraqi premier.

A UN special rapporteur says has condemned the US assassination and said Washington has put the world at unprecedented peril with its murder of Iran's top anti-terror commander.

UN expert raps US for arbitrary drone attack that killed Gen. Soleimani A UN special rapporteur slams the US for refusing to take responsibility for the assassination of General Soleimani in violation of international law.

Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, has also warned that it is high time the international community broke its silence on Washington's drone-powered unlawful killings.

Press TV's website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

[Jul 19, 2020] The Chinese and Russian Foreign Ministers just jointly agreed in a rare published account of their phone conversation that the Outlaw US Empire " has lost its sense of reason, morality and credibility .

Jul 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Jul 18 2020 22:54 utc | 6 4

Does Cancel Culture intersect with Woke? The former's not mentioned in this fascinating essay , but the latter is and appears to deserve some unpacking beyond what Crooke provides.

As for the letter, it's way overdue by 40+ years. I recall reading Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind and Christopher Lasch's Culture of Narcissism where they say much the same.

What's most irksome are the lies that now substitute for discourse--Trump or someone from his admin lies, then the WaPost, NY Times, MSNBC, Fox, and others fire back with their lies. And to top everything off--There's ZERO accountability: people who merit "canceling" continue to lie and commit massive fraud.

The Chinese and Russian Foreign Ministers just jointly agreed in a rare published account of their phone conversation that the Outlaw US Empire " has lost its sense of reason, morality and credibility .

Yes, they were specifically referring to the government, but I'd include the Empire's institutions as well. In the face of that reality, the letter is worse than a joke.

[Jul 16, 2020] The spate of gas explosions are unlikely to be accidents

Jul 16, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU1 , Jul 15 2020 20:41 utc | 30

The spate of gas explosions are unlikely to be accidents. One maybe but not a spate of them. Unlikely to be cyber as both a physical leak and ignition source are required.

Sat image of the site of the first explosion and grass fire https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2020/06/AP20179369014525-1024x640.jpg

The gas tank can be seen on google https://www.google.com.au/maps/@35.688164,51.6513532,92m/data=!3m1!1e3
Out away from buildings and easy to access. Something to create a leak and a delayed ignition source is all that's required.

Richard Steven Hack , Jul 16 2020 1:05 utc | 50

@Peter AU1 | Jul 15 2020 20:41 utc | 30

I agree that most of these explosions are probably not "cyberattacks". Despite all the scare stories about hacking destroying infrastructure, it's not that easy, especially in the US where every industry and every company within that industry has their own "standards", which means there are no real standards a hacker can rely on. It's much easier to steal data than it is to influence hardware, although that certainly can be done in many cases.

On the other hand, there are plenty of internal Iranian dissidents and foreign visitors who can be employed by both the CIA and Israel to further a spate of physical attacks.

Obviously these sorts of attacks are going to do next to nothing to actually damage Iranian infrastructure, as Iran is a big country. These sorts of sabotage are merely a psychological warfare ploy. This is amplified by Western media coverage of the incidents which is intended to portray Iran as weak and unable to defend itself.

I've often speculated about what a few hundred saboteurs could do if inserted into the US, armed with nothing but small arms and a decent amount of explosives. Depending on how well they are kept covert and how smart they are in choosing targets, you could bring the US to its knees in perhaps six months of operations. Car bombs, for instance - the US is *made* for car bombs, given our reliance on vehicles and the congestion in the inner cities. Detonate a car bomb in each of the 50 Major Metropolitan Areas simultaneously and do so consistently every week for a month and most of the inner cities would be shut down and under martial law.

That's the kind of actual physical campaign that could produce significant results in a country. These pin-prick attacks in Iran are just a combination of psychological warfare plus perhaps some effects as causing their protective services to be overstretched somewhat.

Mostly what they are is an attempt to provoke Iran into doing something *overtly* against Israel or the US. The neocons want Iran to be the instigator of the war, not the US or Israel. They want Iran to provide a casus belli for the war, so that Trump and Netanyahu can present themselves as blameless for the resulting disaster, much like Bush presented Iraq as responsible for 9/11.

In essence, the US and Israel are acting as Internet trolls, pin-pricking Iran in an attempt to get Iran to engage and thus manipulate Iran for their own purposes.

Hopefully Iran will not take the bait, or if it does so, that it makes sure its retaliations are as covert and deniable as the CIA's while being at least equally as damaging or more so. If I were Iran, I would specifically target the CIA and its assets in the region. It would not be hard to identify the CIA officers stationed in most countries and conduct harassment operations against them, even perhaps engineering "accidental deaths". It would be an analog of the US-Russian Cold War days. Competent spies aren't that plentiful and killing them off tends to put a real crimp in operations while mostly being deniable since all such events would be "classified".

[Jul 16, 2020] If Pompeo has a functioning brain, he should realize that all these blatant efforts to reserve markets for America by sanctioning all its competitors out of the picture is having the opposite effect, and frightening customers away from becoming dependent on American products

Jul 16, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MOSCOWEXILE July 15, 2020 at 7:58 am

Fat bully boy speaks for Bully Boy state:

"Today the Department of State is updating the public guidance for CAATSA authorities to include Nord Stream 2 and the second line of TurkStream 2. This action puts investments or other activities that are related to these Russian energy export pipelines at risk of US sanctions. It's a clear warning to companies aiding and abetting Russia's malign influence projects and will not be tolerated. Get out now or risk the consequences".

Pompeo speaking at a press conference today.

CAATSA -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act

So Russia and Turkey are "adversaries" of the USA?

In what way?

Do these states wish to wage war against the USA?

Is it adversarial to United States interest to compete economically with the hegemon?

MOSCOWEXILE July 15, 2020 at 7:59 am

Link to above:

https://sputniknews.com/world/202007151079893067-us-plans-to-add-nord-stream-2-turkstream-to-list-of-projects-to-be-sanctioned/

MARK CHAPMAN July 15, 2020 at 3:51 pm

Who cares? Really, is Pompeo still scary? If he has a functioning brain, he should realize that all these blatant efforts to reserve markets for America by sanctioning all its competitors out of the picture is having the opposite effect, and frightening customers away from becoming dependent on American products which might be withheld on a whim when America wants political concessions. 'Will not be tolerated' – what a pompous ass. Sanction away. The consequence is well-known to be seizure of assets held in the United States or an inability to do business in the United States. That will frighten some into submission – like the UK, which was threatened with the cessation of intelligence-sharing with the USA (sure you can spare it?) if it did not drop Huawei from its 5G networks. But others will take prudent steps to limit their exposure to such threats, in the certain knowledge that if they work, they will encourage the USA to use the technique again.

[Jul 11, 2020] Pounding to nothing - Patrick Porter - The Critic Magazine

Jul 11, 2020 | thecritic.co.uk

Pounding to nothing

Patrick Porter reviews The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, by John Bolton ARTILLERY ROW BOOKS 4 July, 2020

By

Share

P resident Donald Trump's third National Security Advisor opens his memoir with this quote from the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo: 'Hard Pounding, this, gentlemen. Let's see who will pound the longest.' And pound for pound, that's the (nearly) 500 page memoir in a nutshell. Unremitting pounding is both the theme and the style. As John Bolton urged the White House to take a 'harder line" on Iran and North Korea, Trump's chief of staff "urged me to keep pounding away in public, which I assured him I would.' China 'pounded away during my tenure, sensing weakness at the top.' As with Bolton's mission, so too with America's statecraft, that must 'keep moving and keep firing, like a big grey battleship.'

From his infamous unsubtle moustache to his bellicosity, Bolton traffics on a self-image of straight shooter who sprints towards gunfire. He does not set out to offer a meditation on a complex inner life. This image is also slightly misleading. For all the barrage, Bolton turns out to be a more conflicted figure, especially when his supporting fire is most called upon.

The Room Where it Happened is Bolton's account of his part in the power struggles within Trump's almost medieval court, his attempt to steer the executive branch towards the right course, unmasked supremacy everywhere, and his failure and disillusion with Trump's chaotic, self-serving and showbiz-driven presidency.

The room where it happened: A White House memoir, by John Bolton

The memoir itself is a non-trivial political event. Other reviewers have assailed it for being turgid. Bolton, though, has at least done the state some service by habitually recording and recounting every meeting. This is an important record of an important eighteen months packed with the escalating brinksmanship with Iran, an impeachment inquest, the return of great power competition and a fierce struggle to control the policy levers in Washington itself. For that detail, especially when contrasted with the exhausting melodrama of the era, Bolton deserves a little credit. The Trump administration's determined effort to suppress it on the grounds of classified information suggests there is substance to Bolton's allegations of corruption and turmoil at the heart of government.

It is also, though, a work of self-vindication. Bolton's life is an adversarial one. A former attorney, he became a policy advocate and a Republican Party institution, consistently taking the hardest of lines. He was ever drawn to aggressive combatants – like Hillary Clinton, in his formative years he supported Barry Goldwater. He interned for Vice-President Spiro Agnew, the "number one hawk." As a measure of Bolton's faith that war works and that co-existence with "rogue states" is impossible, he advocated attacking a heavily (and nuclear)-armed North Korea in 2018, an adversary that lies in artillery range of Seoul and thousands of Americans as effective hostages, and offered up a best-case scenario in doing so.

Bolton brought to government a world view that was dug-in and entrenched. For Bolton, the world is hostile, and to survive America must be strong (wielding and brandishing overwhelming force) at all times. Enemy regimes cannot be bargained with or even co-existed with on anything less than maximalist terms dictated by Washington. The US never gives an inch, and must demand everything. And if those regimes do not capitulate, America must topple or destroy them: Iran, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba, Yemen and North Korea, and must combat them on multiple fronts at once. In doing so, America itself must remain unfettered with an absolutely free hand, not nodding even hypocritically to law or custom or bargaining.

If Bolton's thoughts add up to anything, it is a general hostility, if not to talking, certainly to diplomacy – the art of giving coherence and shape to different instruments and activities, above all through compromise and a recognition of limits. The final straw for Bolton was Trump's cancelling an airstrike on Iran after it shot down a drone. An odd hill to die on, given the graver acts of corruption he as witness alleges, but fitting that the failure to pull the trigger for him was Trump's most shocking misdemeanour.

What is intended to be personal strength and clarity comes over as unreflective bluster

This worldview is as personal as it is geopolitical. Importantly for Bolton, in the end he fights alone, bravely against the herd. He fights against other courtiers, even fellow hawks, who Bolton treats with dismissive contempt – Nikki Haley, Steve Mnuchin, Mike Pompeo, or James Mattis who like Bolton, champions strategic commitments and views Iran as a dangerous enemy, but is more selective about when to reach for the gun. The press is little more than an "hysterical" crowd. Allies like South Korea, who must live as neighbours with one of the regimes Bolton earmarks for execution, and who try conciliatory diplomacy occasionally, earn slight regard. Critics, opponents or those who disagree are 'lazy,' 'howling' or 'feckless.'

For a lengthy work that distils a lifetime's experience, it is remarkably thin regarding the big questions of security, power and order. The hostile world for him contains few real limits other than failures of will. He embraces every rivalry and every commitment, but explanations are few and banal. 'While foreign policy labels are unhelpful except to the intellectually lazy,' he says, 'if pressed, I like to say my policy was "pro-American".' Who is lazy, here?

The purpose of foreign policy, too, is largely absent. Armed supremacy abroad, and power-maximisation, seems to be the end in itself, regardless of what is has wrought at home. This makes his disdain for Trump's authoritarian ways especially obtuse: what does he think made possible an imperial presidency in the first place?

There's little room for principled or reasonable disagreement. What is intended to be personal strength and clarity comes over as unreflective bluster, in a town where horse-trading and agility matter. Unintentionally, it is a warning to anyone who seeks to be effective as well as right, and to those of us who debate these questions.

The most provocative part of the book comes at the end, and points to a man more conflicted than his self-image of the straight shooter. Bolton issues an extended, uneasy defence of his decision not to appear as a witness before the House impeachment inquiry against a president he believed to be corrupt. Having celebrated the need to "pound away" with inexhaustible energy, it turned out his ammunition was low. 'I was content to bide my time. I believed throughout, as the line in Hamilton goes, that "I am not throwing away my shot".' Drawing on a characteristic claim to certainty, 'it would have made no significant difference in the Senate outcome.' How can he know this? And even if the odds were long, was there not – for once – a compelling basis in civic virtue to be that relentless grey battleship, pounding away? He now hopes "history" will remember Trump as a one-term president. History needs willing agents.

Other reviews have honed in on Bolton's decision to delay his revelations for a book pay-day. But consider another theme – the war-hawk who is in fact torn and agonised around combat when it comes to himself. It echoes his retrospective rationale for not fighting in Vietnam, a war he supported, and (as he has recorded) the detailed efforts he made to avoid service in that tragic theatre after being drafted. It was, he decided, bound to fail given that the anti-war Democrats would undermine the cause, a justification he later sheepishly regretted.

So twice the advocate of forceful confrontation refused the call to show up, generously awarding to himself a rationale for non-intervention that relieves him of commitment. He refuses to extend that same exonerating, prudential logic to his country, when it debates whether to wade in to conflict abroad. Neither does he extend it to other Americans who think the nation, like Bolton, might be better off sometimes holding its fire, biding its time, dividing its enemies, and keeping its powder dry.

Given that Bolton failed in the end to attend the "room where it happened", his title is unwittingly ironic. In his favour, Bolton's testy defence of his absence at least suggests something. In contrast with the front cover of another forthcoming, Trump-era memoir , he retains a modest capacity for embarrassment.

[Jul 07, 2020] As for the timing of the likely pending Iran war,another consideration is the impact on financial markets.

Jul 07, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Schmoe , Jul 6 2020 3:27 utc | 85

As for the timing of the likely pending Iran war,another consideration is the impact on financial markets.

The market went into a mini panic last September when the Yemeni missiles hit the Saudi refineries because the Saudis withdrew ~$60n - $80b from repo markets. Some blame JP Morgan for that, but someone I know who works at the repo trading desk of the US branch of a large foreign bank was adamant it was the Saudi pullback and JP Morgan had nothing to do with it. I thought that the US withdrew Patriot batteries from the Gulf infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, that is an odd move given Iran could destroy those facilities.

[Jul 06, 2020] Bolton Changes Tune- Now Refuses To Answer 'Russian Bounties' Questions After Stoking The 'Scandal' -

Jul 06, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

By middle of last week we observed of the Russian bounties to kill American troops in Afghanistan story that "at this point this non-story looks to be dead by the weekend as it's already unraveled."

Indeed by Thursday and Friday, as more Congressional leaders received closed door intelligence briefings on the allegations which originated with an anonymously sourced NY Times report claiming Trump supposedly ignored the Russian op to target Americans, the very Democrat and Republican lawmakers previously hyping it as a 'major scandal' went conspicuously silent .

Recall too that John Bolton, busy with a media blitz promoting his book, emerged to strongly suggest he had personal knowledge that Trump was briefed on the matter . The former national security adviser called the Trump denial of being briefed "remarkable". Well, look who is now appearing to sing a different tune. A week ago Bolton was all too wiling to voluntarily say Trump had "likely" been briefed and that was a big scandal. The whole story was indeed dead by the weekend:

NOW PLAYING

  • Bolton: 'Fickle' Trump would sell out Israel for photo op with Iran's leaders
  • U.S. should consider sanctions if bounty reports true: Bolton
  • Bolton book hits shelves, bruises Trump's ego
  • Viral Finland PM quote about US being under Russian control 'not true' | #TheCube
  • Bolton's New Claims
  • Bolton Claims Trump Asked China's XI to Help Win Re-Election
  • Bolton book creates shockwaves
  • Senator Who Voted Against Bolton Testifying Is Now Angry Bolton Didn't Testify

Other reports said Bolton has been telling people he had personally briefed the president :

Former national security adviser John Bolton told colleagues that he personally briefed President Donald Trump about intelligence that Russia offered Afghan militants bounties to kill American troops , U.S. officials told the Associated Press .

Bolton briefed Trump on the matter in March of 2019, according to the report, a year earlier than previously reported by The New York Times . The information was also included in at least one presidential Daily Brief, according to the AP, CNN and The Times . The AP earlier reported that it was also included in a second presidential Daily Brief earlier this year and that current national security adviser Robert O'Brien discussed the matter with Trump.

His Sunday refusal to even address the question - again after he was all too willing to speak to the issue a week ago when it was driving headlines - speaks volumes.

Via The Daily Mail

Now that even The Washington Post awkwardly walked back the substance of much of its reporting on the 'Russian bounties' story, Bolton has conveniently gone silent .


[Jul 06, 2020] US claim of 'Russian Bounty' plot in Afghanistan is dubious and dangerous - The Grayzone

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... the essential backdrop for the timing of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an institution, that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any independent investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for nothing in the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this gets into the domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted by former or current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it punditocracy, MSNBC and mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer. ..."
"... That took place in this case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed on Putin paying bounties to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump denies, but that counts for nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent confirmation of any of this. And now we get into the domestic part, which is that this new Republican anti-Trump operation, The Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost minutes after the story dropped. ..."
"... They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this story was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable. ..."
"... And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic consultant, has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect Joe Biden. ..."
"... the Carter Administration, at the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield. And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do. ..."
"... What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia. So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see someone like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I mean, it's such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real. ..."
"... just kind of neocon resistance mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump. ..."
"... And then you have this and it, you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet the Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate. ..."
"... This is what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian, psychotic, dangerous, bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned him into a sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller. ..."
Jul 06, 2020 | thegrayzone.com

US claim of 'Russian Bounty' plot in Afghanistan is dubious and dangerous

Max Blumenthal breaks down the "Russian bounty" story's flaws and how it aims to prolong the war in Afghanistan -- and uses Russiagate tactics to continue pushing the Democratic Party to the right

Multiple US media outlets, citing anonymous intelligence officials, are claiming that Russia offered bounties to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan, and that President Trump has taken no action.

Others are contesting that claim. "Officials said there was disagreement among intelligence officials about the strength of the evidence about the suspected Russian plot," the New York Times reports. "Notably, the National Security Agency, which specializes in hacking and electronic surveillance, has been more skeptical."

"The constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party and its base is moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into this Cold War," Blumenthal says.

Guest: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone and author of several books, including his latest "The Management of Savagery."

TRANSCRIPT

AARON MATÉ: Welcome to Pushback, I'm Aaron Maté. There is a new supposed Trump-Russia bombshell. The New York Times and other outlets reporting that Russia has been paying bounties to Afghan militants to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump and the White House were allegedly briefed on this information but have taken no action.

Now, the story has obvious holes, like many other Russiagate bombshells. It is sourced to anonymous intelligence officials. The New York Times says that the claim comes from Afghan detainees. And it also has some logical holes. The Taliban have been fighting the US and Afghanistan for nearly two decades and never needed Russian payments before to kill the Americans that they were fighting; [this] amongst other questions are raised about this story. But that has not stopped the usual chorus from whipping up a frenzy.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Vladimir Putin is offering bounties for the scalps of American soldiers in Afghanistan. Not only offering, offering money [to] the people who kill Americans, but some of the bounties that Putin has offered have been collected, meaning the Russians at least believe that their offering cash to kill Americans has actually worked to get some Americans killed.

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing campaign of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin. He had has [sic] this information according to The Times, and yet he offered to host Putin in the United States and sought to invite Russia to rejoin the G7. He's in his entire presidency has been a gift to Putin, but this is beyond the pale.

CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and he doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?

SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER: I was not briefed on the Russian military intelligence, but it shows that we need in this coming defense bill, which we're debating this week, tough sanctions against Russia, which thus far Mitch McConnell has resisted.

Joining me now is Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management of Savagery . Max, welcome to Pushback. What is your reaction to this story?

MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, it just feels like so many other episodes that we've witnessed over the past three or four years, where American intelligence officials basically plant a story in one outlet, The New York Times , which functions as the media wing of the Central Intelligence Agency. Then no reporting takes place whatsoever, but six reporters, or three to six reporters are assigned to the piece to make it look like it was some last-minute scramble to confirm this bombshell story. And then the story is confirmed again by The Washington Post because their reporters, their three to six reporters in, you know, capitals around the world with different beats spoke to the same intelligence officials, or they were furnished different officials who fed them the same story. And, of course, the story advances a narrative that the United States is under siege by Russia and that we have to escalate against Russia just ahead of another peace summit or some kind of international dialogue.

This has sort of been the general framework for these Russiagate bombshells, and of course they can there's always an anti-Trump angle. And because, you know, liberal pundits and the, you know, Democratic Party operatives see this as a means to undermine Trump as the election heats up. They don't care if it's true or not. They don't care what the consequences are. They're just gonna completely roll with it. And it's really changed, I think, not just US foreign policy, but it's changed the Democratic Party in an almost irreversible way, to have these constant "quote-unquote" bombshells that are really generated by the Central Intelligence Agency and by other US intelligence operations in order to turn up the heat to crank up the Cold War, to use these different media organs which no longer believe in reporting, which see Operation Mockingbird as a kind of blueprint for how to do journalism, to turn them into keys on the CIA's Mighty Wurlitzer. That's what happened here.

AARON MATÉ: What do you make of the logic of this story? This idea that the Taliban would need Russian money to kill Americans when the Taliban's been fighting the US for nearly two decades now. And the sourcing for the story, the same old playbook: anonymous intelligence officials who are citing vague claims about apparently what was said by Afghan detainees.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: This story has, as I said, it relies on zero reporting. The only source is anonymous American intelligence officials. And I tweeted out a clip of a former CIA operations officer who managed the CIA's operation in Angola, when the US was actually fighting on the side of apartheid South Africa against a Marxist government that was backed up by Cuban troops. His name was John Stockwell. And Stockwell talked about how one-third of his covert operations staff were propagandists, and that they would feed imaginary stories about Cuban barbarism that were completely false to reporters who were either CIA assets directly or who were just unwitting dupes who would hang on a line waiting for American intelligence officials to feed them stories. And one out of every five stories was completely false, as Stockwell said. We could play some of that clip now; it's pretty remarkable to watch it in light of this latest fake bombshell.

JOHN STOCKWELL: Another thing is to disseminate propaganda to influence people's minds, and this is a major function of the CIA. And unfortunately, of course, it overlaps into the gathering of information. You, you have contact with a journalist, you will give him true stories, you'll get information from him, you'll also give him false stories.

OFF-CAMERA REPORTER: Can you do this with responsible reporters?

JOHN STOCKWELL: Yes, the Church Committee brought it out in 1975. And then Woodward and Bernstein put an article in Rolling Stone a couple of years later. Four hundred journalists cooperating with the CIA, including some of the biggest names in the business.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: So, basically, I mean, you get the flavor of what someone who was in the CIA at the height of the Cold War I mean, he did the same thing in Vietnam. And the playbook is absolutely the same today. These this story was dumped on Friday in The New York Times by "quote-unquote" American intelligence officials, as a breakthrough had been made in Afghan peace talks and a conference was finally set for Doha, Qatar, that would involve the Taliban, which had been seizing massive amounts of territory.

Now, it's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Taliban had been fighting one of the most epic examples of an occupying army in modern history, just absolutely chewing away at one of the most powerful militaries in human history in their country for the last 19 years, without bounties from Vladimir Putin or private-hotdog-salesman-and-Saint-Petersburg-troll-farm-owner Yevgeny Prigozhin , who always comes up in these stories. It's always the hotdog guy who's doing everything bad from, like, you know, fake Facebook ads to poisoning Sergei Skripal or whatever.

But I just don't see where the Taliban needs encouragement from Putin to do that. It's their country. They want the US out and they have succeeded in seizing large amounts of territory. Donald Trump has come into office with a pledge to remove US troops from Afghanistan and ink this deal. And along comes this story as the peace process begins to advance.

And what is the end-result? We haven't gotten into the domestic politics yet, but the end-result is you have supposedly progressive senators like Chris Murphy of Connecticut attacking Trump for not fighting Russia in Afghanistan. I mean, they want a straight-up proxy war for not escalating. You have Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, someone who's aligned with the Democratic Party, who supported the war in Iraq and, you know, supports just endless war, demanding that the US turn up the heat not just in Afghanistan but in Syria. So, you know, the escalatory rhetoric is at a fever pitch right now, and it's obviously going to impact that peace conference.

Let's remember that three days before Trump's summit with Putin was when Mueller chose to release the indictment of the GRU agents for supposedly hacking the DNC servers. Let's remember that a day before the UN the United Nations Geneva peace talks opened on Syria in 2014 was when US intelligence chose to feed these shady Caesar photos, supposedly showing industrial slaughter of Syrian prisoners, to The New York Times in an investigation that had been funded by Qatar. Like, so many shady intelligence dumps have taken place ahead of peace summits to disrupt them, because the US doesn't feel like it has enough skin in the game or it just simply doesn't want peace in these areas.

So, that's what happened here. That's really, I think, the essential backdrop for the timing of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an institution, that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any independent investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for nothing in the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this gets into the domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted by former or current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it punditocracy, MSNBC and mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer.

That took place in this case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed on Putin paying bounties to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump denies, but that counts for nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent confirmation of any of this. And now we get into the domestic part, which is that this new Republican anti-Trump operation, The Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost minutes after the story dropped.

THE LINCOLN PROJECT AD: Now we know Vladimir Putin pays a bounty for the murder of American soldiers. Donald Trump knows, too, and does nothing. Putin pays the Taliban cash to slaughter our men and women in uniform and Trump is silent, weak, controlled. Instead of condemnation he insists Russia be treated as our equal.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, maybe they're just really good editors and brilliant politicians who work overtime. They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this story was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable.

And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic consultant, has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect Joe Biden. They're always out there doing the hard work. Who are they? Well, Steve Schmidt is a former campaign manager for John McCain 2008. And you look at the various personnel affiliated with it, they're all McCain former McCain aides or people who worked on the Jeb and George W. Bush campaigns, going back to Texas and Florida. This is sort of the corporate wing of the Republican Party, the white-glove-country-club-patrician Republicans who are very pro-war, who hate Donald Trump.

And by doing this, by them really taking the lead on this attack, as you pointed out, Aaron, number one, they are sucking the oxygen out of the more progressive anti-Trump initiatives that are taking place, including in the streets of American cities. They're taking the wind out of anti-Trump more progressive anti-Trump critiques. For example, I think it's actually more powerful to attack Trump over the fact that he used, basically, chemical weapons on American peaceful protesters to do a fascistic photo-op. I don't know why there wasn't some call for congressional investigations on that. And they are getting skin in the game on the Biden campaign. It really feels to me like this Lincoln campaign operation, this moderate Republican operation which is also sort of a venue for neocons, will have more influence after events like this than the Bernie Sanders campaign, which has an enormous amount of delegates.

So, that's what I think the domestic repercussion is. It's just this constant it's the constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party and its base that's moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into this Cold War that only serves, you know, people who are associated with the national security state who need to justify their paycheck and the budget of the institutions that employ them.

AARON MATÉ: Let's assume for a second that the allegation is true, although, you know, you've laid out some of the reasons why it's not. Can you talk about the history here, starting with Afghanistan, something you cover a lot in your book, The Management of Savagery, where the US aim was to kill Russians, going right on through to Syria, where just recently the US envoy for the coalition against ISIS, James Jeffery, who handles Syria, said that his job now is to basically put the Russians in a quagmire in Syria.

JAMES JEFFREY: This isn't Afghanistan. This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire. My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, I mean, it feels like a giant act of psychological and political projection to accuse Russia of using an Islamist militia in Afghanistan as a proxy against the US to bleed the US into leaving, because that's been the US playbook in Central Asia and the Middle East since at least 1979. I just tweeted a photo of Dan Rather in Afghanistan, just crossing the Pakistani border and going to meet with some of the Mujahideen in 1980. Dan Rather was panned in The New York in The Washington Post by Tom Toles [Tom Shales], who was the media critic at the time, as "Gunga Dan," because he was so gung-ho for the Afghan mujahideen. In his reports he would complain about how weak their weaponry was, you know, how they needed more how they needed more funding. I mean, you could call it bounties, but it was really just CIA funding.

DAN RATHER: These are the best weapons you have, huh? They only have about twenty rounds for this?

TRANSLATOR: That's all. They have twenty rounds. Yes, and they know that these are all old weapons and they really aren't up to doing anything to the Russian weaponry that's around. But that's all they have, and this is why they want help. And he is saying that America seems to be asleep. It doesn't seem to realize that if Afghanistan goes and the Russians go over to the Gulf, that in a very short time it's going to be the turn of the United States as well.

DAN RATHER: But I'm sure he knows that in Vietnam we got our fingers burned. Indeed, we got our whole hands burned when we tried to help in this kind of situation.

TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: Your hands were burned in Vietnam, but if you don't agree to help us, if you don't ally yourself with us, then all of you, your whole body will be burnt eventually, because there is no one in the world who can really fight and resist as well as the as much and as well as the Afghans are.

DAN RATHER: But no American mother wants to send her son to Afghanistan.

TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: We don't need anybody's soldiers here to help us, but we are being constantly accused that the Americans are helping us with weapons. What we need, actually, are the American weapons. We don't need or want American soldiers. We can do the fighting ourselves.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: And a year or several months before, the Carter Administration, at the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield. And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do.

And then with the introduction of the Stinger missile, the Afghan mujahideen, hailed as freedom fighters in Washington, were able to destroy Russian supply lines, exact a heavy toll, and forced the Red Army to leave in retreat. They helped create what's considered the Soviet Union's Vietnam.

So that was really but the blueprint for what Russian for what Russia is being accused of now, and that same model was transferred over to Syria. It was also actually proposed for Iraq in the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. Then Senate Foreign Relations chair Jesse Helms actually said that the Afghan mujahideen should be our model for supporting the Iraqi resistance. So, this kind of proxy war was always on the table. Then the US did it in Syria, when one out of every $13 in the CIA budget went to arm the so-called "moderate rebels" in Syria, who we later found out were 31 flavors of jihadi, who were aligned with al-Qaeda's local affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and helped give rise to ISIS. Michael Morell, I tweeted some video of him on Charlie Rose back in, I think, 2016. He's the former acting director for the CIA, longtime deputy director. He said, you know, the reason that we're in Syria, what we should be doing is causing Iran and Russia, the two allies of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, to pay a heavy price.

MICHAEL MORELL: We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make the Russians pay a price. The other thing

CHARLIE ROSE: We make them pay the price by killing killing Russians?

MICHAEL MORELL: Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: And killing Iranians.

MICHAEL MORELL: Yes, covertly. You don't tell the world about it, right? You don't stand up at the Pentagon and say we did this, right? But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia. So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see someone like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I mean, it's such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real.

AARON MATÉ: Let me read Dan Rather's tweet, because it's so it speaks to just how pervasive Russiagate culture is now. People have learned absolutely nothing from it.

Rather says, "Reporters are trained to look for patterns that are suspicious, and time and again one stands out with Donald Trump. Why is he so slavishly devoted to Putin? There is a spectrum of possible answers ranging from craven to treasonous. One day I hope and suspect we will find out."

It's like he forgot, perhaps, that Robert Mueller and his team spent three years investigating this very issue and came up with absolutely nothing. But the narrative has taken hold, and it's, as you talked about before, it's been the narrative we've been presented as the vehicle for understanding and opposing Donald Trump, so it cannot be questioned. And now it's like it's a matter of, what else is there to find out about Trump and Russia after Robert Mueller and the US intelligence agencies looked for everything they could and found nothing? They're still presented as if it's some kind of mystery that has to be unraveled.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: And it was after, like, a week of just kind of neocon resistance mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump. Then Dick Cheney was welcomed into the resistance, you know, because he said, "Wear a mask." I mean, you know, his mask was strangely not spattered with the blood of Iraqi children. But, you know, it was just amazing like that. Of course, it was the Lincoln project who hijacked the minds of the resistance, but basically people who used to work on Cheney's campaign said, "Dick Cheney, welcome to the resistance." I mean, that was remarkable. And then you have this and it, you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet the Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate.

CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and he doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?

MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, just a few years ago, maybe it was two years ago, before Bolton was brought into the Trump NSC, he was considered just an absolute marginal crank who was a contributor to Fox News. He'd been forgotten. He was widely hated by Democrats. Now here he is as a sage voice to tell us how dangerous this moment is. And, you know, he's not being even brought on just to promote his book; he's being brought on as just a sober-minded foreign policy expert on Meet the Press . That's where we're at right now.

AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and when his critique of Trump is basically that Trump was not hawkish enough. Bolton's most the biggest critique Bolton has of Trump is, as he writes about in his book, is when Trump declined to bomb Iran after Iran shot down a drone over its territory. And Bolton said that to him was the most irrational thing he's ever seen a president do.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, Bolton was mad that Trump confused body bags with missiles, because he said Trump thought that there would be 150 dead Iranians, and I said, "No, Donald, you're confused. It will be 150 missiles that we're firing into Iran." Like that's better! Like, "Oh, okay, that makes everything all right," that we fire a hundred missiles for one drone and maybe that wouldn't that kill possibly more than 150 people?

Well, in Bolton's world this was just another stupid move by Trump. If Bolton were, I mean, just, just watch all the interviews with Bolton. Watch him on The View where the only pushback he received was from Meghan McCain complaining that he ripped off a Hamilton song for his book The Room Where It Happened , and she asked, "Don't you have any apology to offer to Hamilton fans?" That was the pushback that Bolton received. Just watch all of these interviews with Bolton and try to find the pushback. It's not there. This is what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian, psychotic, dangerous, bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned him into a sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller.

AARON MATÉ: And inevitably the only long-term consequence that I can see here is ultimately helping Trump, because, if history is a pattern, these Russiagate supposed bombshells always either go nowhere or they get debunked. So, if this one gets forcefully debunked, because I think it's quite possible, because Trump has said that he was never briefed on this and they'll have to prove that he's lying, you know. It should be easy to do. Someone could come out and say that. If they can't prove that he's lying, then this one, I think, will blow up in their face. And all they will have done is, at a time when Trump is vulnerable over the pandemic with over a hundred thousand people dead on his watch, all these people did was ultimately try to bring the focus back to the same thing that failed for basically the entirety of Trump's presidency, which is Russiagate and Trump's supposed―and non-existent in reality―subservience to Vladimir Putin.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: But have you ever really confronted one of your liberal friends who maybe doesn't follow these stories as closely as you do? You know, well-intentioned liberal friend who just has this sense that Russia controls Trump, and asked them to really defend that and provide the receipts and really explain where the Trump administration has just handed the store to Russia? Because what we've seen is unprecedented since the height of the Cold War, an unprecedented deterioration of US-Russia relations with new sanctions on Russia every few months. You ask them to do that. They can't do it. It's just a sense they get, it's a feeling they get. And that's because these bombshells drop, they get reported on the front pages under banners of papers that declare that "democracy dies in darkness," whose brand is something that everybody trusts, The New York Times , The Washington Post , Woodward and Bernstein, and everybody repeats the story again and again and again. And then, if and when it gets debunked, discredited or just sort of disappears, a few days later everybody forgets about it. And those people who are not just, like, 24/7 media consumers but critical-minded media consumers, they're left with that sense that Russia actually controls us and that we must do something to escalate with Russia. So, that's the point of these: by the time the disinformation is discredited, the damage has already been done. And that same tactic was employed against Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, to the point where so many people were left with the sense that he must be an antisemite, although not one allegation was ever proven.

AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and now to the point where, in the Labour Party―we should touch on this for a second―where you had a Labour Party member retweet an article recently that mentioned some criticism of Israel and for that she was expelled from her position in the shadow cabinet.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, well, you know, as a Jew I was really threatened by that retweet [laughter]. I don't know about you.

I mean, this is Rebecca Long Bailey. She's one of the few Corbynites left in a high position in Labour who hasn't been effectively burned at the stake for being a, you know, Jew hater who wants to throw us all in gas chambers because she retweets an interview with some celebrity I'd never heard of before, who didn't even say anything that extreme. But it really shows how the Thought Police have taken control of the Labour Party through Sir Keir Starmer, who is someone who has deep links to the national security state through the Crown Prosecution Service, which he used to head, where he was involved in the prosecution of Julian Assange. And he has worked with The Times of London, which is a, you know, favorite paper of the national security state and the MI5 in the UK, for planting stories against Jeremy Corbyn. He was intimately involved in that campaign, and now he's at the head of the Labour Party for a very good reason. I really would recommend everyone watching this, if you're interested more in who Keir Starmer really is, read "Five Questions for [New Labour Leader] Sir Keir Starmer" by Matt Kennard at The Grayzone. It really lays it out and shows you what's happening.

We're just in this kind of hyper-managed atmosphere, where everything feels so much more controlled than it's ever been. And even though every sane rational person that I know seems to understand what's happening, they feel like they're not allowed to say it, at least not in any official capacity.

AARON MATÉ: From the US to Britain, everything is being co-opted. In the US it's, you know, genuine resistance to Trump, in opposition to Trump, it gets co-opted by the right. Same thing in Britain. People get manipulated into believing that Jeremy Corbyn, this lifelong anti-racist is somehow an antisemite. It's all in the service of the same agenda, and I have to say we're one of the few outlets that are pushing back on it. Everyone else is getting swept up on it and it's a scary time.

We're gonna wrap. Max, your final comment.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, yeah, we're pushing back. And I saw today Mint Press [News], which is another outlet that has pushed back, their Twitter account was just briefly removed for no reason, without explanation. Ollie Vargas, who's an independent journalist who's doing some of the most important work in the English language from Bolivia, reporting on the post-coup landscape and the repressive environment that's been created by the junta installed with US help under Jeanine Áñez, his account has been taken away on Twitter. The social media platforms are basically under the control of the national security state. There's been a merger between the national security state and Silicon Valley, and the space for these kinds of discussions is rapidly shrinking. So, I think, you know, it's more important than ever to support alternative media and also to really have a clear understanding of what's taking place. I'm really worried there just won't be any space for us to have these conversations in the near future.

AARON MATÉ: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management of Savagery , thanks a lot.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Thanks for having me.

[Jul 06, 2020] Provocation will eventuially make Iran deal dead, which is what the USA badly wants

Jul 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Deimetri , Jul 5 2020 19:53 utc | 32

Hi b,

What is your take on the rash of "accidents" that Iran has been suffering from, these past couple of weeks?

Et Tu , Jul 5 2020 23:07 utc | 56

@ Posted by: Deimetri | Jul 5 2020 19:53 utc | 32

Wanted to ask the same question, i am sure B will have something as soon as some facts are there to be dissected, seems for now that all we have to go by is the assumption it is either US or Israel dirty work, one that is hard to disagree with.

Iran will have to respond, 4 attacks in less than 2 weeks is really taking the piss and makes them look weak. Quite a reversal from the Iran that was seizing tankers, acting on its threats and dictating the tempo of escalation. Israel and US are only deterred by credible threats and the longer Iran waits, the more emboldened they will feel.

Perhaps Iran is more focused on investigations and searching through its own ranks for collaborators or traitors first, meaning it is still not sure who to hit back at. Is it the US or Israel, who is directly responsible for these attacks? What would be an appropriate response? Anything too overt could be counterproductive as there is no proof tying the explosions to anyone, much less anything concrete that Western media would publish that could justify Iran's actions.

Hezbollah has plenty of problems of its own as explained in B's Lebanon article... so not likely we'll see rocket showers on Israel any time soon on Iran's behalf. Seems those new tankers on the way to Venezuela could be targeted soon too... perhaps they are waiting for that as their pretext for escalation or retaliation?

Richard Steven Hack , Jul 6 2020 0:14 utc | 63

Posted by: Et Tu | Jul 5 2020 23:07 utc | 56

Iran will have to respond

I expect Iran to measure its response tit-for-tat. If these explosions are the result of computer intrusion, Iran will respond in cyberspace. If they are not - and I find it hard to believe they are, disrupting a centrifuge is one thing (and too clever by half), causing an explosion is another - then Iran or a proxy will have to respond in kind. As the article cited below states:


He said Israel was "bracing" for an Iranian response, likely via a cyberattack. In an April cyberattack attributed by western intelligence officials to Iran, an attempt was made to increase chlorine levels in water flowing to residential Israeli areas.

Probably BS by Israel and the US, but this sort of thing goes on all the time. Note that there was no explosions involved.

The problem is that covert operations require some planning, especially if hacking is involved. So Iran's response might be days, weeks or months delayed. Of course, it can respond more directly by using Iraqi Shia militias against US forces in Iraq, or allies like Hezbollah elsewhere. But that is a trap the US neocons have laid - anything Iran does can be used to justify further attacks. Even if Iran proves that these explosions were not accidents, they will not be believed. So anything Iran does which is not equally covert will be used to justify further aggression.

There really is no winning this game by Iran. Only if the US and Israel stops covert attacks - and that isn't going to happen.

Meanwhile, allegedly the EU has claimed Iran has now triggered the JCPOA dispute mechanism.

EU says Iran has triggered nuclear deal dispute mechanism

I don't know if this is true, but if so, it represents the final collapse of the JCPOA. The dispute mechanism has a specific time mechanism to which all parties must adhere. So within a short period of time, Iran will either be granted its sanctions relief as promised or the deal will end. The deal's snapback mechanism won't be applied, because Russia and China will veto that no matter the US does. The US has no standing, but will try anyway just for the propaganda value.

Once the JCPOA is finally declared dead, the US and Israel will escalate their aggression against Iran, because no one in the ignorant electorate in those countries will be told that the deal was ruined by Trump and the EU's spinelessness.

Without the JCPOA, the US can revert to the sort of warmongering it engaged in before the Iraq war - constantly escalating accusations that can never be proven false and an unending stream of propaganda justifying a war.

The *only* thing preventing an Iran war is Hezbollah's ability to derail the Israeli economy. The US and Israel have no choice but to find a solution to that problem. Whether they will succeed in that, and at what cost to Lebanon, is the question.

Historically, I don't think there has ever been this level of enmity between countries without a war resulting (other than between nuclear armed nations due to MAD.) It may take some years more to get the Iran war started, but it is inevitable.

And that recognition, contrary to Bagoom's claims, is *not* advocacy. An Iran war is going to be very bad for *everyone* except Israel, the neocons and the military-industrial complex.

[Jul 06, 2020] Third 'Mystery' Blast In Less Than A Week Rocks Iran Power Plant -

Notable quotes:
"... To review, starting over a week ago a massive explosion was observed lighting up the midnight sky outside Tehran, caught on film by local residents, which Iran's military dismissed as a gas leak explosion incident. But it was later revealed to have occurred at a ballistic missile development facility. ..."
"... And this past week, another reported "accident" occurred at Natanz nuclear complex. But that particular 'mystery' blast caused Iranian officials to lash out in anger Thursday, saying "hostile countries" like the US and Israel are near the point of crossing "red lines". Crucially, Iran also said there were no radioactive leaks as a result of the incident. ..."
Jul 06, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Third 'Mystery' Blast In Less Than A Week Rocks Iran Power Plant by Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2020 - 11:30 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

On Saturday an explosion ripped through a power plant in the Iranian city of Ahvaz, marking the third 'mystery' blast to hit the country in only under a week, and the fourth recently .

State media showed emergency crews on the scene of the daytime incident while a fire raged at the power plant. This followed days ago a huge blast which destroyed Sina hospital in northern Tehran, which killed 19 people and injured 14.

To review, starting over a week ago a massive explosion was observed lighting up the midnight sky outside Tehran, caught on film by local residents, which Iran's military dismissed as a gas leak explosion incident. But it was later revealed to have occurred at a ballistic missile development facility.

And this past week, another reported "accident" occurred at Natanz nuclear complex. But that particular 'mystery' blast caused Iranian officials to lash out in anger Thursday, saying "hostile countries" like the US and Israel are near the point of crossing "red lines". Crucially, Iran also said there were no radioactive leaks as a result of the incident.

Both US and Israeli media, including The New York Times and Times of Israel, have begun speculating that it could be part of a Mossad or CIA op to set back Iran's nuclear development .

The Jerusalem Post on Sunday asked in a headline and op-ed : Have four explosions pushed Iran farther away from a nuke?

Of the myriad fascinating questions surrounding the four recent, mysterious explosions in Iran, there is still one key issue that rises above the rest: Has any of this significantly distanced Iran further from a nuclear weapon?

The jury is still out, as there is so much that is unconfirmed. But to date, the early answer would need to be: probably not .

Since the IAEA's March report that the Islamic Republic crossed the threshold for having enough low-level enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb, the estimated time for Tehran to enrich enough of that uranium up to a weaponized level dropped from 12 months to as little as four months.

Most interestingly, an unnamed intelligence source said to be based in the Middle East told The New York Times this past week said of the mysterious incident at Natanz: "The blast was caused by an explosive device planted inside the facility."

The official added that the bombing "destroyed much of the aboveground parts of the facility where new centrifuges are balanced before they are put into operation."

Reports out of Iran's state media also suggest a possible cyber-attack, to which Tehran military officials say "they'll respond" if the attack did indeed originate from Iran's enemies like the US or Israel.

[Jul 06, 2020] Trump's two Russias confound coherent US policy

This is a neocon written article. Reader beware.
Trump as wolf in sheep's clothing in his policy toward Russia. Any person who can appoint Bolton as his national security advisor should be criminally prosecuted for criminal incompetence. To say nothing about Pompeo, Haley and many others. Such a peacenik, my ***
The USA foreign policy is not controlled by the President. It is controlled by the "Deep state"
Notable quotes:
"... The dizzying, often contradictory, paths followed by Trump on the one hand and his hawkish but constantly changing cast of national security aides on the other have created confusion in Congress and among allies and enemies alike. To an observer, Russia is at once a mortal enemy and a misunderstood friend in U.S. eyes. ..."
"... But Trump has defended his perspective on Russia, viewing it as a misunderstood potential friend, a valued World War II ally led by a wily, benevolent authoritarian who actually may share American values, like the importance of patriotism, family and religion. ..."
"... despite Trump's rhetoric, his administration has plowed ahead with some of the most significant actions against Russia by any recent administration. ..."
"... Dozens of Russian diplomats have been expelled, diplomatic missions closed, arms control treaties the Russians sought to preserve have been abandoned, weapons have been sold to Ukraine despite the impeachment allegations and the administration is engaged in a furious battle to prevent Russia from constructing a new gas pipeline that U.S. lawmakers from both parties believe will increase Europe's already unhealthy dependence on Russian energy. ..."
Jul 06, 2020 | apnews.com

When it comes to Russia, the Trump administration just can't seem to make up its mind.

For the past three years, the administration has careered between President Donald Trump's attempts to curry favor and friendship with Vladimir Putin and longstanding deep-seated concerns about Putin's intentions. As Trump has repeatedly and openly cozied up to Putin, his administration has imposed harsh and meaningful sanctions and penalties on Russia.

The dizzying, often contradictory, paths followed by Trump on the one hand and his hawkish but constantly changing cast of national security aides on the other have created confusion in Congress and among allies and enemies alike. To an observer, Russia is at once a mortal enemy and a misunderstood friend in U.S. eyes.

Even before Trump took office questions about Russia abounded. Now, nearing the end of his first term with a difficult reelection ahead , those questions have resurfaced with a vengeance. Intelligence suggesting Russia was encouraging attacks on U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan by putting bounties on their heads has thrust the matter into the heart of the 2020 campaign.

The White House says the intelligence wasn't confirmed or brought to Trump's attention, but his vast chorus of critics are skeptical and maintain the president should have been aware.

The reports have alarmed even pro-Trump Republicans who see Russia as a hostile global foe meddling with nefarious intent in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Ukraine and Georgia, a waning former superpower trying to regain its Soviet-era influence by subverting democracy in Europe and the United States with disinformation and election interference .

Trump's overtures to Putin have unsettled longstanding U.S. allies in Europe, including Britain, France and Germany, which have expressed concern about the U.S. commitment to the NATO alliance, which was forged to counter the Soviet threat, and robust democracy on the continent.

But Trump has defended his perspective on Russia, viewing it as a misunderstood potential friend, a valued World War II ally led by a wily, benevolent authoritarian who actually may share American values, like the importance of patriotism, family and religion.

Trump's approach to Russia was at center stage in the impeachment proceedings, when U.S. officials testified that the president demanded political favors from Ukraine in return for military assistance it needed to combat Russian aggression. But the issue ended up as a largely partisan exercise, with House Democrats voting to impeach Trump and Senate Republicans voting to acquit .

Within the Trump administration, the national security establishment appears torn between pursuing an arguably tough approach to Russia and pleasing the president. Insiders who have raised concern about Trump's approach to Russia -- including at least one of his national security advisers, defense secretaries and secretaries of state, but especially lower-level officials who spoke out during impeachment -- have nearly all been ousted from their positions.

Suspicions about Trump and Russia go back to his 2016 campaign. His appeal to Moscow to dig up his opponent's emails , his plaintive suggestions that Russia and the United States should be friends and a series of contacts between his advisers and Russians raised questions of impropriety that led to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation . The investigation ultimately did not allege that anyone associated with the campaign illegally conspired with Russia.

Mueller, along with the U.S. intelligence community, did find that Russia interfered with the election, to sow chaos and also help Trump's campaign. But Trump has cast doubt on those findings, most memorably in a 2018 appearance on stage with Putin in Helsinki .

Yet despite Trump's rhetoric, his administration has plowed ahead with some of the most significant actions against Russia by any recent administration.

Dozens of Russian diplomats have been expelled, diplomatic missions closed, arms control treaties the Russians sought to preserve have been abandoned, weapons have been sold to Ukraine despite the impeachment allegations and the administration is engaged in a furious battle to prevent Russia from constructing a new gas pipeline that U.S. lawmakers from both parties believe will increase Europe's already unhealthy dependence on Russian energy.

At the same time, Trump has compounded the uncertainty by calling for the withdrawal or redeployment of U.S. troops from Germany, angrily deriding NATO allies for not meeting alliance defense spending commitments, and now apparently ignoring dire intelligence warnings that Russia was paying or wanted to pay elements of the Taliban to kill American forces in Afghanistan.

On top of that, even after the intelligence reports on the Afghanistan bounties circulated, he's expressed interest in inviting Putin back into the G-7 group of nations over the objections of the other members.

White House officials and die-hard Trump supporters have shrugged off the obvious inconsistencies, but they have been unable to staunch the swell of criticism and pointed demands for explanations as Russia, which has vexed American leaders for decades, delights in its ability to create chaos.

[Jul 03, 2020] Podcast- Empire Has No Clothes, Episode 9, Foreign Policy Dissent Is Patriotic by DANIEL LARISON

Bolton is just "yet another MIC puppet", who has complete vacuum in his head as for morality and decency. In other words he is a typical Washington psychopath. Like many sociopaths he is a compulsive liar, undeniable careerist and self-promoter.
Jul 02, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

This week on Empire Has No Clothes, we spoke with Elizabeth Shackelford, a former Foreign Service Officer and author of The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age . Kelley Vlahos, Matt Purple and I talked about demoralization in the department, the reasons for her resignation, U.S. policy in South Sudan and Africa, and the need for greater accountability in our foreign policy. We also covered John Bolton's new book, his outdated foreign policy views, and whether anything he says can be trusted.

Listen to the episode in the player below, or click the links beneath it to subscribe using your favorite podcast app. If you like what you hear, please give us a rating or review on iTunes or Stitcher, which will really help us climb the rankings, allowing more people to find the show.

[Jul 03, 2020] The Iran Obsession Has Isolated the US

So former tank repairman decided again managed to make a make a mark in world diplomacy :-).
Notable quotes:
"... Mike Pompeo delivered an embarrassing, clownish performance at the U.N. on Tuesday, and his attempt to gain support for an open-ended conventional arms embargo on Iran was rejected the rest of the old P5+1: ..."
"... The Trump administration has abused our major European allies for years in its push to destroy the nuclear deal, and their governments have no patience with any more unilateral U.S. stunts. This is the result of two years of a destructive policy aimed solely at punishing Iran and its people. The administration's open contempt for international law and the interests of its allies has cost the U.S. their cooperation. ..."
"... Underscoring the absurdity of the Trump administration's arms embargo appeal were Pompeo's alarmist warnings that an end to the arms embargo would allow Iran to purchase advanced fighters that it would use to threaten Europe and India: ..."
"... This is a laughably unrealistic scenario. Even if Iran purchased advanced fighters, the last thing it would do is send them off on a suicide mission to bomb Italy or India. This shows how deeply irrational the Iran hawks' fearmongering is. Iran has already demonstrated an ability to launch precise attacks with drones and missiles in its immediate neighborhood, and it developed these capabilities while under the current embargo. ..."
"... The Secretary of State called on the U.N. to reject "extortion diplomacy." The best way to reject extortion diplomacy would be for them to reject the administration's desperate attempt to use America's position at the U.N. to attack international law. ..."
Jul 03, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Mike Pompeo delivered an embarrassing, clownish performance at the U.N. on Tuesday, and his attempt to gain support for an open-ended conventional arms embargo on Iran was rejected the rest of the old P5+1:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Tuesday for an arms embargo on Iran to be extended indefinitely, but his appeal fell flat at the United Nations Security Council, where Russia and China rejected it outright and close allies of the United States were ambivalent.

The Trump administration is more isolated than ever in its Iran obsession. The ridiculous effort to invoke the so-called "snapback" provision of the JCPOA more than two years after reneging on the agreement met with failure, just as most observers predicted months ago when it was first floated as a possibility. As I said at the time, "The administration's latest destructive ploy won't find any support on the Security Council. There is nothing "intricate" about this idea. It is a crude, heavy-handed attempt to employ the JCPOA's own provisions to destroy it." It was never going to work because all of the other parties to the agreement want nothing to do with the administration's punitive approach, and U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA meant that it forfeited any rights it had when it was still part of the deal.

Opposition from Russia and China was a given, but the striking thing about the scene at the U.N. this week was that major U.S. allies joined them in rebuking the administration's obvious bad faith maneuver:

The pointedly critical tone of the debate saw Germany accusing Washington of violating international law by withdrawing from the nuclear pact, while Berlin aligned itself with China's claim that the United States has no right to reimpose U.N. sanctions on Iran.

The Trump administration has abused our major European allies for years in its push to destroy the nuclear deal, and their governments have no patience with any more unilateral U.S. stunts. This is the result of two years of a destructive policy aimed solely at punishing Iran and its people. The administration's open contempt for international law and the interests of its allies has cost the U.S. their cooperation.

Underscoring the absurdity of the Trump administration's arms embargo appeal were Pompeo's alarmist warnings that an end to the arms embargo would allow Iran to purchase advanced fighters that it would use to threaten Europe and India:

If you fail to act, Iran will be free to purchase Russian-made fighter jets that can strike up to a 3,000 kilometer radius, putting cities like Riyadh, New Delhi, Rome, and Warsaw in Iranian crosshairs.

This is a laughably unrealistic scenario. Even if Iran purchased advanced fighters, the last thing it would do is send them off on a suicide mission to bomb Italy or India. This shows how deeply irrational the Iran hawks' fearmongering is. Iran has already demonstrated an ability to launch precise attacks with drones and missiles in its immediate neighborhood, and it developed these capabilities while under the current embargo.

It has no need for expensive fighters, and it is not at all certain that their government would even be interested in acquiring them. Pompeo's presentation was a weak attempt to exaggerate the potential threat from a state that has very limited power projection, and he found no support because his serial fabrications about Iran have rendered everything he says to be worthless.

The same administration that wants to keep an arms embargo on Iran forever has no problem flooding the region with U.S.-made weapons and providing them to some of the worst governments in the world. It is these client states that are doing the most to destabilize other countries in the region right now. If the U.N. should be putting arms embargoes on any country, it should consider imposing them on Saudi Arabia and the UAE to limit their ability to wreak havoc on Yemen and Libya.

The Secretary of State called on the U.N. to reject "extortion diplomacy." The best way to reject extortion diplomacy would be for them to reject the administration's desperate attempt to use America's position at the U.N. to attack international law.

[Jul 01, 2020] Three Glaring Problems with the Russian Taliban Bounty Story by Barbara Boland

Highly recommended!
This is an attempt to move Trump in the direction of more harsher politics toward Russia. So not Bolton's but Obama ears are protruding above this dirty provocation.
Notable quotes:
"... According to the anonymous sources that spoke with the paper's reporters, the White House and President Trump were briefed on a range of potential responses to Moscow's provocations, including sanctions, but the White House had authorized no further action. ..."
"... Bolton is one of the only sources named in the New York Times article. Currently on a book tour, Bolton has said that he witnessed foreign policy malfeasance by Trump that dwarfs the Ukraine scandal that was the subject of the House impeachment hearings. But Bolton's credibility has been called into question since he declined to appear before the House committee. ..."
"... "Who can forget how 'successful' interrogators can be in getting desired answers?" writes Ray McGovern, who served as a CIA analyst for 27 years. Under the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques," Khalid Sheik Mohammed famously made at least 31 confessions, many of which were completely false. ..."
"... This story is "WMD [all over] again," said McGovern, who in the 1980s chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the President's Daily Brief. He believes the stories seek to preempt DOJ findings on the origins of the Russiagate probe. ..."
"... The bungled media response and resulting negative press could also lead Trump to contemplate harsher steps towards Russia in order to prove that he is "tough," which may have motivated the leakers. It's certainly a policy goal with which Bolton, one of the only named sources in the New York Times piece, wholeheartedly approves. ..."
"... Not only did CIA et al.'s leak get even with Trump for years of insults and ignoring their reports (Trump is politically wounded by this story), but it also achieved their primary objective of keeping Putin out of the G7 and muzzling Trump's threats to withdraw from NATO because Russia is our friend (well his, anyway). ..."
"... Point 4: the whole point of the Talibans is to fight to the death whichever country tries to control and invade Afghanistan. They didn't need the Russians to tell them to fight the US Army, did they? ..."
"... Point 5: Russia tried to organise a mediation process between the Afghan government and the Talibans already in 2018 - so why would they be at the same time trying to fuel the conflict? A stable Afghanistan is more convenient to them, given the geographical position of the country. ..."
"... As much as I love to see everyone pile on trump, this is another example of a really awful policy having bad outcomes. If Bush, Obama, trump, or anyone at the pentagon gave a crap about the troops, they wouldn't have kept them in Afghanistan and lied about the fact they were losing the whole time. ..."
"... the idea is stupid. Russia doesn't need to do anything to motivate Afghans to want to boot the invaders out of their country, and would want to attract negative attention in doing so. ..."
"... Contrast with the CIA motivations for this absurd narrative. Chuck Schumer famously commented that the intelligence agencies had ways of getting back at you, and it looks like you took the bait, hook, line and sinker. ..."
"... And a fourth CIA goal: it undermines Trump's relationship with the military. ..."
"... Having failed in its Russia "collusion" and "Russia stole the election" campaigns to oust Trump, this is just the latest effort by the Deep State and mass media to use unhinged Russophobia to try to boost Biden and damage Trump. ..."
"... The contemporary left hate Russia , because Russia is carving out it own sphere of influence and keeping the Americans out, because it saved Assad from the western backed sunni head choppers (that the left cheered on, as they killed native Orthodox, and Catholic Christians). The Contempary left hate Russia because it cracks down on LGBT propaganda, banned porn hub, and return property to the Church , which the leftist Bolsheviks stole, the Contempaty left hate Russia because it cracked down on it western backed oligarchs who plundered Russia in the 90's. ..."
Jul 01, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Bombshell report published by The New York Times Friday alleges that Russia paid dollar bounties to the Taliban in Afghanistan to kill U.S troops. Obscured by an extremely bungled White House press response, there are at least three serious flaws with the reporting.

The article alleges that GRU, a top-secret unit of Russian military intelligence, offered the bounty in payment for every U.S. soldier killed in Afghanistan, and that at least one member of the U.S. military was alleged to have been killed in exchange for the bounties. According to the paper, U.S. intelligence concluded months ago that the Russian unit involved in the bounties was also linked to poisonings, assassination attempts and other covert operations in Europe. The Times reports that United States intelligence officers and Special Operations forces in Afghanistan came to this conclusion about Russian bounties some time in 2019.

According to the anonymous sources that spoke with the paper's reporters, the White House and President Trump were briefed on a range of potential responses to Moscow's provocations, including sanctions, but the White House had authorized no further action.

Immediately after the news broke Friday, the Trump administration denied the report -- or rather, they denied that the President was briefed, depending on which of the frenetic, contradictory White House responses you read.

Traditionally, the President of the United States receives unconfirmed, and sometimes even raw intelligence, in the President's Daily Brief, or PDB. Trump notoriously does not read his PDB, according to reports.

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said in a statement Saturday night that neither Trump nor Vice President Pence "were ever briefed on any intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting yesterday."

On Sunday night, Trump tweeted that not only was he not told about the alleged intelligence, but that it was not credible."Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or @VP" Pence, Trump wrote Sunday night on Twitter.

Ousted National Security Advisor John Bolton said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday that Trump was probably claiming ignorance in order to justify his administration's lack of response.

"He can disown everything if nobody ever told him about it," said Bolton.

Bolton is one of the only sources named in the New York Times article. Currently on a book tour, Bolton has said that he witnessed foreign policy malfeasance by Trump that dwarfs the Ukraine scandal that was the subject of the House impeachment hearings. But Bolton's credibility has been called into question since he declined to appear before the House committee.

The explanations for what exactly happened, and who was briefed, continued to shift Monday.

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany followed Trump's blanket denial with a statement that the intelligence concerning Russian bounty information was "unconfirmed." She didn't say the intelligence wasn't credible, like Trump had said the day before, only that there was "no consensus" and that the "veracity of the underlying allegations continue to be evaluated," which happens to almost completely match the Sunday night statement from the White House's National Security Council.

Instead of saying that the sources for the Russian bounty story were not credible and the story was false, or likely false, McEnany then said that Trump had "not been briefed on the matter."

"He was not personally briefed on the matter," she said. "That is all I can share with you today."

It's difficult to see how the White House thought McEnany's statement would help, and a bungled press response like this is communications malpractice, according to sources who spoke to The American Conservative.

Let's take a deeper dive into some of the problems with the reporting here:

1. Anonymous U.S. and Taliban sources?

The Times article repeatedly cites unnamed "American intelligence officials." The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal articles "confirming" the original Times story merely restate the allegations of the anonymous officials, along with caveats like "if true" or "if confirmed."

Furthermore, the unnamed intelligence sources who spoke with the Times say that their assessment is based "on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals."

That's a red flag, said John Kiriakou, a former analyst and case officer for the CIA who led the team that captured senior al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002. "When you capture a prisoner, and you're interrogating him, the prisoner is going to tell you what he thinks you want to hear," he said in an interview with The American Conservative . "There's no evidence here, there's no proof."

"Who can forget how 'successful' interrogators can be in getting desired answers?" writes Ray McGovern, who served as a CIA analyst for 27 years. Under the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques," Khalid Sheik Mohammed famously made at least 31 confessions, many of which were completely false.

Kiriakou believes that the sources behind the report hold important clues on how the government viewed its credibility.

"We don't know who the source is for this. We don't know if they've been vetted, polygraphed; were they a walk-in; were they a captured prisoner?"

If the sources were suspect, as they appear to be here, then Trump would not have been briefed on this at all.

With this story, it's important to start at the "intelligence collection," said Kiriakou. "This information appeared in the [CIA World Intelligence Review] Wire, which goes to hundreds of people inside the government, mostly at the State Department and the Pentagon. The most sensitive information isn't put in the Wire; it goes only in the PDB."

"If this was from a single source intelligence, it wouldn't have been briefed to Trump. It's not vetted, and it's not important enough. If you caught a Russian who said this, for example, that would make it important enough. But some Taliban detainees saying it to an interrogator, that does not rise to the threshold."

2. What purpose would bounties serve?

Everyone and their mother knows Trump wants to pull the troops out of Afghanistan, said Kiriakou.

"He ran on it and he has said it hundreds of times," he said. "So why would the Russians bother putting a bounty on U.S. troops if we're about to leave Afghanistan shortly anyway?"

That's leaving aside Russia's own experience with the futility of Afghanistan campaigns, learned during its grueling 9-year war there in the 1980s.

If this bounty campaign is real, it would not appear to be very effective, as only eight U.S. military members were killed in Afghanistan in 2020. The New York Times could not verify that even one U.S. military member was killed due to an alleged Russian bounty.

The Taliban denies it accepted bounties from Russian intelligence.

"These kinds of deals with the Russian intelligence agency are baseless -- our target killings and assassinations were ongoing in years before, and we did it on our own resources," Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Taliban, told The New York Times . "That changed after our deal with the Americans, and their lives are secure and we don't attack them."

The Russian Embassy in the United States called the reporting "fake news."

While the Russians are ruthless, "it's hard to fathom what their motivations could be" here, said Paul Pillar, an academic and 28-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency, in an interview with The American Conservative. "What would they be retaliating for? Some use of force in Syria recently? I don't know. I can't string together a particular sequence that makes sense at this time. I'm not saying that to cast doubt on reports the Russians were doing this sort of thing."

3. Why is this story being leaked now?

According to U.S. officials quoted by the AP, top officials in the White House "were aware of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans" in early 2019. So why is this story just coming out now?

This story is "WMD [all over] again," said McGovern, who in the 1980s chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the President's Daily Brief. He believes the stories seek to preempt DOJ findings on the origins of the Russiagate probe.

The NYT story serves to bolster the narrative that Trump sides with Russia, and against our intelligence community estimates and our own soldiers lives.

The stories "are likely to remain indelible in the minds of credulous Americans -- which seems to have been the main objective," writes McGovern. "There [Trump] goes again -- not believing our 'intelligence community; siding, rather, with Putin.'"

"I don't believe this story and I think it was leaked to embarrass the President," said Kiriakou. "Trump is on the ropes in the polls; Biden is ahead in all the battleground states."

If these anonymous sources had spoken up during the impeachment hearings, their statements could have changed history.

But the timing here, "kicking a man when he is down, is extremely like the Washington establishment. A leaked story like this now, embarrasses and weakens Trump," he said. "It was obvious that Trump would blow the media response, which he did."

The bungled media response and resulting negative press could also lead Trump to contemplate harsher steps towards Russia in order to prove that he is "tough," which may have motivated the leakers. It's certainly a policy goal with which Bolton, one of the only named sources in the New York Times piece, wholeheartedly approves.

Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington Examiner and for CNS News. She is the author of Patton Uncovered , a book about General George Patton in World War II, and her work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill , UK Spectator , and elsewhere. Boland is a graduate from Immaculata University in Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC .

Tomonthebeach • 9 hours ago • edited

Caitlin Johnstone was the first journalist to question this NYT expose' several days ago in her blog. After looking into it, I had to agree with her that the story was junk reporting by a news source eager to stick it to Trump for his daily insults. NYT must love the irony of a "fake news" story catching fire and burning Trump politically. After all, paying people to kill their own enemies? That is a "tip," not a bounty. It is more of an intel footnote than the game-changer in international relations as asserted by Speaker Pelosi on TV as she grabbed her pearls beneath her stylish COVID mask.

I was surprised that Ms. Boland could not think of any motivation for leaking the story right now given recent grousing on the Hill about Trump's inviting Putin to G7 over the objections of Merkel and several other NATO heads of state. I even posted a congratulatory message in Defense One yesterday to the US Intel community for mission accomplished.

Not only did CIA et al.'s leak get even with Trump for years of insults and ignoring their reports (Trump is politically wounded by this story), but it also achieved their primary objective of keeping Putin out of the G7 and muzzling Trump's threats to withdraw from NATO because Russia is our friend (well his, anyway).

Connecticut Farmer Tomonthebeach • 3 hours ago

That "bounty" story never passed the smell test, even to my admittedly untrained nose. My real problem is that it's a story in the first place, given that Trump campaigned on a platform that included bringing the boys home from sand hills like Afghanistan; yet here we are, four years later, and we're still there.

Lavinia • 6 hours ago

Point 4: the whole point of the Talibans is to fight to the death whichever country tries to control and invade Afghanistan. They didn't need the Russians to tell them to fight the US Army, did they?

Point 5: Russia tried to organise a mediation process between the Afghan government and the Talibans already in 2018 - so why would they be at the same time trying to fuel the conflict? A stable Afghanistan is more convenient to them, given the geographical position of the country.

This whole story is completely ridiculous. Totally bogus.

Wally • 5 hours ago

As much as I love to see everyone pile on trump, this is another example of a really awful policy having bad outcomes. If Bush, Obama, trump, or anyone at the pentagon gave a crap about the troops, they wouldn't have kept them in Afghanistan and lied about the fact they were losing the whole time.

Of course people are trying to kill US military in Afghanistan. If I lived in Afghanistan, I'd probably hate them too. And let's not forget that just a few weeks ago the 82nd airborne was ready to kill American civilians in DC. The military is our enemy too!

If you are in the US military today, please quit.

https://www.washingtonpost....

Don't ever forget how they lied to us.

Feral Finster • 4 hours ago

Moreover, the idea is stupid. Russia doesn't need to do anything to motivate Afghans to want to boot the invaders out of their country, and would want to attract negative attention in doing so.

The purported bounty program doesn't help Russia, but the anonymous narrative does conveniently serve several CIA purposes:
1. It makes it harder to leave Afghanistan.
2. It keeps the cold war with Russia going along.
3. It damages Trump (whose relationship with the CIA is testy at best).

Then there's the question of how this supposed intelligence was gathered. The CIA tortures people, and there's no reason to believe that this was any different.

Feral Finster Sidney Caesar • 2 hours ago

1. Russia wants a stable Afghanistan. Not a base for jihadis.

2. The idea that Russia has to encourage Afghans to kill Invaders is a hoot. They don't ever do that on their own.

3. Not only do Afghans traditionally need no motivation to kill infidel foreign Invaders, but Russia would have to be incredibly stupid to bring more American enmity on itself.

Contrast with the CIA motivations for this absurd narrative. Chuck Schumer famously commented that the intelligence agencies had ways of getting back at you, and it looks like you took the bait, hook, line and sinker.

Either that, or you're just cynical. You'll espouse anything, however absurd and full of lies, as long as it damages Trump.

I detest Trump, but I am not a list.

Wally Feral Finster • 3 hours ago

I don't have a clue if this bounty story is correct, but I can imagine plenty of reasons why the Russians would do it. It's easy enough to believe it or believe it was cooked up by CIA as you suggest.

Feral Finster Feral Finster • 2 hours ago

And a fourth CIA goal: it undermines Trump's relationship with the military.

FND • 4 hours ago

There will be one of these BS blockbusters every few weeks until the election. There are legions of buried-in democrat political appointees that will continue to feed the DNC press. It will be non-stop. The DNC press is shredding the 1st amendment.

former-vet FND • 2 hours ago

Not shredding the First Amendment, just shining light on the pitfalls of a right to freedom of speech. There are others ramifications to free speech we consider social goods.

Kent FND • 2 hours ago

These aren't buried-in democrats. These people could care less which political party the President is a member of. They only care that the President does what they say. Political parties are just to bamboozle the rubes. They are the real power.

Connecticut Farmer • 4 hours ago

"U.S. Intelligence"-lol--a contradiction in terms. Just repeat three times: "George 'Slam Dunk' Tenet."

Sidney Caesar Connecticut Farmer • 3 hours ago

Tenet knew his role- he said what his superiors wanted to hear: https://www.motherjones.com... The Iraq debacle was a top-down con job.

Stephen R Gould • 3 hours ago • edited

The best defence that the WSJ and Fox News could muster was that the story wasn't confirmed as the NSA didn't have the same confidence in the assessment as the CIA. "Is there anything else to which you would wish to draw my attention?" "To the curious incident of the denial from the White House", "There was no denial from the White House". "That was the curious incident".

I note that Fox News had buried the story "below the scroll" on their home page - if they had though the story was fake, the headlines would be screaming at MSM.

maxsnafu • 3 hours ago

I was suspicious when I saw it originated in Walter Duranty's newspaper.

The Derp State • 3 hours ago

"What if Obama...." #4,267

former-vet • 2 hours ago • edited

Pravda was a far more honest and objective news source than The New York Times is. I say that as someone who read both for long periods of time. The Times is on par with the National Enquirer for credibility, with the latter at least being less propagandistic and agenda-driven.

SatirevFlesti • 2 hours ago

Having failed in its Russia "collusion" and "Russia stole the election" campaigns to oust Trump, this is just the latest effort by the Deep State and mass media to use unhinged Russophobia to try to boost Biden and damage Trump.

The extent to which the contemporary Left is driven by a level of Russophobia unseen even by the most stalwart anti-Communists on the Right during the Cold War is truly something to behold. I think at bottom it comes down to not liking Putin or Russia because they refuse to get on board with the Left's social agenda.

James SatirevFlesti • 2 hours ago • edited

The contemporary left hate Russia , because Russia is carving out it own sphere of influence and keeping the Americans out, because it saved Assad from the western backed sunni head choppers (that the left cheered on, as they killed native Orthodox, and Catholic Christians). The Contempary left hate Russia because it cracks down on LGBT propaganda, banned porn hub, and return property to the Church , which the leftist Bolsheviks stole, the Contempaty left hate Russia because it cracked down on it western backed oligarchs who plundered Russia in the 90's.

The Contempary left wants Russia to be Woke, Broke, Godless, and Gay.

The democrats are now the cheerleaders of the warfare -welfare state,, the marriage between the neolibs-neocons under the Democrat party to ensure that President Trump is defeated by the invade the world, invite the world crowd.

WilliamRD TheSnark • 44 minutes ago

"The Trumpies are right in that this was obviously a leak by the intel community designed to hurt Trump. But what do you expect...he has spent 4 years insulting and belittling them. They are going to get their pound of flesh."

Intel community was behind an attempted coup of Trump. He has good reason not to trust them and insulting is only natural. Hopefully John Durham will indict several of them

Kent • an hour ago

I honestly don't find "unnamed officials", the CIA, the NSA, the NYT, John Bolton, or President Trump to be credible sources.

Sidney Caesar Kent • an hour ago • edited

I've found myself to be the only honest and trustworthy person- everyone should just listen to me.

WilliamRD • 42 minutes ago • edited

Montage: Mainstream Media Hype About Russia Collusion https://twitter.com/ggreenw...

WilliamRD • 36 minutes ago

Russiagate's Last Gasp https://consortiumnews.com/...

phreethink • 20 minutes ago • edited

Interesting take. I certainly take anything anyone publishes based on anonymous sources with a big grain of salt, especially when it comes from the NYT...

[Jul 01, 2020] Control freaks that cannot even control their own criminal impulses!

Highly recommended!
Jul 01, 2020 | www.unz.com

No Friend Of The Devil , says:

Control freaks that cannot even control their own criminal impulses!

...They suffer from god-complexes, since they do not believe in God, they feel an obligation to act as God, and decide the fates of over 7 billion people, who would obviously be better off if the PICs were sent to the Fletcher Memorial Home for Incurable Tyrants!

[Jun 25, 2020] Pompeo's UN Move Against Iran Will Fail. Why Is He Still Pressing It

Jun 25, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Pompeo is suggesting that Iran will spend tens of millions on planes, fly them unopposed through the radar coverage of several countries, to let Iranian Kamikaze pilots crash them into some temple in Nepal.

This does not make any sense. No foreign politician will be impressed by this 'argument'. Pompeo's tweet is for consumption at home.

At the UN the U.S. is trying to get a new arms embargo resolution against Iran:

The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump introduced a long-awaited U.N. Security Council (UNSC) draft resolution extending an arms embargo on Iran that is due to expire in October, setting the stage for a great-power clash and likely veto in the U.N.'s principal security body, according to a copy of the draft obtained by Foreign Policy .
...
If passed, the resolution would fall under Chapter VII of the U.N. charter, making it legally binding and enforceable. But the U.S. measure, according to several U.N. Security Council diplomats, stands little chance of being adopted by the 15-nation council.
...
Some council diplomats and other nonproliferation experts see the U.S. move as a way to score political points at home , not to do anything about Iran's destabilizing activities in the region.

"The skeptic in me says that the objective of this exercise is to go through the arms embargo resolution, and when it fails, to use that as an excuse to get a snapback of the embargo, and if and when that fails too, to use as a political talking point in the election campaign ," said Mark Fitzpatrick, a former State Department nonproliferation official now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Since China and Russia are almost certain to ignore any U.N. arms embargo forced by U.S. maneuvers, the practical impact on Iran's ability to cause mischief will be minimal, he said.

"It's not actually about stopping any arms from China and Russia, it's about winning a political argument ," he said.

We explained that the U.S. does not have a 'snapback' option . Russia and China have also clarified that :

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the Chinese government's top diplomat, Wang Yi, both wrote to the 15-member council and U.N. chief Antonio Guterres as the United States threatens to spark a so-called sanctions snapback under the Iran nuclear deal, even though Washington quit the accord in 2018.

Lavrov wrote in the May 27 letter, made public this week, that the United States was being "ridiculous and irresponsible."

"This is absolutely unacceptable and serves only to recall the famous English proverb about having one's cake and eating it," Lavrov wrote.

Washington has threatened to trigger a return of U.N. sanctions on Iran if the Security Council does not extend an arms embargo due to expire in October under Tehran's deal with world powers to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.
...
Lavrov cited a 1971 International Court of Justice opinion, which found that a fundamental principle governing international relationships was that "a party which disowns or does not fulfill its own obligations cannot be recognized as retaining the rights which it claims to derive from the relationship."

Despite the evident failure to convince others the U.S. continues make stupid arguments :

Russia and China will be isolated at the United Nations if they continue down the "road to dystopia" by blocking a U.S. bid to extend a weapons ban on Iran, U.S. Iran envoy Brian Hook told Reuters ahead of his formal pitch of the embargo to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.
...
"We see a widening gap between Russia and China and the international community," Hook said in an interview with Reuters on Tuesday evening.

The U.S. has left the JCPoA deal and can not claim a right under that deal to snap back the sanctions that the deal has lifted. It is the U.S. that is isolated. Even its allies do not support the attempt:

"We firmly believe that any unilateral attempt to trigger UN sanctions snapback would have serious adverse consequences in the UNSC," the foreign ministers of Britain, France, and Germany said in a statement on June 19. "We would not support such a decision which would be incompatible with our current efforts to preserve the JCPoA."

The Trump policy against Iran has failed. He has tried a 'maximum pressure' campaign to blackmail Iran into more concessions. But despite sanctions and economic problems caused by them Iran is not willing to talk with him. Its conditions for talks are clear :

"We have no problem with talks with the U.S., but only if Washington fulfils its obligations under the nuclear deal, apologies and compensates Tehran for its withdrawal from the 2015 deal," Rouhani said in a televised speech.

The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, including the new sanctions against Syria under the 'Ceasar's Law', have been helping Iran to strengthen its position :

Iran is reaping huge benefits, including more robust allies and resistant strongholds as a result of the US's flawed Middle Eastern policies. Motivated by the threat of the implementation of "Caesar' Law", Iran has prepared a series of steps to sell its oil and finance its allies, bypassing depletion of its foreign currency reserves.

Iranian companies found in Syria a paradise for strategic investment and offered the needed alternative to a Syrian economy crippled by sanctions and nine years of war. Iran considers Syria a fertile ground to expand its commerce and business like never before.

With Iran's influence growing and Russia making inroads even with once staunch U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia it seems that real U.S. influence in the Middle East is on a decisive downturn.

Whatever Pompous Pompeo says or tweets will not change that. But there's a sucker born every minute. Some of those may still fall for the stuff he says.

---
Twice a year I ask readers of this blog to support my effort. Please consider contributing .

Posted by b on June 24, 2020 at 17:10 UTC | Permalink

[Jun 23, 2020] John Bolton's Mission was to Destroy Donald Trump's Detente with North Korea

Jun 23, 2020 | nationalinterest.org

Bolton, of course, dismissed the entire concept of diplomacy from the very start. He never bought into the notion that North Korean officials could be talked to sensibly because they were, well, insane. Bolton's version of North Korea diplomacy was to tighten the economic screws, brandish the U.S. military, and wait until one of two things happened: 1) the Kim regime surrendered its entire nuclear weapons program like Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi, or 2) the Kim regime continued to spur Washington's demands, in which the White House would have no option but to use U.S. military force. Bolton's record is analogous to a stereotypical linebacker on an obscene amount of steroids -- smash your opponent to pieces and don't think twice about it. Top Beauty Surgeon Says "Forget Facelifts, This at Home Tip is My #1 Wrinkle Red Del Mar Laboratories Dr: This May Be the Best CBD Ever for Arthritis, Aching Joints & Inflammation Mirror News Online Enlarged Prostate Gone - Just Do This Before Bed (Watch) Newhealthylife 3 Ways Your Cat Asks for Help Dr. Marty The content you see here is paid for by the advertiser or content provider whose link you click on, and is recommended to you by Revcontent. As the leading platform for native advertising and content recommendation, Revcontent uses interest based targeting to select content that we think will be of particular interest to you. We encourage you to view our Privacy Policy and your opt out options here . Got it, thanks! Remove Content Link?

Please choose a reason below:

Submit Cancel

The only problem: North Korea isn't some helpless punter with string bean arms and a lanky midsection. It's a nuclear weapons state fiercely proud of its independence and sovereignty, constantly on guard for the slightest threat from a foreign power, and cognizant of its weakened position relative to its neighbors. This is one of the prime reasons Bolton's obsession with the Libya-style North Korea deal, in which Pyongyang would theoretically discard its entire nuclear apparatus and allow U.S. weapons inspectors to take custody of its nuclear warheads before flying them back to the U.S. for destruction, was unworkable from the start. The Libya-model trumpeted by Bolton was a politically correct way of demanding Pyongyang's total surrender -- an extremely naive goal if there ever was one. When one remembers the fate of Qaddafi 8 years after he traded sanctions relief for his weapons of mass destruction -- the dictator was assaulted and humiliated before being executed in the desert -- even the word "Libya" is treated by the Kim dynasty as a threat to its existence. As Paul Pillar wrote in these pages more than two years ago, "Libya's experience does indeed weigh heavily on the thinking of North Korean officials, who have taken explicit notice of that experience, as a disincentive to reaching any deals with the United States about dismantling weapons programs."

One can certainly take issue with Trump's North Korea policy. Two years of personal diplomacy with Kim Jong-un have yet to result in the denuclearization Washington seeks (denuclearization is more of a slogan than a realistic objective at this point, anyway). But Trump's strategy aside, Bolton's alternative was worse. The president knew his former national security adviser's public insistence on the Libya model was dangerously inept. He had to walk back Bolton's comments weeks later to ensure the North Koreans didn't pull out of diplomacy before it got off the ground. Trump hasn't forgotten about the experience; on June 18, Trump tweeted that "Bolton's dumbest of all statements set us back very badly with North Korea, even now. I asked him, "what the hell were you thinking?"

[Jun 23, 2020] Chickenhawk B olton May Be a Beast, But He's Washington's Creature by Richard Hanania

Personally he is a bully and as such a coward: he can attack only a weaker opponent. His new book shows that however discredited and intellectually thin his foreign policy views are, they always rise to the top. To Bolton the country is simply a vehicle for smiting his enemies abroad.
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton's hawkishness is combined with an equally striking lack of originality. It is possible to be an unorthodox or partisan hawk, as we see in populists who want to get out of the Middle East but ramp up pressure on China, or Democrats who have a particular obsession with Russia. Bolton takes the most belligerent position on every issue without regards for partisanship or popularity, a level of consistency that would almost be honorable if it wasn't so frightening. No alliance or commitment is ever questioned, and neither, for that matter, is any rivalry. ..."
"... Bolton lacks any intellectual tradition or popular support base that he can call his own. Domestic political concerns are almost completely missing from his book, although we learn that he follows "Adam Smith on economics, Edmund Burke on society," is happy with Trump's judicial appointments, and favors legal, but not illegal, immigration. Other than these GOP clichés, there is virtually no commentary or concern about the state of American society or its trajectory. Unlike those who worry about how global empire affects the United States at home, to Bolton the country is simply a vehicle for smiting his enemies abroad. While Bolton's views have been called "nationalist" because he doesn't care about multilateralism, nation-building, or international law, I have never seen a nationalist that gives so little thought to his nation. ..."
"... Bolton recounts how his two top aides, Charles Kupperman and Mira Ricardel, had extensive experience working for Boeing. Patrick Shanahan similarly became acting Secretary of Defense after spending thirty years at that company, until he was replaced by Mark Esper, a Raytheon lobbyist. Why working for a company that manufactures aircraft and weapons prepares one for a job in foreign policy, the establishment has never felt the need to explain, any more than it needs to explain continuing Cold War-era military commitments three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The most important question raised by the career of John Bolton is how someone with his views has been able to achieve so much power. While Bolton gets much worse press and always goes a step too far even for most of the foreign policy establishment, in other ways he is all too typical. Take James Mattis, a foil for Bolton throughout much of the first half of the book. Although more popular in the media, the "warrior monk" slow-walked and obstructed attempts by the president to pull out of the Middle East, and after a career supporting many of the same wars and commitments as Bolton, now makes big bucks in the private sector, profiting off of his time in government. ..."
Jun 23, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, John Bolton, Simon & Schuster, 592 pages

The release of John Bolton's book today has become a Washington cultural event, because he is, by all measures, Washington's creature.

Those who dislike the Trump administration have been pleased to find in The Room Where It Happened confirmation in much of what they already believed about the Ukraine scandal and the president's lack of capacity for the job. Some accusations in the book, such as the story about Trump seeking reelection help from China through American farm purchases, are new, and in an alternative universe could have formed the basis of a different, or if Bolton had his way, more comprehensive, impeachment inquiry.

While Bolton's book has been found politically useful by the president's detractors, the work is also important as a first-hand account from the top of the executive branch over a 19-month period, from April 2018 to September 2019. It also, mostly inadvertently, reveals much about official Washington, the incentive structures that politicians face, and the kind of person that is likely to succeed in that system. Bolton may be a biased self-promoter, but he is nonetheless a credible source, as his stories mostly involve conversations with other people who are free to eventually tell their own side. Moreover, the John Bolton of The Room Where It Happened is no different from the man we know from his three-decade career as a government official and public personality. No surprises here.

There are three ways to understand John Bolton. In increasing order of importance, they are intellectually, psychologically, and politically -- that is, as someone who is both a product of and antagonist to the foreign-policy establishment -- in many ways typical, and in others a detested outlier.

On the first of these, there simply isn't much there. Bolton takes the most hawkish position on every issue. He wants war with North Korea and Iran, and if he can't have that, he'll settle for destroying their economies and sabotaging any attempts by Trump to reach a deal with either country. He takes the maximalist positions on great powers like China and Russia, and third world states that pose no plausible threat like Cuba and Venezuela. At one point, he brags about State reversing "Obama's absurd conclusion that Cuban baseball was somehow independent of its government, thus in turn allowing Treasury to revoke the license allowing Major League Baseball to traffic in Cuban players." How this helps Americans or Cubans is left unexplained.

Bolton's hawkishness is combined with an equally striking lack of originality. It is possible to be an unorthodox or partisan hawk, as we see in populists who want to get out of the Middle East but ramp up pressure on China, or Democrats who have a particular obsession with Russia. Bolton takes the most belligerent position on every issue without regards for partisanship or popularity, a level of consistency that would almost be honorable if it wasn't so frightening. No alliance or commitment is ever questioned, and neither, for that matter, is any rivalry.

Anyone who picks up Bolton's over 500-page memoir hoping to find serious reflection on the philosophical basis of American foreign policy will be disappointed. The chapters are broken up by topic area, most beginning with a short background explainer on Bolton's views of the issue. In the chapter on Venezuela, we are told that overthrowing the government of that country is important because of "its Cuba connection and the openings it afforded Russia, China, and Iran." The continuing occupation of Afghanistan is necessary for preventing terrorists from establishing a base, and, in an argument I had not heard anywhere before, for "remaining vigilant against the nuclear-weapons programs in Iran on the west and Pakistan on the east." Iran needs to be deterred, though from what we are never told.

Bolton lacks any intellectual tradition or popular support base that he can call his own. Domestic political concerns are almost completely missing from his book, although we learn that he follows "Adam Smith on economics, Edmund Burke on society," is happy with Trump's judicial appointments, and favors legal, but not illegal, immigration. Other than these GOP clichés, there is virtually no commentary or concern about the state of American society or its trajectory. Unlike those who worry about how global empire affects the United States at home, to Bolton the country is simply a vehicle for smiting his enemies abroad. While Bolton's views have been called "nationalist" because he doesn't care about multilateralism, nation-building, or international law, I have never seen a nationalist that gives so little thought to his nation.

The more time one spends reading Bolton, the more one comes to the conclusion that the guy just likes to fight. In addition to seeking out and escalating foreign policy conflicts, he seems to relish going to war with the media and the rest of the Washington bureaucracy. His book begins with a quote from the Duke of Wellington rallying his troops at Waterloo: "Hard pounding, this, gentlemen. Let's see who will pound the longest." The back cover quotes the epilogue on his fight with the Trump administration, responding "game on" to attempts to stop publication. He takes a mischievous pride in recounting attacks from the media or foreign governments, such as when he was honored to hear that North Korea worried about his influence over the President. Bolton is too busy enjoying the fight, and as will be seen below, profiting from it, to reflect too carefully on what it's all for.

Bolton could be ignored if he were simply an odd figure without much power. Yet the man has been at the pinnacle of the GOP establishment for thirty years, serving appointed roles in every Republican president since Reagan. The story of how he got his job in the Trump administration is telling. According to Bolton's account, he was courted throughout the transition process and the early days of the administration by Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner, ironic considering the reputation of the former as a populist opposed to forever wars and the latter as a more liberal figure within the White House. Happy with his life outside government, Bolton would accept a position no lower than Secretary of State or National Security Advisor. Explaining his reluctance to enter government in a lower capacity, Bolton provides a list of his commitments at the time, including "Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; Fox News contributor; a regular on the speaking circuit; of counsel at a major law firm; member of corporate boards; senior advisor to a global private-equity firm."

Clearly, being an advocate for policies that can destroy the lives of millions abroad, and a complete lack of experience in business, have proved no hindrance to Bolton's success in corporate America.

Bolton recounts how his two top aides, Charles Kupperman and Mira Ricardel, had extensive experience working for Boeing. Patrick Shanahan similarly became acting Secretary of Defense after spending thirty years at that company, until he was replaced by Mark Esper, a Raytheon lobbyist. Why working for a company that manufactures aircraft and weapons prepares one for a job in foreign policy, the establishment has never felt the need to explain, any more than it needs to explain continuing Cold War-era military commitments three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Ricardel resigned after a dispute over preparations for the First Lady's trip to Africa, an example of how too often in the Trump administration, nepotism and self-interest have been the only checks on bad policy or even greater corruption ("Melania's people are on the warpath," Trump is quoted as saying). Another is when Trump, according to Bolton, was less than vigorous in pursing destructive Iranian sanctions due to personal relationships with the leaders of China and Turkey. At the 2019 G7 summit, when Pompeo and Bolton try to get Benjamin Netanyahu to reach out to Trump to talk him out of meeting with the Iranian foreign minister, Jared prevents his call from going through on the grounds that a foreign government shouldn't be telling the President of the United States who to meet with.

The most important question raised by the career of John Bolton is how someone with his views has been able to achieve so much power. While Bolton gets much worse press and always goes a step too far even for most of the foreign policy establishment, in other ways he is all too typical. Take James Mattis, a foil for Bolton throughout much of the first half of the book. Although more popular in the media, the "warrior monk" slow-walked and obstructed attempts by the president to pull out of the Middle East, and after a career supporting many of the same wars and commitments as Bolton, now makes big bucks in the private sector, profiting off of his time in government.

In the coverage of Bolton, this is what should not be lost. The former National Security Advisor is the product of a system with its own internal logic. Largely discredited and intellectually hollow, and without broad popular support, it persists in its practices and beliefs because it has been extremely profitable for those involved. The most extreme hawks are simply symptoms of larger problems, with the flamboyant Bolton being much more like mainstream members of the foreign policy establishment than either side would like to admit.

Richard Hanania is a research fellow at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University.

Latest Articles Politics If John Roberts Isn't a Conservative, What is He, Exactly? The DACA ruling reveals the chief justice's willingness to trifle with the Constitution to serve his own ends, whatever they may be. Robert W. Merry June 23, 2020 Politics Why Conservative Fusionism Was Destined to Disintegrate We shouldn't confuse soldiers sharing a foxhole for Siamese twins. Tony Woodlief June 23, 2020 Politics Michael Pack Is Right To Rein In State-Funded Broadcasters Elections have consequences, and by any standard, VOA is no longer presenting the policies of the United States Arthur Bloom June 23, 2020 Arts & Letters TAC Bookshelf: What Made the Nazi Police Kill? Here's what TAC's writers and editors are reading this week. TAC Staff June 22, 2020 Politics So It Turns Out You're a Racist Left-wing wokeness has become the totalitarianism it purports to hate, where you're guilty unless you can 'prove' otherwise. Peter Van Buren June 22, 2020 Older Posts Recommended Politics So It Turns Out You're a Racist Left-wing wokeness has become the totalitarianism it purports to hate, where you're guilty unless you can 'prove' otherwise. Peter Van Buren June 22, 2020 Get our new Digital Edition Get a roundup of the most important and intriguing stories from around the world, delivered to your inbox every weekday. Subscribe 3 Ways to support the American Conservative 1. Make a Donation

[Jun 23, 2020] John Bolton Tells How Iran Hawks Set Up Trump's Syrian Kurdish Disaster

Notable quotes:
"... Bolton's account sheds light on how it happened: hawks in the administration, including Bolton himself, wanted U.S. forces in Syria fighting Russia and Iran. They saw the U.S.-Kurdish alliance against ISIS as a distraction -- and let the Turkish-Kurdish conflict fester until it spiralled out of control. ..."
Jun 23, 2020 | nationalinterest.org

The drama eventually ended with President Donald Trump pulling U.S. peacekeepers out of Syria -- and then sending them back in . One hundred thousand Syrian civilians were displaced by an advancing Turkish army, and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces turned to Russia for help. But U.S. forces never fully withdrew -- they are still stuck in Syria defending oil wells .

Bolton's account sheds light on how it happened: hawks in the administration, including Bolton himself, wanted U.S. forces in Syria fighting Russia and Iran. They saw the U.S.-Kurdish alliance against ISIS as a distraction -- and let the Turkish-Kurdish conflict fester until it spiralled out of control.

Pompeo issued a statement on Thursday night denouncing Bolton's entire book as "a number of lies, fully-spun half-truths, and outright falsehoods."

[Jun 22, 2020] MoA community discussion of Bolton book

Notable quotes:
"... let us not forget that bolton threatened a un officials kids because they guy wasn't going along with the iraq war propaganda. ..."
"... Close -- the threatened official was Jose Bustani, at that time (2002) the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)as he had been for five years. ..."
"... Bustani had been working to bring Iraq and Libya into the organization, which would have required those two countries to eliminate all of their chemical weapons. ..."
"... The US, though, had other ideas -- chiefly invading and destroying both of those nations, and when Bustani insisted on continuing his efforts then Bolton threatened Bustani's adult children. ..."
Jun 22, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

pretzelattack , Jun 17 2020 21:49 utc | 14

let us not forget that bolton threatened a un officials kids because they guy wasn't going along with the iraq war propaganda.

Duncan Idaho , Jun 17 2020 22:03 utc | 15

Only with Late Stage Capitalism could we have a vicious war criminal write a book criticizing a psychopathic sociopath.
Anonymous , Jun 17 2020 22:06 utc | 16
The political establishment in Canada appeared dismayed at the prospect of Bolton as National Security Adviser. See these interviews with Hill + Knowlton strategies Vice-chairman, Peter Donolo, from 2018:

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/video/there-s-risk-trump-s-actions-are-driving-the-u-s-into-a-recession-peter-donolo~1342264
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/video/trade-wars-easy-to-start-not-so-easy-to-finish-peter-donolo~1365104

So Bolton gets in, Meng Wangzhou is detained in Vancouver on the US request (that's another story), and in time, Canada appoints a new Ambassador to China - Mr. Dominic Barton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Barton

Then Bolton gets fired. 'Nuff said. Just to let everyone know that Bolton is well and truly hated, as a government official, in certain circles.

AntiSpin , Jun 17 2020 22:07 utc | 17
@ pretzelattack | Jun 17 2020 21:49 utc | 14

Close -- the threatened official was Jose Bustani, at that time (2002) the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)as he had been for five years.

Bustani had been working to bring Iraq and Libya into the organization, which would have required those two countries to eliminate all of their chemical weapons.

The US, though, had other ideas -- chiefly invading and destroying both of those nations, and when Bustani insisted on continuing his efforts then Bolton threatened Bustani's adult children.

Jpc , Jun 17 2020 22:32 utc | 18
Why was he appointment made in the first place anyone,?
Ian2 , Jun 17 2020 23:08 utc | 19
Jpc | Jun 17 2020 22:32 utc | 18:

My guess Trump went along with the tough guy image that Bolton projected in media and recommendations by others.

james , Jun 17 2020 23:13 utc | 20
let the lobbyists with the most money win... that's what defines the usa system, leadership and decision making process... no one in their right mind would support this doofus..
Jen , Jun 17 2020 23:40 utc | 21
At least the one saving grace about John Bolton's memoir is that it might be a tad closer to reality than Christopher Steele's infamous dossier and might prove valuable as a source of evidence in a court of law. Maybe Yosemite Sam himself should start quaking in his boots.
jen , Jun 17 2020 23:42 utc | 22
Jpc @ 18, Ian2 @ 19:

Personal interest on DJT's part? :-)

JC , Jun 17 2020 23:43 utc | 23
Posted by: Tower | Jun 17 2020 21:43 utc | 13

This is the most intelligent post so far.

Yes why not? If Obama awarded the Noble prize even before he begins serving his first term I can't see why Bolton not nominated now. America is a joke, not a banana republic. It deserves Obama, Trump, Bolton or Biden another stoopid joker.

Stoopid president elected by stoopid citizens

Don Bacon , Jun 17 2020 23:44 utc | 24
@ Jpc
When faced with Trump's behavior of employing warmongers, including several generals, some observers opined that Trump wanted people with contrasting opinions so that he could consider them and then say "no." He did more with Bolton eventually, sending him to Mongolia while he (Trump) went to Singapore (or somewhere over there).
A User , Jun 17 2020 23:47 utc | 25
re Ian2 | Jun 17 2020 23:08 utc | 19
who hazarded : My guess Trump went along with the tough guy image that Bolton projected in media and recommendations by others.
Not at all, if you go back to the earliest days of the orangeman's prezdency, you will see Trump resisted the efforts by Mercer & the zionist casino owner to give Bolton a gig.
He knew that shrub had problems with the boasts of Bolton and as his reputation was as an arsehole who sounded his own trumpet at his boss's expense orangeman refused for a long time. Trump believes the trump prezdency is about trump no one else.
Thing was at the time he was running for the prez gig trump was on his uppers, making a few dollars from his tv show, plus licensing other people's buildings by selling his name to be stuck on them. trump tower azerbnajan etc.
He put virtually none of his own money into the 'race' so when he won the people who had put up the dosh had power over him.
Bolton has always been an arse kisser to any zionist cause he suspects he can claw a penny outta, so he used the extreme loony end of the totally looney zionist spectrum to hook him (Bolton) up with a gig by pushing for him with trump.

It was always gonna end the way it did as Bolton is forever briefing the media against anyone who tried to resist his murderous fantasies. Trump is never gonna argue for any scheme that doesn't have lotsa dollars for him in it so he had plenty of run ins with Bolton who then went to his media mates & told tales.
When bolton was appointed orangey's stakes were at a really low ebb among DC warmongers, so he reluctantly took him on then spent the next 18 months getting rid of the grubby parasite.

div> Yosemite Sam did it better. I would prefer a Foghorn Leghorn-type character, for US diplomacy.

Posted by: Ribbit , Jun 18 2020 0:20 utc | 26

Yosemite Sam did it better. I would prefer a Foghorn Leghorn-type character, for US diplomacy.

Posted by: Ribbit | Jun 18 2020 0:20 utc | 26

Kristan hinton , Jun 18 2020 0:46 utc | 27
Real History: Candidate Trump praised Bolton and named him as THE number one Foreign Policy expert he (Trump) respected.

Imagine the mustachioed Mister Potatoe (sic) Head and zany highjinks!

Bolton and one of his first wives were regulars at Plato's Retreat for wife swapping orgies. The wife was not real keen on the behavior, but she allegedly found herself verbally and physically abused for objecting.

DannyC , Jun 18 2020 1:17 utc | 28
Trump is at fault for hiring him to appease the Zionist lobby. We all knew the guy was a warmonger and a scumbag. It's not a surprise. Trump surrounds himself with the worst people
jadan , Jun 18 2020 1:30 utc | 29
Did John Bolton put his personal interests above the will of congress in an attempt to extort the Ukrainian government? You're making a false equivalence. You seem to have a soft spot for Trump. Bolton is an in-your-face son of a bitch, but Trump, Trump is just human garbage.
Kay Fabe , Jun 18 2020 2:27 utc | 30
Pretty much a nothing burger if thats all he has got. Just a distraction. Trumps outrage just meant help Bolton sell some books. Lol. People are so easy to fool.

I still think Bolton managing the operations as COG in Cheneys old bunker. Coming out for a vacation while next phase is planned

Jackrabbit , Jun 18 2020 2:56 utc | 31
Kay Fabe @Jun18 2:27 #29
Pretty much a nothing burger if thats all he has got.

You underestimate the craftiness of this kayfabe.

The tiff with Bolton makes Trump look like a peace-loving moderate so that he's acceptable to Independent voters.

!!

Den lille abe , Jun 18 2020 3:03 utc | 32
Bolton is just another American arsehole. Nothing new. When they do not get their way, the y always turn on their superiors, or those in charge. Bolton is just another "Anhänger" personal gain is what motivates him.
He should have been a blot on his parents bedsheets or at least a forced abortion, but unfortunately that did not happen...
Piotr Berman , Jun 18 2020 3:53 utc | 33
The self-appointed Deep State has pretty much thwarted him (Trump) and his voters.

Posted by: bob sykes | Jun 17 2020 20:55 utc | 11

Trump thwarted Trump. Before he got elected, Trump mentioned his admiration of Bolton more than once. Voters of Trump elected a liar and an incoherent person -- at time, incomprehensible, a nice bonus. But it is worth noticing that Trump never liked being binded by agreement, like, say, an agreement to pay money back to creditors, or whatever international agreement would restrict USA from doing what they damn please.

Superficially, it is mysterious why Trump made an impression that he wants to negotiate with North Korea with some agreement at the end. Was he forced to make a mockery from the negotiation by someone sticking knife to his back?

Some may remember that Trump promised to abolish Affordable Care Act and replace it with "something marvelous". The latest version is that he will start thinking about it again after re-election. If you believe that...

Granted, Trump is more sane than Bolton, but just a bit, unlike Bolton he has some moments of lucidity.

In conclusion, I would advocate to vote for Biden. If you need a reason, that would be that Biden never tweets, or if he does, it is forgettable before the typing is done. Unlike the hideous Trumpian productions.

jason , Jun 18 2020 3:55 utc | 34
"men fit to be shaved," Tiberius, on Bolton and Friedman.

he is the best & brightest we have. when a dreadful mouth is called for. his insights into the Trump WH are probably as deep as his knowledge of VZ, Iran, Cuba, etc. he's a useful idiot, a willing fool. like Trump, he's the verbal equivalent of the cops on the street, in foreign "policy." another abusive father figure

reading the imperial steak turds - an American form of reading the tea leaves or goat livers or chicken flight or celestial what have you. an emperor craps out a big hairy one like Bolton and the priests and hierophants and lawyers and scribes come for a long, close up inspection and fact-gathering smell of another steaming pile of gmo-corn-and-downer-cow-fed, colon cancer causing, Kansas feed-lot raised, grade A Murkin BEEF. guess what they in their wisdom find? Trump stinks.

kiwiklown , Jun 18 2020 4:20 utc | 35
Scotch Bingeington @ 6 -- "Take a look at his face. It's obvious to me that even John Bolton does not enjoy being John Bolton. That mouth, it's drooping to an absurd degree. Comparable to Merkel's face, come to think of it.

At last, someone who notices physionomy!

That face drips with false modesty, kind of trying to make his face say, "... look at harmless old me..."

That walrus bushiness points at an attempt to hide, to camouflage his true thoughts, his malevolence.

That pretended stoop, with one hand clutching a sheaf of briefing papers, emulating the posture of deferential court clerks, speaks to a lifetime of a snake in the grass "fighting" from below for things important to himself.

But those of us who have been around the block a couple times will know to watch our backs around this type. Poisoned-tipped daggers are their fave weapons, and your backs are their fave "battle space". LOL

This statement by Jeffrey Sachs may as well also describe America's leadership crisis: "At the root of America's economic crisis lies a moral crisis: the decline of civic virtue among America's political and economic elite."

kiwiklown , Jun 18 2020 5:29 utc | 36
GeorgeV @ 8 -- "It's like standing on a street corner watching two prostitutes calling each other a whore! How low has the US sunk."

And the US "leadeship" sends these types out to lecture other peoples on "values"? on how to become "normal nations"? on how to "contain" old civilisations such as Iran, Russia, China?

It is axiomatic that the stupid do not know they are stupid. Same goes for morals. The immoral do not know they are immoral. Or, perhaps, as Phat Pomp-arse shows, they know they are immoral, but do not care. Which makes one rightly guess that people like Bolt-On and him must be depraved.

Yes, it may take centuries before the leadership in this depraved Exceptionally Indispensable Nation to become truly normal again.

snake , Jun 18 2020 5:38 utc | 37
Of course, Trump actually campaigned to leave Afghanistan and Syria, and he was elected to do so. The self-appointed Deep State has pretty much thwarted him and his voters. by: bob sykes 11

I wondered about He King claims that Trump actually attempted to do those awful things, . .. , I looked for evidence to prove the claim.. I asked just about every librarian I could find to please show me evidence that confirms the deep state over rode Mr. Trump's actual attempt to remove USA anything from Afghanistan and Syria. thus far, no confirming or supporting facts have been produced. to support such a claim. Mr. Trump could easily have tweeted to his supporters something to the effect that the damn military, CIA, homeland security, state department, foreign service, federal reserve, women's underwear association and smiley Joe's hamburger stand in fact every militant in the USA governed America were holding hands, locked in a conspiracy to block President Trumps attempt to remove USA anything from Afghanistan or Syria.. If Mr. Trump has asked for those things, they would have happened. The next day there would have been parties in the streets as the militant agency heads began rolling as Mr. Trump fired them each and everyone.. No firings happened, the party providers were disappointed, no troops, USA contractors or privatization pirates left any foreign place.. as far as I can tell. 500 + military bases still remain in Europe none have been abandoned.. and one was added in Israel. BTW i heard that Mr. Trump managed to get 17 trillion dollars into the hands of many who are contractors or suppliers to those foreign operations. I can't say I am against Trump, but i can ask you to show me some evidence to prove your claim.

Jackrabbit , Jun 18 2020 5:50 utc | 38
snake @Jun18 5:38 #36

As always, watch what they do, not what they say.

Trump is the Republican Obama. A faux populist 'insider' who pretends to be an 'outsider'.

Trump was selected to be the nationalist President that meets the challenge from Russia and China. And serves all the usual interests while doing so.

Americans fools keep electing these establishment stooges and then wonder why nothing seems to get any better.

!!

Mao , Jun 18 2020 6:25 utc | 39
Sack cartoon: Trump's 'swamp'

https://www.startribune.com/sack-cartoon-trump-s-swamp/401964365/

https://www.startribune.com/sack-cartoon-the-swamp/420668223/

Mao , Jun 18 2020 6:39 utc | 40
Trump searches for new slogan as he abandons Keep America Great amid George Floyd and covid turmoil

The president has taken to inserting the term 'Transition to Greatness' into his remarks. His 2016 slogan was 'Make America Great Again'. After election he polled audiences on whether to go with 'Keep America Great'. He told CPAC this year and said at the State of the Union 'The Best is Yet to Come'. Tweaks come as he trails Biden in new NBC and CNN polls, as the nation struggles with the coronavirus and protests over police violence.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8398993/Donald-Trump-searches-new-slogan-amid-cratering-polls-against-Joe-Biden.html

Mao , Jun 18 2020 6:44 utc | 41
Rudy W. Giuliani @RudyGiuliani

Ukrainian police seize $6 Million in bribes paid to kill the new case into crooked Burisma.

This money is a Followup to the multi-millions in bribes Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and President Poroshenko earned to leverage their offices to kill the original case.

All covered up!

https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1273298170966159366

Ghost Ship , Jun 18 2020 7:28 utc | 42
Christian J. Chuba @ 3
goals that you consider important are different from personal interests.

What personal interests has Trump actually advanced during his time as president. Leaving out the fake allegations, I'm hard put to think of any. If you look at Trump's actual behaviour rather than his bullshit or the bullshit aimed at him, I'm also hard put to think of anything illegal he's done while in office that wasn't done by previous administrations.
Mao , Jun 18 2020 7:41 utc | 43
US President Donald Trump sought help from Xi Jinping to win the upcoming 2020 election, "pleading" with the Chinese president to boost imports of American agricultural products, according to a new book by former national security adviser John Bolton. The accusations were included in an excerpt from The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, which is set to be released on June 23. Bolton also wrote that Trump demonstrated other "fundamentally unacceptable behaviour", including privately expressing support for China's mass interment of Uygur Muslims and other ethnic minority groups in Xinjiang.*This video has been updated to fix a spelling mistake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agk61kyDS1k

Yeah, Right , Jun 18 2020 8:35 utc | 44
@42 Mao I'm struggling to see how "pleading" with any country for it to purchase more US goods is "fundamentally unacceptable behaviour" from a US President.

Pleading to Xi for China to give, say, Israel preferential access to markets, sure.

Down South , Jun 18 2020 9:56 utc | 45
The Saker takes an interesting look at this "spontaneous or popular" revolt taking place in America

https://thesaker.is/what-kind-of-popular-revolution-is-this/#comments

Mao , Jun 18 2020 10:35 utc | 46
The Saker:

I have lived in the United States for a total of 24 years and I have witnessed many crises over this long period, but what is taking place today is truly unique and much more serious than any previous crisis I can recall. And to explain my point, I would like to begin by saying what I believe the riots we are seeing taking place in hundreds of US cities are not about. They are not about:

* Racism or "White privilege"
* Police violence
* Social alienation and despair
* Poverty
* Trump
* The liberals pouring fuel on social fires
* The infighting of the US elites/deep state

They are not about any of these because they encompass all of these issues, and more.

It is important to always keep in mind the distinction between the concepts of "cause" and "pretext". And while it is true that all the factors listed above are real (at least to some degree, and without looking at the distinction between cause and effect), none of them are the true cause of what we are witnessing. At most, the above are pretexts, triggers if you want, but the real cause of what is taking place today is the systemic collapse of the US society.

https://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-systemic-collapse-of-the-us-society-has-begun/

Steve , Jun 18 2020 10:57 utc | 47
The only time I'd be interested in anything Bolton had to say is if he were saying it from the docket at The Hague
Matt , Jun 18 2020 11:40 utc | 48
Don't really want to take sides between those two odious characters, but I think there's a difference in what the paper is saying.

One is about someone pursuing policy goals they favour, the other "personal interest". From what I have seen so far, Bolton's main definition of Trump's "personal interest" is his chances for re-election (rather than any personal business interest).

I think Bolton was happy for Trump to pursue the policy goals he favoured, at least when they coincided with Bolton's!

Tadlak Davidovitsh , Jun 18 2020 12:04 utc | 49
In modern Italy, mentioning Jupiter (Jove) and the ox (Bove) in the same sentence usually implies a demand that the two be treated the same.
450.org , Jun 18 2020 12:07 utc | 50
How many people have cashed in on Trump so far? Countless numbers of them. An ocean of them. Scathing books about Trump is one way to cash in on thr Trump effect, and the authors, many of whom don't even write the book themselves, get promoted and their books promoted in the mainstream media and elsewhere.

There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to Trump. We know everything there is to know about Trump. Some of us knew everything there was to know about him before he became POTUS. And yet, there he is, sitting like the Cheshire Cat in the Oval Office, untouchable and beyond reproach. Meanwhile, even more scathing books are in the pipeline because there's money, so much money, to be made don't you know.

Bolton is a shitbird every bit as much as Trump is and in fact an argument can be made Bolton is even worse and even more dangerous than Trump because if Bolton had his druthers, Iran would be a failed state right about now and America would be bogged down in a senseless money-making (for the defense contractors owned by the extractive wealthy elite) quagmire in Iran just as it was in Iraq and still is in Afghanistan.

Colbert is all into the Bolton book because he and his staff managed to secure an interview with Bolton. Bolton, of course, has agreed to this because it's a great way to promote his book to the likes of Cher who is the perfect example of the demographic Colbert caters to with his show. Some of the commercials during Colbert's show last night? One was an Old Navy commercial where they bragged about how they're giving to the poor. The family they used for the commercial, the recipients of this beneficence, was a black family. Biden is proud of Old Navy because don't you know, poor and black are one and the same. In otherwords, there are no poor people except black people. No, that's not racist. Not at all. Also, another commercial during Colbert's show was for the reopening of Las Vegas amidst the spreading pandemic. This is immediately after a segment where Colbert is decrying Republican governors for opening southern states too early. The hypocritical irony is so stark, you can cut it with a chainsaw.

kiwiklown , Jun 18 2020 12:24 utc | 51
Mao @ 45 quoting The Saker -- ".... the real cause of what is taking place today is the systemic collapse of the US society."

And the cause of American societal collapse has been corrupt US leadership.

In my 50 years of studying American society, I have learned to watch what US leaders do, not what they preach. More profitable is to look at what declassified US documents tell us about the truth, not what the presstitudes of the day pretend to dish up. Also, what other world leaders might, in a candid moment, tell us about America.

450.org , Jun 18 2020 12:30 utc | 52
@50
And the cause of American societal collapse has been corrupt US leadership.

I would argue that this is a symptom or a feature versus the root of the problem. Afterall, a system that allows for creeping entrenched endemic corruption, is a crappy system. It's the system that's the root of this and it's not just isolated to the United States. It's civilization itself that's the root and what enabled civilization -- the spirit in our genes as Reg asserts.

450.org , Jun 18 2020 12:47 utc | 53
@4
I'm fully expecting the Dem "left" to try and praise the monsterous Bolton for "going against Trump", as they did with war criminal Mad Dog Matis and Bush. Bolton has to be one of the most evil mass murders on the face of the Earth. The world will be an infinitely better place when he and his ilk like Netanyahu, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Chertoff..etc finally go back to hell.

I agree. They would, because they already have and continue to do so, coddle and provide apologia for any and all monsters who decry Trump. Hell, I'm convinced they would clamor for Derek Chauvin's exoneration if he vocally decried Trump. Chauvin would make the rounds on the media circuit excoriating Trump and telling the world, contritely of course, that it was Trump who made him do it and now he sees the error of his ways. He'd be on Morning Joe and Chris Cuomo's and Don Lemon's shows not to mention Ari Melber and Anderson Cooper and Lawrence O'Donnell. The conservatives and their networks, who have provided apologia for Chauvin thus far, would now be his worst enemy. Colbert and Kimmel would have him on and guffawing with him asking him how it felt to choke the life out of someone, laughing all the way so long as he hates Trump and tells the world how much he hates Trump.

This world is an insane asylum, especially America. All under the banner and aegis of progress. And to think, humanity wants to export this madness to space and the universe at large. Any intelligent life that would ever make its way to Planet Earth, if ever, would be well-advised to exterminate the species human before it spread its poison to the universe at large. Not that that is possible, but just in case the .000000000001% chance of that does miraculously manifest.

kiwiklown , Jun 18 2020 12:48 utc | 54
Mao @ 42

Concerning Trump "pleading" with Xi, it is only right for a leader to request others to buy more US farm produce. We have only Bolton's word that the request was a plea. We also have only Bolton's word that the request / plea was to seek "help from Xi Jinping to win the upcoming 2020 election". Too early to believe Bolton. Wait till we see the meeting transcripts.

Bolton also alleged that Trump exhibited "fundamentally unacceptable behaviour" concerning the Uygurs. Again, only Bolton's word. Even so, saying it is "unacceptable behavior" presumes that China does wrong to incarcerate Uygurs. If not, ie, China either does not incarcerate them, or if China has good moral grounds to do so, then Bolton is wrong to disagree with his boss for uttering the right sentiment. Judging by how the anglo-zios shout about China's "crime", I tend to think the opposite just might be the truth, and that says that Bolton is simply mudslinging to sell books; score brownie points with the anglo-zios, virtue-signalling for his next gig.

Sabine , Jun 18 2020 12:56 utc | 55
so is Trump or Biden the Yeltsin of the US? And who is gonna be the US version of Putin? Mr. Cotton from Arkansas?
vk , Jun 18 2020 13:00 utc | 56
The American people must decide if Trump is anti-China or Xi's bff. He can't be both at the same time.
murgen23 , Jun 18 2020 13:04 utc | 57
I don't see a contradiction with both sentences.

NYT writes Bolton direct US policy to fit his own political agenda,
while Bolton emphasizes Trump direct US policy in the way that pocket him most money.

Politician Bolton is consistent with his politician job (like it or not), Trump is corrupted.

This is how I understand.

450.org , Jun 18 2020 13:14 utc | 58
@56, I would argue that if one person could be both at the same time, that one person would be Donald Trump. He's already proven, like Chauncey Gardner, he can walk on water. Seriously, that excellent movie, Being There , starring the incomparable Peter Sellers, was about Donald Trump's ascension to the Oval Office.

There Are No Limits Except The Limits We Invent And Impose

augusto , Jun 18 2020 13:44 utc | 59
Using this 'quod licet jovi ...' the author apparently knows quite a bit of Latin, the dead language!
But seriously, the nomination of Bolton who had always behaved like 2nd rate advisor, a 3rd rate mcarthist cold warrior was a surprise to me. Such a short sighted heavily biased person could be, yes, chosen a Minister or advisor in a banana Republic but was picked up by the United states.
One can only conclude such a choice was driven by very specific interests of the deep state.They needed a bulldog and got it for one year and half and threw the stinky perro soon as the job was done.
BM , Jun 18 2020 14:05 utc | 60
And the cause of American societal collapse has been corrupt US leadership.
I would argue that this is a symptom or a feature versus the root of the problem.
Posted by: 450.org | Jun 18 2020 12:30 utc | 52

The primary cause of corrupt leadership is corrupt and corruption-accepting population.

Without a population that is fundamentally corrupt and immoral, corrupt leadership is unstable. Conversely - and this is important to recognise as the same phenomenon - democracy cannot exist if the population accepts and takes for granted corruption, as the two are mutually exclusive. In other words if you root out the corrupt leadership without dealing with the mentality of the population, the corruption will quickly come back and any democratic experiment will collapse very quickly.

There is one important qualifier - an overwhelming external influence (since WWII always the USA, either directly or as secondary effect) can leverage latent corruption so that it becomes more exaggerated than it normally would be.

Down South , Jun 18 2020 14:48 utc | 61
What is clear from only this account of the crucial role of big money foundations behind protest groups such as Black lives Matter is that there is a far more complex agenda driving the protests now destabilizing cities across America. The role of tax-exempt foundations tied to the fortunes of the greatest industrial and financial companies such as Rockefeller, Ford, Kellogg, Hewlett and Soros says that there is a far deeper and far more sinister agenda to current disturbances than spontaneous outrage would suggest.

https://m.journal-neo.org/2020/06/16/america-s-own-color-revolution/

michael888 , Jun 18 2020 15:53 utc | 62
Bolton pretended to be President, screwing up negotiations with his Libya Model talk, threatening Venezuela (and anywhere generally) and directing fleets all over the world (including Britain's to capture that Iranian oil tanker). Vindman revered "Ambassador" Bolton because he was keeping the Ukraine corruption in Americans (and Ukrainian Americans') hands, and daring the Russians to "start" WWIII. Bolton might have been a bit more bearable if he had ever been elected, but was happy to see him go. Trump seemed mystified by him.
juliania , Jun 18 2020 16:29 utc | 63
b has presented us (knowingly or not, but I wouldn't put it past him) with the Socratic question of the presumed identity between the morality of the State and personal morality, as best encountered in Plato's dialogue, 'The Republic' ['Politeia' in the Greek] That dialogue begins by examining personal morality, but changes to an examination of what would bring into being a perfect state. In doing the latter, however, it is how to create public spirited persons, in the best sense, which is the actual concern, and the conversation ranges far and wide, becoming more and more complex.

I've always thought that to consider the perfect state had to be an impossibility if the individual, the person him or herself isn't up to the task - and that is the point of the Politeia enterprise. Like the ongoing relay race on horseback that is happening at the same time in the Piraeus, the passing of the argument one person to another that happens in the dialogue demonstrates that what is most crucial for the state as well as for the individual is personal integrity.

I take as an example the message of Saker's essay, linked by Down South and commented on above by others. Saker is pointing out that the protests have been seized upon by the anti-Trumpists who have been disrupting things from the beginning of his administration. But he also says:

"My personal feeling is that Trump is too weak and too much of a coward to fight his political enemies"

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? The discussion of different kinds of states, which we often have here pursued, or the discussion of what makes a person able to function in one or another state? I don't think Plato was saying that Greece had it made, that Greece needed to throw its weight around more to be great. He's pointing out that it had lost greatness, the same way every empire loses when it forgets that individual spark that is in a single person, his virtue. And the sad thing is it all comes down to the education of our young people in the values, the virtues that apply both to his own personal life and to the life of the state.

At its heart, the protests which are beginning, only beginning, and which are peaceful, may be politeia vs. republic, the 'polis' itself against 'things political'. A new and true enlightenment, multipolar.

karlof1 , Jun 18 2020 16:39 utc | 64
BM @60--

Corruption's been a fact of life in North America ever since it was "discovered." Bernard Bailyn captured it quite well in his The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century , that is during the very first stages of plantation, with most corruption taking place in Old England then exported to the West. Even the Founders were corrupt, although they didn't see themselves as such. Isn't Adam & Eve's corruption detailed in Genesis merely an indicator of a general human trait that needs to be managed via culture? That human culture has generally failed to contain and discipline corruption speaks volumes about both. John Dos Passos in his opus USA noted that everyone everywhere was on the "hustle"--from the hobo to the banker. "Every child gots to have its own" are some of the truest lyrics ever written. Will humanity ever transcend this major failure in its nature?

Allen Edmundson , Jun 18 2020 23:30 utc | 65
Who is behind the claim that China is imprisoning vast numbers of Uighurs in concentration camps and what evidence has been presented? See the Greyzone for its recent report on this.

Edmundson

Jpc , Jun 18 2020 23:39 utc | 66
Thanks to all of you for your insights on Bolton.
I still don't see anything to explain why he got a second gig in the Whitehouse.
Or anything that he did that enhanced US security long term.
And another guy who dodged active service.
Strange angry dude,!
Hoarsewhisperer , Jun 19 2020 14:47 utc | 67
Pat Lang believes that Bolton has breached a law requiring US Officials with access to Top Secret Stuff to submit personal memoirs for scrutiny before publishing. Col Lang is awaiting similar approval for a memoir of his own and thinks Bolton didn't bother waiting for the Official OK.
There's a diverse range of comments. Most commentators like the idea of Bolton being tossed in the slammer. Others speculate that as a Swamp Creature, Bolton will escape prosecution. It's interesting that no-one has asked to see the publisher's copy of the USG's signed & dated Approval To Publish document, relevant to Bolton's book.
arby , Jun 19 2020 19:34 utc | 68
Jut a little thread on Bolton and his book.

It is amazing the way these clowns sit around and talk about countries and people as if they were so much dirt. The arrogance and power is disgusting.

link

[Jun 22, 2020] Does John Bolton deserves a Nobel peace Price? In our perverted world why not.

Jun 22, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Tower , Jun 17 2020 21:43 utc | 13

It's just about time. John Bolton deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. At this point, why not?

JC , Jun 17 2020 23:43 utc | 23

Posted by: Tower | Jun 17 2020 21:43 utc | 13

This is the most intelligent post so far.

Yes why not? If Obama awarded the Noble prize even before he begins serving his first term I can't see why Bolton not nominated now. America is a joke, not a banana republic. It deserves Obama, Trump, Bolton or Biden another stoopid joker.

Stoopid president elected by stoopid citizens

[Jun 21, 2020] Leaker fell victim of the leak: The neocon-warhawk may not see a penny for his book as the PDf was leaked online

MIC eventually will pay this neocon prostitute for services, anyway
Jun 21, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
As Ben Garrison recent noted, in an interview Bolton stated that it was OK for the government agencies to lie to the American people if national security is at stake. And it always seems to be at stake for dominant men who want secrecy and power. Bolton is a dangerous liar and his anti-Trump screed cannot be trusted.

It's time to slam the book shut on Bolton.

[Jun 21, 2020] Paul R. Pillar who pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace'.

Highly recommended!
Jun 21, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Christian J. Chuba , Jun 21 2020 14:18 utc | 78

Re: the Nuremberg trials , I became fascinated by the writings of Paul R. Pillar who pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace' . This is when one country sets up an environment for war against another country. I'll grant you that this is vague but if this is applicable at all how is this not an accurate description of what we are doing against Iran and Venezuela?

In both cases, we are imposing a full trade embargo (not sanctions) on basic civilian necessities and infrastructures and threatening the use of military force. As for Iran, the sustained and unfair demonization of Iranians is preparing the U.S. public to accept a ruthless bombing campaign against them as long overdue. We are already attacking the civilian population of their allies in Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.

How Ironic that the country that boasts that it won WW2 is now guilty of the very crimes that it condemned publicly in court.

[Jun 19, 2020] Bolton should be arrested and charged with any of a number of possible crimes

Jun 19, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Security screening of manuscripts I t is the law in the United States that those who have had legal access to the secrets of the government must submit private manuscripts for removal of such secrets BEFORE they are published or even presented to a potential publisher. Every department of government has an office charged with such work.

I know this process well because my memoir "Tattoo" has been in the hands of the appropriate Defense Department office for nigh on six months. The book is long, and I was so unlucky as to have DoD shut down its auxiliary services during my wait. I have thought of withdrawing it from screening but, surprisingly, the screeners tell me it has some worth for those who will come after. So, I will wait.

All this applies to John Bolton, a career State Department man whose adult life has been soaked in government secrets. I first noticed Bolton as a glowering presence at briefings I gave to selected State Department people with regard to national command authority projects I was running. His attitude was consistent. If the idea was not his, it was simply wrong.

Bolton's "kiss and tell" book about Trump is IMO as much caused by wounded ego as a desire to make money. He submitted the book for security review to DoD and the CIA. Why not State? Ah, Pompeo would tear it to pieces. Bolton evidently grew impatient with the pace of clearance and decided to go ahead with publication without clearance

To do this is a felony. The release of the book today completes the elements of proof for the crime.

Bolton should be arrested and charged with any of a number of possible crimes. pl

Jack , 18 June 2020 at 11:56 AM

Sir,

Let's see what Trump does with Bolton now that he has committed a felony.

My bet is that other than crying on Twitter, he'll not do much. His previous actions/inactions on these matters show weakness.

In any case bitching on Twitter makes him look like an executive with poor hiring judgement as he was the one that hired him. Just like he hired Mattis and Kelly as well as Rosenstein and Wray.

Barbara Ann , 18 June 2020 at 12:03 PM
Bolton being successfully charged with violations associated with his sour grapes hit piece memoir is analogous to Al Capone finally going down for tax evasion. But if that's the way it goes I will not be sad.

Re "Tattoo", your Memorial Day "Ap Bu Nho" extract alone makes "some worth" an amusingly ludicrous understatement. I wish you luck with the censors & very much look forward to one day reading "Tattoo".

eakens , 18 June 2020 at 12:05 PM
Who can we rely on to uphold the rule of law anymore? It's starting to appear we are living in a failed state.
Artemesia , 18 June 2020 at 01:22 PM
AIS

He was a convert to the neocon faith early in life and all else was mischief.

Posted by: turcopolier | 18 June 2020 at 12:21 PM

"He was a convert - - -"
I was going to ask what went wrong with Bolton: was he dropped on his head as an infant? No father in the home? The Dulles brothers spent their childhoods being harangued by their bible-thumping Calvinist grandfather (reports Kinzer in his useful bio on the brothers).

In Jeff Engel's book about the decision-making behind G H W Bush's decision to wage war against Saddam re Kuwait, he recounts that an argument by Brent Scowcroft was significant, AND that "Scowcroft, who was very short," confronted taller-than-average Bush while knees-to-knees in an airplane.
Bolton is shorter than the average American male. Does he have 'short-person' compulsion to compensate?

People psychologize Trump constantly, usually from ignorance and malice. But something is very wrong with Bolton. Pompeo as well. What is it?
"What huge imago made a psychopathic god?" (Auden, Sept. 1939)

Polish Janitor , 18 June 2020 at 04:11 PM
Col Lang,

#1 I read this WaPo article that argued because the recent DOJ's lawsuit against the release of the book is based on "prior restraint on speech before it occurs", meaning the Trump administration cannot censor speech before it happens, therefore there is no 1st amendment breach against the Trump admin by Bolton. As the court elaborated in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, prior restraints are "the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights" and "one of the most extraordinary remedies known to our jurisprudence."

#2 Bolton took all of his notes containing classified intelligence with him after he was fired and nobody took an issue. How is that possible?

#3 The Wapo article says his manuscript was reviewed for four months by one Ellen Knight, an official (doesn't mention which department) responsible for reviewing publishing material and she gave it the green light for publication on April 27th.

#4 During a press conference, Bill Barr gave an unusual take on Bolton's book as if he was giving publicity to the book. He said he had never seen a book being written on Trump with such pace and in such quick time and that it had a lot of sensitive information and stuff. It sounded really odd what Bill Barr said. I dunno maybe I am reading to much between the lines...

#5 With regards to Pompeo, back in September during a press conference at the State, when asked by a reporter about Bolton's firing I specifically remember watching him on TV giving a big meaningful chuckle and a smile... it was revealed later that they clearly did not get along with each other and Pompeo had complained on numerous times that Bolton as NSA, who does not have executive authorities, had been doing a lot of policy stuff and running his own show in shadow.

On a final note, I don't think Bolton is a neocon in the mold of Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams, Kagan, Kristol etc...There is this long piece by New Yorker published last year that really gets into detail of how and why Bolton is not a neocon, but adheres to a more hawkish Jacksonian nationalism approach rather than the liberal idealism of arch neocons I mentioned above. However, he does have quite similar F.P. views with neocon oldies such as Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and Jeane Kirkpatrick.

JohnH , 18 June 2020 at 04:39 PM
If Bolton does NOT get the book thrown at him, it will be pretty good evidence of the existence of the Deep State allowing those it favors to write their own rules. Of course, we already knew that after Clapper lied with impunity to Wyden when he was under oath.
TV , 18 June 2020 at 04:49 PM
He'll never be prosecuted and neither will Comey, Clapper and the rest of the swamp scum.
Strozk (lower on the food chain) might be the human sacrifice (with a sentence of "community service") but no one of any significance (or "royal" title) is ever prosecuted in the swamp.
Trump has tried, but his miserable lack of hiring experience and skill has not made a dent
Polish Janitor , 18 June 2020 at 04:53 PM
Artemisia,

I feel like I have a few words to say about Bolton if I may,

IMHO Bolton's view of the world is very dark and extremely Hobbesian. He is no slouch by any stretch of imagination, in fact he is extremely knowledgeable and masterful when it comes to policy-making and that basically how things are done in D.C. He has made a brand for himself as the most hawkish national security expert in all of America in my opinion. Honestly I cannot think of anyone else who espouses more hawkishness and zero diplomacy than Bolton, ever... maybe Tom Cotton or Liz Cheney but still not close. This is the reason why Trump hired him. In fact Trump did not want to hire him as the top brass in first place, citing his mustache as one reason that would not look good on TV and wanted to give him 2nd tier jobs at the State or as NSA early on, but Bolton refused. Trump, wanted to hire Bolton's "brand" not his policies or hawkishness to intimidate Nkorea, Iran, and China to force them come into making deals with him and him personally.

IMO Trump found out after the first Kim summit that Bolton was
such an ambitious and counterproductive foreign policy maker and one-man-team that if he allowed Bolton to get his way, there would be world war III (Trump's own words) and his most important promise to keep America out of forever wars which was his wining platform over neocons such as Hilary, Jeb and Rubio during 2016 election would disappear into thin air.

So, Trump found ways to check Bolton and keep him out of the loop in sensitive and crucial moments by Mattis, Kelly, Joe Dunford, Pompeo and even Melania (in the case of getting rid of Bolton's close confidant and neocon Mira Ricardel when she called for bombing Iranian forces back in September 2018 in respone to several rockets by iraqi militias hitting the ground close to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad), and even sent him to Mongolia last year on a goose chase to make an embarrassing example of him for undermining him (i.e. Trump's) authority in the case of sitting down with the Taliban in Camp David to discuss military pullout from Afghanistan back in Sep. whereas at the same time Pompeo was smart enough to tow the same line as Trump and survive.

I few years ago I came across this interesting but odd piece by B on the Moon of Alabama on Bolton. I honestly dunno what to make of it.

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2006/02/a_glasshouse_in.html

ked , 18 June 2020 at 05:11 PM
The book is already released in the hundreds. It will be on-line soon enough regardless of the niceties of Barr's attempt to slam shut the barn door, or what the legal system does with Bolton going fwd.
Those close to Trump know his emotional state must be appeased or they will soon be departing - unless there's a DNA match.
Reaction to it will be a test of one's ability to distinguish Bolton from the events he describes & their veracity. Is there anything of Trump's statements & acts (released so far) that surprises anyone... that rings untrue?
Those ideologically (or religiously) dependent upon the Trump Phenomenon for validating their core beliefs will demonstrate how creative true believers can be when attached to a personality.
A.I.S. , 18 June 2020 at 05:34 PM
For what its worth I am looking forward to buying it, should scratch that Peter Scholl Latour itch.

Another thing is that I just dont get the Neocons.
Their politics are bad both from a Machieavellian (dilutes US forces, creates enemies, considerably restricts creative ways in which US power could be employed) and from a moral (obviously) point of view. I also dont get their power, stupid/evil tends to be competed out. Heck, even if they are stupid/evil but very good at beurocratic backbiting stuff, they are still supposedly disadvantadged against skilled beurocratic backbiters that arent stupid/evil (or at least only evil and not stupid).
Is it internal cohesion or a much higher degree of ruthlessness that maintains their position?

PB , 18 June 2020 at 07:05 PM
I've for many years thought that the Bolton problem was best solved with a speedy trial and a swift execution, with remains thrown overboard somewhere in the Indian ocean.
turcopolier , 18 June 2020 at 07:13 PM
polish janitor

He signed an oath to safeguard the secrecy of the information when "read on" for it and another such when he was "read off." The 1st Amendment does not come into it at all

[Jun 18, 2020] Poor Johnny! What's sadder than being a crook, but an ineffective one? I think that's what he is. He may be infamous enough to be a household name, but he never really managed to make a career. Hardly ever did he stay on a job for more than 2 years

Jun 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

John , Jun 17 2020 19:24 utc | 4

I'm fully expecting the Dem "left" to try and praise the monsterous Bolton for "going against Trump", as they did with war criminal Mad Dog Matis and Bush. Bolton has to be one of the most evil mass murders on the face of the Earth. The world will be an infinitely better place when he and his ilk like Netanyahu, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Chertoff..etc finally go back to hell.

karlof1 , Jun 17 2020 19:33 utc | 5

Bolton deserves having a parasite named after him, if that.
Scotch Bingeington , Jun 17 2020 19:57 utc | 6
Poor Johnny! What's sadder than being a crook, but an ineffective one? I think that's what he is. He may be infamous enough to be a household name, but he never really managed to make a career. Hardly ever did he stay on a job for more than 2 years, before his fellow crooks deemed him unfit for his position, again and again. Says a lot.

I hope they will confiscate his book on some flimsy pretext, only to lose the piles of copies in storage, so they cannot possibly be released to bookstores again. Maybe some mice will make use of it to furnish their nests?

Take a look at his face. It's obvious to me that even John Bolton does not enjoy being John Bolton. That mouth, it's drooping to an absurd degree. Comparable to Merkel's face, come to think of it.

GeorgeV , Jun 17 2020 20:25 utc | 8
John Bolton's tell all book about his tenure with the Trump administration is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle burned. It is a fitting description of the leadership of the US government and it's capitol city as a den of backstabbing, corkscrewing and double dealing vipers. It's like standing on a street corner watching two prostitutes calling each other a whore! How low has the US sunk.
bob sykes , Jun 17 2020 20:55 utc | 11
Of course, Trump actually campaigned to leave Afghanistan and Syria, and he was elected to do so. The self-appointed Deep State has pretty much thwarted him and his voters.
uncle tungsten , Jun 17 2020 21:00 utc | 12
karlof1 #5
Blastocystis hominis could be renamed easily enough. It is a pain in the gut and arse.

I will not bother to read any more on Bolton the man is beneath contempt. b has said more than enough.

Tower , Jun 17 2020 21:43 utc | 13
It's just about time. John Bolton deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. At this point, why not?
pretzelattack , Jun 17 2020 21:49 utc | 14
let us not forget that bolton threatened a un officials kids because they guy wasn't going along with the iraq war propaganda.
Duncan Idaho , Jun 17 2020 22:03 utc | 15
Only with Late Stage Capitalism could we have a vicious war criminal write a book criticizing a psychopathic sociopath.
Anonymous , Jun 17 2020 22:06 utc | 16
The political establishment in Canada appeared dismayed at the prospect of Bolton as National Security Adviser. See these interviews with Hill + Knowlton strategies Vice-chairman, Peter Donolo, from 2018:

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/video/there-s-risk-trump-s-actions-are-driving-the-u-s-into-a-recession-peter-donolo~1342264
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/video/trade-wars-easy-to-start-not-so-easy-to-finish-peter-donolo~1365104

So Bolton gets in, Meng Wangzhou is detained in Vancouver on the US request (that's another story), and in time, Canada appoints a new Ambassador to China - Mr. Dominic Barton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Barton
Then Bolton gets fired. 'Nuff said. Just to let everyone know that Bolton is well and truly hated, as a government official, in certain circles.

AntiSpin , Jun 17 2020 22:07 utc | 17
@ pretzelattack | Jun 17 2020 21:49 utc | 14

Close -- the threatened official was Jose Bustani, at that time (2002) the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)as he had been for five years.

Bustani had been working to bring Iraq and Libya into the organization, which would have required those two countries to eliminate all of their chemical weapons.

The US, though, had other ideas -- chiefly invading and destroying both of those nations, and when Bustani insisted on continuing his efforts then Bolton threatened Bustani's adult children.

james , Jun 17 2020 23:13 utc | 20
let the lobbyists with the most money win... that's what defines the usa system, leadership and decision making process... no one in their right mind would support this doofus..
Jen , Jun 17 2020 23:40 utc | 21
At least the one saving grace about John Bolton's memoir is that it might be a tad closer to reality than Christopher Steele's infamous dossier and might prove valuable as a source of evidence in a court of law. Maybe Yosemite Sam himself should start quaking in his boots.
Don Bacon , Jun 17 2020 23:44 utc | 24
@ Jpc
When faced with Trump's behavior of employing warmongers, including several generals, some observers opined that Trump wanted people with contrasting opinions so that he could consider them and then say "no." He did more with Bolton eventually, sending him to Mongolia while he (Trump) went to Singapore (or somewhere over there).
A User , Jun 17 2020 23:47 utc | 25
re Ian2 | Jun 17 2020 23:08 utc | 19
who hazarded : My guess Trump went along with the tough guy image that Bolton projected in media and recommendations by others.
Not at all, if you go back to the earliest days of the orangeman's prezdency, you will see Trump resisted the efforts by Mercer & the zionist casino owner to give Bolton a gig.
He knew that shrub had problems with the boasts of Bolton and as his reputation was as an arsehole who sounded his own trumpet at his boss's expense orangeman refused for a long time. Trump believes the trump prezdency is about trump no one else.
Thing was at the time he was running for the prez gig trump was on his uppers, making a few dollars from his tv show, plus licensing other people's buildings by selling his name to be stuck on them. trump tower azerbnajan etc.
He put virtually none of his own money into the 'race' so when he won the people who had put up the dosh had power over him.
Bolton has always been an arse kisser to any zionist cause he suspects he can claw a penny outta, so he used the extreme loony end of the totally looney zionist spectrum to hook him (Bolton) up with a gig by pushing for him with trump.

It was always gonna end the way it did as Bolton is forever briefing the media against anyone who tried to resist his murderous fantasies. Trump is never gonna argue for any scheme that doesn't have lotsa dollars for him in it so he had plenty of run ins with Bolton who then went to his media mates & told tales.
When bolton was appointed orangey's stakes were at a really low ebb among DC warmongers, so he reluctantly took him on then spent the next 18 months getting rid of the grubby parasite.

Kristan hinton , Jun 18 2020 0:46 utc | 26
Real History: Candidate Trump praised Bolton and named him as THE number one Foreign Policy expert he (Trump) respected.

Imagine the mustachioed Mister Potatoe (sic) Head and zany highjinks!

Bolton and one of his first wives were regulars at Plato's Retreat for wife swapping orgies. The wife was not real keen on the behavior, but she allegedly found herself verbally and physically abused for objecting.

DannyC , Jun 18 2020 1:17 utc | 27
Trump is at fault for hiring him to appease the Zionist lobby. We all knew the guy was a warmonger and a scumbag. It's not a surprise. Trump surrounds himself with the worst people

[Jun 17, 2020] Collusion with China, wanting to stay in office forever Leaked Bolton book excerpts cash in on anti-Trump frenzy

If we view Bolton as Adelson puppet, such a behaviour clearly does not make much sense. Or this is a single from Israel lobby to Trump "moor did his duty, moor can go"?
Notable quotes:
"... "a variety of instances when he sought to intervene in law enforcement matters for political reasons." ..."
"... "in effect, give personal favors to dictators he liked," ..."
"... "The pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life, which we couldn't accept," ..."
"... "bombshells" ..."
"... "exactly the right thing to do." ..."
"... "systematic use of indoctrination camps, forced labor, and intrusive surveillance to eradicate the ethnic identity and religious beliefs of Uyghurs and other minorities in China." ..."
"... "Panda Hugger." ..."
"... The mustachioed warhawk had served as Trump's national security adviser from April 2018 to September 2019. While the exact reason for his firing was never revealed, Trump has since commented that Bolton was interfering with his peace initiatives and had "never seen a war he didn't like." ..."
"... Indeed, the "most irrational thing" Bolton accuses Trump of was to refuse to bomb Iran in June 2019, according to the New York Times excerpt. ..."
"... "soft on China" ..."
"... As for Trump supporters, many were indifferent about Bolton's betrayal, noting that Trump hired the neocon in the first place and kept him on for over a year, while ditching the faithful General Michael Flynn after less than two weeks on the job, following a FBI ambush and a Washington Post hit job. ..."
Jun 17, 2020 | www.rt.com
Former national security adviser John Bolton has leaked excerpts of his book to major newspapers, accusing President Donald Trump of colluding with leaders in China and Turkey, and obstruction of justice "as a way of life." Facing a DOJ lawsuit seeking to block the publication of his memoir for containing classified information, Bolton decided to go to the press, leaking parts of the book to the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday.

Breaking News: John Bolton says in his new book that the House should have investigated President Trump for potentially impeachable actions beyond Ukraine https://t.co/8lpd4xAzYu

-- The New York Times (@nytimes) June 17, 2020

Bolton famously refused to testify before the Democrat-led impeachment proceedings against Trump over his alleged abuse of power regarding Ukraine, but now claims that they should have expanded the probe to "a variety of instances when he sought to intervene in law enforcement matters for political reasons."

He accuses Trump of wanting to "in effect, give personal favors to dictators he liked," bringing up companies in China and Turkey as examples, according to the Times. "The pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life, which we couldn't accept," the Times quotes him as saying.

One of the Bolton "bombshells" is that he sought China's purchase of US soybeans in order to get re-elected, during trade negotiations with President Xi Jinping.

SOYBEAN DIPLOMACY: The WSJ has published an excerpt of @AmbJohnBolton 's forthcoming book, revealing Trump-Xi conversation and how the American president pleaded his Chinese counterpart to buy U.S. soybeans so he could win farm states in the 2020 presidential elections | #OATT pic.twitter.com/XKAogLCCtN

-- Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) June 17, 2020

An excerpt in the Wall Street Journal has Trump telling Xi that – alleged – concentration camps for Uighur Muslims in China's Xinjiang province were "exactly the right thing to do." It also alleges that Trump did Xi a favor by relaxing US sanctions on ZTE, a Chinese telecom company.

WSJ excerpt of Bolton book has Trump & China bombshells. Trump told Xi building concentration camps for Muslims "was exactly the right thing to do." Trump pleaded w/ Xi to help him w/ re-election by making US farm product buys. And Trump helped Xi w/ ZTE. https://t.co/4CSflQQqcL

-- Edward Wong (@ewong) June 17, 2020

This comes as Trump signed into law the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020, which mandates US sanctions against Chinese officials over "systematic use of indoctrination camps, forced labor, and intrusive surveillance to eradicate the ethnic identity and religious beliefs of Uyghurs and other minorities in China."

Another excerpt has Bolton referring to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin as a "Panda Hugger."

According to Bolton, Trump told Xi to "go ahead with building the camps" for imprisoned Uighurs.

-- Philip Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) June 17, 2020

As another proof of Trump's perfidy, Bolton writes that the president told Xi that he would like to stay in office beyond the two terms the US Constitution would allow him. Bolton's one-time colleague Dinesh D'Souza commented that Bolton was unable to recognize a clear joke.

Really? This is it? John Bolton's smoking gun? Trump has been jokingly putting out memes about this for four years. This conversation, if it occurred at all, seems obviously jocular. Bolton, however, whom I knew quite well from AEI, doesn't have a jocular bone in his body pic.twitter.com/Qe8sXCAT58

-- Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) June 17, 2020

Trump has on more than one occasion shared a meme showing him staying in power forever, triggering Democrats into denouncing him as an aspiring dictator. Apparently, Bolton thought the same.

According to John Bolton posting this meme was an impeachable offense https://t.co/q2BHlfVTEu

-- Will Chamberlain 🇺🇸 (@willchamberlain) June 17, 2020

The mustachioed warhawk had served as Trump's national security adviser from April 2018 to September 2019. While the exact reason for his firing was never revealed, Trump has since commented that Bolton was interfering with his peace initiatives and had "never seen a war he didn't like."

Indeed, the "most irrational thing" Bolton accuses Trump of was to refuse to bomb Iran in June 2019, according to the New York Times excerpt.

Pretty telling that the episode which pissed off Bolton the most during his tenure was Trump calling off airstrikes which would have killed dozens of Iranian soldiers in June 2019 https://t.co/ruFSInj2Mu pic.twitter.com/5zO7UrxMTM

-- Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) June 17, 2020

Arguing that Trump is being "soft on China" and colluding with Xi also happens to be a Democratic Party strategy for the 2020 presidential election, outlined in April and reported by Axios.

While Democrats and the mainstream media welcomed Bolton's bombshells as validating their position on Trump, he is unlikely to become a #Resistance hero, simply because they still remember he refused to say these things under oath during the impeachment hearings, when they – in theory – could have bolstered their case for getting Trump out of office.

As for Trump supporters, many were indifferent about Bolton's betrayal, noting that Trump hired the neocon in the first place and kept him on for over a year, while ditching the faithful General Michael Flynn after less than two weeks on the job, following a FBI ambush and a Washington Post hit job.

Do I care that Bolton is stabbing Trump in the back? Not at all. General Flynn was NSA and Trump made his choices. Being outraged on behalf of a 70+ year old man who makes poor choices is well beyond my job description.

-- Blue Flu Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 17, 2020

[Jun 16, 2020] It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future (incorrectly attributed to Yogi Berra)

Jun 16, 2020 | carnegieendowment.org

... There are no signs that the [USA-Russia] relationship will improve in the near future.

[Jun 14, 2020] Jeane J. Kirkpatrick 30 Years Unheeded

Highly recommended!
The national security establishment does represent the actual government of dual "double government". And it is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the elected branches of government. Instead it controls them and is able to stage palace coups to remove "unacceptable" Presidents like was the case with JFK, Nixon and Trump.
For them is are occupied country and then behave like real occuplers.
Notable quotes:
"... In Trumpian fashion, Kirkpatrick then goes on to warn Americans about the danger of an unaccountable "deep state" in foreign policy that is immune to popular pressures. ..."
"... She says that, no, "it has become more important than ever that the experts who conduct foreign policy on our behalf be subject to the direction of and control of the people." ..."
"... She points out that because America had for much of the twentieth century assumed global responsibilities, our foreign policy elites had developed "distinctive views" that are different from those of the electorate. ..."
"... foreign policy elites "grew accustomed to thinking of the United States as having boundless resources and purposes . . . which transcended the preferences of voters and apparent American interests . . . and eventually developed a globalist attitude." ..."
"... In support of Kirkpatrick's concern, Tufts professor Michael Glennon has more recently argued that the national security establishment has now become so "distinctive" in their separation from our constitutional processes that they represent one wing of a now "double government" that is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the popular branches of government. The Russiagate investigations and the attempt to disable the Trump presidency, aided by many in the establishment, would appear to confirm Kirkpatrick's warning that foreign policy elites want no part of the electoral preferences of voting Americans. ..."
"... Kirkpatrick died in 2006 and had, like many neoconservatives, evolved from a Humphrey Democrat into a member of the GOP establishment. With William Bennett and Jack Kemp, in 1993 she cofounded a neoconservative group, Empower America, which took a very aggressive stance against militant Islam after the 9/11 attacks. However, she was quite ambivalent about the invasion of Iraq and was quoted in The Economist ..."
Jun 14, 2020 | nationalinterest.org

Kirkpatrick's essay begins by insisting that, because of world events since 1939, America has given to foreign affairs "an unnatural focus." Now in 1990, she says, the nation can turn its attention to domestic concerns that are more important because "a good society is defined not by its foreign policy but its internal qualities . . . by the relations among its citizens, the kind of character nurtured, and the quality of life lived." She says unabashedly that "there is no mystical American 'mission' or purposes to be 'found' independently of the U.S. Constitution and government."

One cannot fail to notice that this perspective is precisely the opposite of George W. Bush's in his second inauguration. According to Bush, America's post –Cold War purpose was to follow our "deepest beliefs" by acting to "support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture." For three decades neoconservative foreign policy has revolved around "mystical" beliefs about America's mission in the world that are unmoored from the actual Constitution.

In Trumpian fashion, Kirkpatrick then goes on to warn Americans about the danger of an unaccountable "deep state" in foreign policy that is immune to popular pressures. She rejects emphatically the views of some elitists who argue that foreign policy is a uniquely esoteric and specialized discipline and must be cushioned from populism. She says that, no, "it has become more important than ever that the experts who conduct foreign policy on our behalf be subject to the direction of and control of the people."

She points out that because America had for much of the twentieth century assumed global responsibilities, our foreign policy elites had developed "distinctive views" that are different from those of the electorate. Again, in Trumpian fashion, she argued that foreign policy elites "grew accustomed to thinking of the United States as having boundless resources and purposes . . . which transcended the preferences of voters and apparent American interests . . . and eventually developed a globalist attitude."

In support of Kirkpatrick's concern, Tufts professor Michael Glennon has more recently argued that the national security establishment has now become so "distinctive" in their separation from our constitutional processes that they represent one wing of a now "double government" that is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the popular branches of government. The Russiagate investigations and the attempt to disable the Trump presidency, aided by many in the establishment, would appear to confirm Kirkpatrick's warning that foreign policy elites want no part of the electoral preferences of voting Americans.

Kirkpatrick concludes her essay with thoughts on "What should we do?" and "What we should not do." Remarkably, her first recommendation is to negotiate better trade deals. These deals should give the U.S. "fair access" to foreign markets while offering "foreign businesses no better than fair access to U.S. markets." Next, she considered the promotion of democracy around the world and, on this subject, she took the John Quincy Adams position : that "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be." However, she insisted: "it is not within the United States' power to democratize the world."

When Kirkpatrick goes on to discuss America's post –Cold War alliances, she makes clear that she is advocating, quite simply, an America First foreign policy. Regarding the future of the NATO alliance, a sacrosanct pillar of the American foreign policy establishment, she argued that "the United States should not try to manage the balance of power in Europe." Likewise, we should be humble about what we can accomplish in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union: "Any notion that the United States can manage the changes in that huge, multinational, developing society is grandiose." Finally, with regard to Asia: "Our concern with Japan should above all be with its trading practices vis-à-vis the United States. We should not spend money protecting an affluent Japan, though a continuing alliance is entirely appropriate."

She famously concludes her essay by making the plea for the United States to become "a normal country in a normal time" and "to give up the dubious benefits of superpower status and become again an unusually successful, open American republic."

Kirkpatrick became Ronald Reagan's United Nations ambassador because her 1979 article in Commentary , "Dictatorships and Double Standards," caught the eye of the future president. In that article, she sensibly points out that authoritarian governments that are allies of the United States should not be kicked to the curb because they are not free and open democracies. The path to democracy is a long and perilous one, and nations without republican traditions cannot be expected to make the transition overnight. Regarding the world's oldest democracy, she remarked: "In Britain, the road from the Magna Carta to the Act of Settlement, to the great Reform Bills of 1832, 1867, and 1885, took seven centuries to traverse."

While at the time neoconservatives opportunistically embraced her for this position as a tactic to fight the Cold War, the current foreign policy establishment would consider Kirkpatrick's argument to be beyond the bounds of decent conversation, as it would lend itself to an accommodation with authoritarian Russia as a counterweight to totalitarian China.

Kirkpatrick died in 2006 and had, like many neoconservatives, evolved from a Humphrey Democrat into a member of the GOP establishment. With William Bennett and Jack Kemp, in 1993 she cofounded a neoconservative group, Empower America, which took a very aggressive stance against militant Islam after the 9/11 attacks. However, she was quite ambivalent about the invasion of Iraq and was quoted in The Economist as saying that George W. Bush was "a bit too interventionist for my taste" and that Bush's brand of moral imperialism is not "taken seriously anywhere outside a few places in Washington, DC."

The fact that Kirkpatrick's recommendations in her 1990 essay coincide with some of Donald Trump's positions in the 2016 campaign (if not with many of his actual actions as president) make her views, ipso facto, not serious. The foreign policy establishment gives something like pariah status to arguments that we should negotiate better trade deals, reconsider our Cold War alliances and, most especially, subject American foreign policy to popular preferences. If she were alive today and were making the arguments she made in 1990, then she would be an outcast. That a formidable intellectual like Kirkpatrick would be dismissed in such a fashion is a sign of how obtuse our foreign policy debate has become.

William S. Smith is Senior Research Fellow and Managing Director of the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America. His recent book, Democracy and Imperialism , is from the University of Michigan Press. He studied political philosophy under Professor Jeane Kirkpatrick as an undergraduate at Georgetown University.

[Jun 13, 2020] Note on Trump/Pompeo diplomacy of insults: Iran proved to be quite good at swapping insults with the USA and Iran's insults are usually funnier

Jun 13, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Hoarsewhisperer , Jun 12 2020 23:08 utc | 27

Since this nothing-burger appears to have kicked off with an article in the NYT, it looks to me as though someone reminded The Swamp that Iran hasn't been disarmed and is thus not the kind of soft target that can be pushed around with impunity by AmeriKKKa. Imo, Iran is a lot closer to the top of the Military Genius pecking order than AmeriKKKa. i.e. Iran has made it quite clear that "Israel" will cop the blowback if Iran is attacked, and has also demonstrated its ability to conduct high-precision strikes on US bases & bunkers in the region. Iran is also quite good at swapping insults with AmeriKKKa and Iran's insults are usually funnier than AmeriKKKa's...

Threatening North Korea probably seemed like a better/safer idea than threatening Iran but only until China's diplomatic comedians start ripping into AmeriKKKa's loud-mouthed dorks and daydreamers.

[May 26, 2020] Mike Pompeo is the number one evangelist of Trumpism in the world by Michael H Fuchs

Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo's penchant for undermining America's credibility is top-notch. ..."
May 25, 2020 | www.theguardian.com

When it comes to foreign policy, Pompeo's penchant for undermining America's credibility is top-notch

'Pompeo is a natural Trumpist.' Donald Trump's disdain for the people, country and values his office is supposed to represent is unmatched in recent memory. And he has found in the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo , a kindred spirit who has embraced his role as Trumpism's number one proselytizer to the world.

Pompeo doesn't wield nearly as much power or have the jurisdiction to inflict damage on as wide a range of issues as the president. He's not as crass or erratic as Trump, and his Twitter feed seems dedicated more to childish mockery than outright attacks. But when it comes to foreign policy, Pompeo's penchant for undermining America's credibility is top-notch.

At Pompeo's recommendation, Trump fired the state department's inspector general, who is supposed to be an independent investigator charged with looking into potential wrongdoing inside the department. Steve Linick was just the latest in a series of inspectors general across the government that Trump had fired in an attempt to hide the misconduct of his administration – but it also shone a spotlight on how Pompeo has undermined his agency.

Watchdog was investigating Pompeo for arms deal and staff misuse before firing

According to news reports, Pompeo was being investigated by the inspector general for bypassing Congress and possibly breaking the law in sending weapons to Saudi Arabia, even though his own department and the rest of the US government advised against the decision. He was also supposedly organizing fancy dinners – paid for by taxpayers – with influential businesspeople and TV personalities that seemed geared more towards supporting Pompeo's political career than advancing US foreign policy goals. And he was reportedly being scrutinized for using department personnel to conduct personal business, such as getting dry cleaning and walking his dog.

But these revelations merely reaffirm a pattern of activities by Pompeo unbecoming of the nation's top diplomat. When the House of Representatives was in the process of impeaching Trump over his attempt to extort Ukraine for personal political purposes – an act that Pompeo was aware of – Pompeo defended Trump while throwing under the bus career state department officials, like the ousted US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who spoke out. Pompeo has regularly ignored Congress, withholding documents from lawmakers – including during the Ukraine impeachment investigation – and refusing to appear for testimony. In 2019, the IG released a report detailing political retaliation against career state department officials being perpetrated by Trump officials. And Pompeo has spent considerable time traveling to Kansas and conducting media interviews there, fueling speculation that he has been using his position to tee up a run for the Senate, a violation of the Hatch Act.

Pompeo is a natural Trumpist. In her fantastic profile of the secretary of state, Susan Glasser notes of his first congressional race: "Pompeo ran a nasty race against the Democrat, an Indian-American state legislator named Raj Goyle, who, unlike Pompeo, had grown up in Wichita. Pompeo's campaign tweeted praise for an article calling Goyle a 'turban topper', and a supporter bought billboards urging residents to 'Vote American – Vote Pompeo'."

... ... ...

Facebook Twitter Pinterest 'Trump is undermining American leadership in incalculable ways, and Pompeo has weaponized the state department on the president's behalf.' Photograph: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

Next to Trump's assault on US values, Pompeo's role as top Trump lackey may seem insignificant. But the secretary of state is often the most senior US official that other countries and publics hear from on any number of issues. Even with Trump in the Oval Office, a secretary of state that was committed to the constitution - not Trump - would at least be able to fight for the values that US foreign policy should embody, and shield the department's day-to-day business from Trump's outbursts.

The work that department professionals conduct around the world – helping American citizens abroad get home in the early days of the pandemic or coordinating assistance to other countries to cope with the coronavirus – is vital to American national security, and at the core of the image that America projects abroad.

Trump is undermining American leadership in incalculable ways, and Pompeo has weaponized the state department on his behalf

... ... ...

[May 24, 2020] About Pompeo threat to cut Australia from the fives eyes intelligence flows

From MoA comment 57: "Warmongering shit bags endlessly flatulent about their moral superiority while threatening to nuke nations on the other side of the globe daily. ... the greatness of the US consists of how gullible its hyper-exploited populace has been to a long series of Donald Trumps who use the resources of the land and people for competitive violence against other nations. the world heaves a collective hallelujah that this bullshit is about to end. "
Notable quotes:
"... Lets reverse that point, shall we. There is a US spy base in Australia at a place called Pine Gap. Without it being operational the USA would lose its 3 dimensional vision across the planet. ..."
"... This Bannon/Trump bluster is weak as p!ss as 'sharing intelligence' is the cornerstone of the five eyes perversion that gives the USA some superiority in intelligence matters. So if sharing intelligence were withdrawn by the USA with Australia it would have meaningless consequences. ..."
"... Pompeo is blathering bullsh!t and he knows it and we all know it ..."
May 24, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

uncle tungsten , May 25 2020 0:44 utc | 56

vk #4
Pompeo Warns US May Stop Sharing Intelligence With Australia Over Victoria Inking Deal With China's BRI

The battle for Australia's soul has begun.

Lets reverse that point, shall we. There is a US spy base in Australia at a place called Pine Gap. Without it being operational the USA would lose its 3 dimensional vision across the planet.

This Bannon/Trump bluster is weak as p!ss as 'sharing intelligence' is the cornerstone of the five eyes perversion that gives the USA some superiority in intelligence matters. So if sharing intelligence were withdrawn by the USA with Australia it would have meaningless consequences.

On the other hand if Australia ceased its intelligence sharing and shut down all the data traffic out of Australia - the USA would go ballistic. Not that the Oz government would ever do such a thing being a craven water carrier for the new world order etc...

Pompeo is blathering bullsh!t and he knows it and we all know it. Odd that you would reiterate his brainless threat vk.

[May 19, 2020] America: "We demand an coronavirus origin investigation, but the investigators must agree on the outcome that we specify before they begin investigating!"

Highly recommended!
May 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

William Gruff , May 18 2020 15:40 utc | 13

America: "We demand an investigation, but the investigators must agree on the outcome that we specify before they begin investigating!"

Why not? It works for gas attacks, chemical weapons poisoning, and airliner shoot downs, so why not biological weapons attacks too?

[May 18, 2020] Trump Fires State's IG to Protect Pompeo from Investigation

May 18, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Yhe president announced on Friday that he was firing Steve Linick, the State Department's Inspector General. One possible reason that Linick was removed may have been that he was conducting an investigation into the bogus emergency declaration that the administration used to expedite arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE last year:

House Democrats have discovered that the fired IG had mostly completed an investigation into Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's widely criticized decision to skirt Congress with an emergency declaration to approve billions of dollars in arms sales to Saudi Arabia last year, aides on the Foreign Affairs Committee tell me.

"I have learned that there may be another reason for Mr. Linick's firing," Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement sent to me. "His office was investigating -- at my request -- Trump's phony declaration of an emergency so he could send weapons to Saudi Arabia."

If Linick was investigating the bogus emergency declaration, he would have come across reporting that showed how a former Raytheon lobbyist serving at the department was instrumental in pushing through the plan to expedite arms sales that benefited his old employer. He would have discovered that there was no genuine emergency that justified going around Congress. Once his investigation was concluded, it would have found that the emergency declaration was made in bad faith and that the law was abused so that the administration could proceed with arms sales that Congress opposed.

Another reason for the firing was to protect Mike Pompeo from an investigation into the Secretary's abuses of government resources for personal purposes:

The State Department inspector general fired by President Trump was looking into allegations that a staffer for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was performing domestic errands and chores such as handling dry cleaning, walking the family dog and making restaurant reservations, said a congressional official familiar with the matter.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released a statement immediately on Friday objecting to Linick's firing and suggesting that it might be an illegal act of retaliation. There will now be a Congressional investigation into the circumstances surrounding Linick's firing. If Trump hoped to reduce the scrutiny on Pompeo by getting rid of Linick, he will be disappointed. It remains to be seen how much of a price Pompeo will pay for this, but the price is likely higher now than it would have been if he hadn't pushed for removing the inspector general.

Pompeo reportedly recommended Linick's removal. This is not the first time that Pompeo has been accused of misusing government resources. There was a report last summer that a whistleblower alleged that Pompeo and his wife were using Diplomatic Security agents as their personal errand boys:

Democrats on a key House congressional committee are investigating allegations from a whistleblower within the State Department about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his family's use of taxpayer-funded Diplomatic Security -- prompting agents to lament they are at times viewed as "UberEats with guns".

Congressional investigators, who asked for the committee not to be named as they carry out their inquiries, tell CNN that a State Department whistleblower has raised multiple issues over a period of months, about special agents being asked to carry out some questionable tasks for the Pompeo family.

Pompeo has also repeatedly used government resources for domestic travel that seems to have more to do with advancing the Secretary's political ambitions in Kansas. There has been widespread speculation that he has used official trips in an attempt to lay the groundwork for a possible Senate campaign . If so, it would be a flagrant violation of the Hatch Act. That prompted a call for a special counsel investigation into Pompeo's travel. If Pompeo and his wife have been using a political appointee as a gofer, that would be more of the same abusive behavior.

Linick has previously clashed with other Trump administration officials at State. Last year, he released a damning report on Brian Hook over his treatment of Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, the Iranian-American official who was apparently targeted for political retaliation because of her policy views and ethnic background. The fired inspector general was well-respected at the department, and his firing at Pompeo's urging will likely cause further demoralization at a department that has already been run into the ground under the Secretary's dismal leadership.

The Secretary of State seems to think that government funds and personnel are at his disposal for his personal errands and political activities. Linick was doing exactly what an inspector general is supposed to be doing by investigating the allegations against him, and then he was conveniently fired on Pompeo's recommendation. You could hardly ask for a more straightforward case of a corrupt official using his influence to remove the person responsible for scrutinizing his conduct. If Linick was also fired because he was in the process of exposing the administration's dishonest push for more arms sales to the Saudi coalition, that makes his removal all the more outrageous and sinister.

JMWB • an hour ago

Mike Pompeo is a Tea Party darling. The Tea Party's motto should be : Austerity, fiscal responsibility, and integrity for Thee, but not for Me.
Feral Finster JMWB • 33 minutes ago
Mike Pompeo's idea of austerity is only a double order of french fries.

[May 15, 2020] "We lied, we cheated, we stole", version 2.0

May 15, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

WHY IS THE US IN SYRIA?

Washington longer bothers to prettify – the boot is straight to the face. ISIS?

Forget ISIS says Jeffrey : " My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians ".

An amazing confession, in the same class as " We lied, we cheated, we stole ".

[May 13, 2020] Dramatic change of direction for Syrian envoy

Highly recommended!
This is MIGA in action...
Notable quotes:
"... former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of "killing Russians and Iranians covertly" ). ..."
"... Ironically, Jeffrey's official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially "give the Russians hell". His comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute : ..."
"... He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus. As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of Jeffrey's remarks: "He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government." ..."
May 13, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Washington now says it's all about defeating the Russians . While it's not the first time this has been thrown around in policy circles (recall that a year after Russia's 2015 entry into Syria at Assad's invitation, former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of "killing Russians and Iranians covertly" ).

And now the top US special envoy to region, James Jeffrey, has this to say on US troops in Syria :

"My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."

Ironically, Jeffrey's official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially "give the Russians hell". His comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute :

Asked why the American public should tolerate US involvement in Syria, Special Envoy James Jeffrey points out the small US footprint in the fight against ISIS. "This isn't Afghanistan. This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire. My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."

He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus. As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of Jeffrey's remarks: "He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government."

"My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."

Special US envoy to Syria - James Jeffery

He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government. https://t.co/MSAkQqAmdh

-- Joshua Landis (@joshua_landis) May 12, 2020

But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington's real proxy war interests all along, which is why last year Russia delivered it's lethal S-300 into the hands of Assad (and amid constant Israeli attacks). But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington's real proxy war interests all along, which is why last year Russia delivered it's lethal S-300 into the hands of Assad (and amid constant Israeli attacks).

As for oil, currently Damascus is well supplied by the Iranians, eager to dump their stock in fuel-starved Syria amid the global glut. Trump has previously voiced that part of US troops "securing the oil fields" is to keep them out of the hands of Russia and Iran.

* * *

Recall the CIA's 2016 admission of what's really going on in terms of US action in Syria:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/OJ3fTFHQ0KA

[May 07, 2020] Is "raptuted" Pompeo functionally illiterate?

May 07, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , May 5 2020 22:22 utc | 29

Haven't heard from Iranian FM Zarif in awhile. Here he is calling Pompeo illiterate or so it seems:

".@SecPompeo pretends UNSCR 2231 is independent from #JCPOA.

"He should READ 2231.

"JCPOA is PART of 2231. That's why it's 104 pages -- & why he's not read it.

"2231 for Dummies:

"-It would NOT EXIST w/o JCPOA

"-US violated it & prevented others from complying

"-US has NO standing."

[May 07, 2020] Bolton and the culture of corruption and intimidation

May 07, 2020 | www.unz.com

Sam 12123 , says: Show Comment May 6, 2020 at 8:39 pm GMT

The OPCW is claimed to be an independent agency but we know that it suppressed the results of its own engineers when it reported that the Syrian government was responsible for the alleged chemical attack in Douma. The former head of the agency has publicly asserted that when John Bolton demanded that he step down, he added, "We know where your children live." The US has a history of corruption and intimidation. Any investigation would result in finding China responsible just as Russia was found to be responsible for the airliner that was shot down over Ukraine.

[May 06, 2020] McMaster and the Myths of Empire by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Myths of Empire ..."
May 06, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
| Ethan Paul dismantles H.R. McMaster's "analysis" of the Chinese government and shows how McMaster abuses the idea of strategic empathy for his own ends:

But the reality is that McMaster, and others committed to great power competition, is actually playing the role of Johnson and McNamara. This shines through clearest in McMaster's selective, and ultimately flawed, application of strategic empathy.

Just as Johnson and McNamara used the Joint Chiefs as political props, soliciting their advice or endorsement only when it could legitimize policy conclusions they had already come to, McMaster uses strategic empathy as a symbolic exercise in self-validation. By conceiving of China's perspective solely in terms of its tumultuous history and the Communist Party's pathological pursuit of power and control, McMaster presents only those biproducts of strategic empathy that confirm his policy conclusions (i.e. an intuitive grasp of China's apparent drive to reassert itself as the "Middle Kingdom" at the expense of the United States).

McMaster calls for "strategic empathy" in understanding how the Chinese government sees the world, but he then stacks the deck by asserting that the government in question sees the world in exactly the way that China hawks want to believe that they see it. That suggests that McMaster wasn't trying terribly hard to see the world as they do. McMaster's article has been likened to Kennan's seminal article on Soviet foreign policy at the start of the Cold War, but the comparison only serves to highlight how lacking McMaster's argument is and how inappropriate a similar containment strategy would be today. Where Kennan rooted his analysis of Soviet conduct in a lifetime of expertise in Russian history and language and his experience as a diplomat in Moscow, McMaster bases his assessment of Chinese conduct on one visit to Beijing, a superficial survey of Chinese history, and some boilerplate ideological claims about communism. McMaster's article prompted some strong criticism along these lines when it came out:

I have heard from other colleagues that several CN scholars met w/ McMaster before he wrote this (while working on his book) and corrected him on many issues. He apparently ignored all of their views. This is what we face people: a simple, deceptive narrative is more seductive.

-- Michael D. Swaine (@Dalzell60) April 20, 2020

McMaster's narrative is all the more deceptive because he claims to want to understand the official Chinese government view, but he just substitutes the standard hawkish caricature. Near the end of the article, he asserts, "Without effective pushback from the United States and like-minded nations, China will become even more aggressive in promoting its statist economy and authoritarian political model." It is possible that this could happen, but McMaster treats it as a given without offering much proof that this is so. McMaster makes a mistake common to China hawks that assumes that every other great power must have the same missionary, world-spanning goals that they have. Suppose instead that the Chinese government is not interested in that, but has a more limited strategy aimed at securing itself and establishing itself as the leading power in its region.

Paul does a fine job of using McMaster's earlier work on the Vietnam War to expose the flaws in his thinking about China. McMaster has often been praised for his criticism of the military's top leaders over their role in running the war in Vietnam, but this usually overlooks that McMaster was really arguing for a much more aggressive war effort. He faulted the Joint Chiefs for "dereliction" because they didn't insist on escalation. Paul observes:

McMaster's tale of Vietnam is, counterintuitively, one of enduring confidence in the U.S.'s ability to do good in the world and conquer all potential challengers, if only it finds the will to overcome the temptations of political cowardice and stamp out bureaucratic ineptitude. This same message runs through McMaster's tale about China: "If we compete aggressively," and "no longer adhere to a view of China based mainly on Western aspirations," McMaster says, "we have reason for confidence."

McMaster would have the U.S. view China in the worst possible light as an implacable adversary. Following this recommendation will guarantee decades of heightened tensions and increased risks of conflict. McMaster's dangerous China hawkishness calls to mind something that Jim Mattis said about him regarding a different issue when they served together in the Trump administration: "Oh my God, that moron is going to get us all killed." His aggressiveness towards China is not driven by an assessment of the threat from China, but comes from his tendency to advocate for aggressive measures everywhere.

As Paul notes, McMaster is minimizing the dangers and risks that his preferred policy of confrontation entails. In that respect, he is making the same error that American leaders made in Vietnam:

Like Johnson and McNamara before him, McMaster is misleading both the public and himself about the costs, consequences, and likelihood for success of the path he is committed to pursuing, and in so doing is laying the groundwork for yet another national tragedy.

McMaster's China argument is reminiscent of other arguments made by imperialists in the past, and he relies on many of the same shoddy assumptions that they did. Like British Russophobes in the mid-19th century, McMaster decided on a policy of aggressive containment and then searched for rationalizations that might justify it. Jack Snyder described this in his classic study Myths of Empire thirty years ago:

Russia is portrayed as a unitary, rational actor with unlimited aims of conquest, but fortunately averse to risk and weak if stopped soon enough. (p. 168)

McMaster uses the same "paper tiger image" to portray China as an unstoppable aggressor that can nonetheless be stopped at minimal risk. He wants us to believe that China is at once implacable but easily deterred, insatiable but quick to back off under pressure. We have seen the same contradictory arguments from hawks on other issues, but it is particularly dangerous to promote such a misleading image of a nuclear-armed major power. about the author Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .

[May 05, 2020] Could there be a more obvious demonstration that the man is FULL OF SHIT??

Notable quotes:
"... The bungling, toxic incompetence of this administration is quite something to behold. Wow... ..."
May 05, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

farm ecologist , May 4 2020 18:53 utc | 4

RADDATZ: Do you believe it was manmade or genetically modified?

POMPEO: Look, the best experts so far seem to think it was manmade. I have no reason to disbelieve that at this point.

RADDATZ: Your -- your Office of the DNI says the consensus, the scientific consensus was not manmade or genetically modified.

POMPEO: That's right. I -- I -- I agree with that. Yes. I've -- I've seen their analysis. I've seen the summary that you saw that was released publicly. I have no reason to doubt that that is accurate at this point.

To summarize: Pompeo does not doubt that the virus has been genetically modified, but he also does not doubt that is has not been genetically modified.

Could there be a more obvious demonstration that the man is FULL OF SHIT??

Jpc , May 4 2020 19:13 utc | 8

To Farm ecologist.

You are totally on the money. How or why is he in this job?
It's demented!

Sol Invictus , May 4 2020 19:16 utc | 12
Those incompetent neo-confederates leading america into oblivion will jumble strategic defeats with winning. So much for accountability, hard work and personal responsability... Seems they can't compete fairly without superior military variable of adjustment and threat of violence against adversaries. Orange springs eternal and their great white hope has now adopted a paralizing rhetoric of victimization - republican lawmakers follow suit and are going so far as invoking a western bid for monetary reparations from Chinese depredations. # the art of winnig for maggots, derp.
Daniel , May 4 2020 20:56 utc | 34
The bungling, toxic incompetence of this administration is quite something to behold. Wow...

[May 04, 2020] Pompeo believes coronavirus was 'man-made,' also agrees with intelligence that it was not

Notable quotes:
"... "The best experts so far seem to think it was man-made. I don't have reason to disbelieve them at this point," ..."
"... "I don't believe the virus was man-made." ..."
May 04, 2020 | www.rt.com

In his rush to accuse Beijing of unleashing the scourge of Covid-19 on an unsuspecting world, the US Secretary of State said the coronavirus was man-made, before making a U-turn without even blinking. "The best experts so far seem to think it was man-made. I don't have reason to disbelieve them at this point," Mike Pompeo told ABC's 'This Week' when asked about a statement from the US intelligence community that unequivocally said the opposite.

Host Martha Raddatz twice asked Pompeo to clarify whether his view differed from that of American intelligence, and he voiced his total support for the spies – though he stopped short of actually saying "I don't believe the virus was man-made."

See also : 'We lied, we cheated, we stole' Pompeo offers honest, if disturbing admission about CIA activity , Apr 29, 2019

[May 02, 2020] For brevity, I always post that our IC (Intelligence Community) is masterful in shaping U.S. public opinion and causing problems for targeted countries but terrible in collecting and analyzing Intel that would benefit the U.S. The truth of course, is more complicated.

Notable quotes:
"... The person trying to tell the truth is forced to defend, 'Communist China' (Tom Cotton thinks that is one word), Russia, or Iran and to the U.S. public this is toxic. ..."
"... Someday it just won't matter anymore. We will have deceived ourselves for so long that we have squandered so much of our power that no one will pay attention to us. ..."
"... Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed ..."
"... Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed ..."
May 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Christian J Chuba , May 1 2020 13:17 utc | 9

Spy vs Spy

For brevity, I always post that our IC (Intelligence Community) is masterful in shaping U.S. public opinion and causing problems for targeted countries but terrible in collecting and analyzing Intel that would benefit the U.S. The truth of course, is more complicated.

There is a remnant that is doing their jobs properly but is shut out from higher level offices. But I cannot give long disclaimers at the start of my posts, (I'm not talking about the men and women ...) where 50 words later I finally start to make my point. It's boring, sounds insincere, and defensive.

This is yet another effective defense mechanism that protects the troublemakers in our IC bureaucracy.
1. The person trying to tell the truth is forced to defend, 'Communist China' (Tom Cotton thinks that is one word), Russia, or Iran and to the U.S. public this is toxic.

2. These rogues get to use the remaining good people as human shields.

3. They know their customers, it gives the politicians a way to turn themselves into wartime leaders rather than having to answer for their shortcomings.

Someday it just won't matter anymore. We will have deceived ourselves for so long that we have squandered so much of our power that no one will pay attention to us.

/div> Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed . The American public are easily enough fooled being constantly fed a racist diet, especially Sinophobia, Russophopia and Iranophobia and the drumbeats for war, financial or military, are easily banged to raise the public's blood pressure....but what about the consequences? America can win neither, even with he assistance of a few vassal states. What happens if, and when, normal service is resumed? If they managed to succeed with any of their hair-brained ideas, what are the consequences for American companies in China, rare earth minerals, the IT industries etc etc. Guard your words wisely for they can never be retracted.

Posted by: Séamus Ó Néill , May 1 2020 13:46 utc | 13

Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed . The American public are easily enough fooled being constantly fed a racist diet, especially Sinophobia, Russophopia and Iranophobia and the drumbeats for war, financial or military, are easily banged to raise the public's blood pressure....but what about the consequences? America can win neither, even with he assistance of a few vassal states. What happens if, and when, normal service is resumed? If they managed to succeed with any of their hair-brained ideas, what are the consequences for American companies in China, rare earth minerals, the IT industries etc etc. Guard your words wisely for they can never be retracted.

Posted by: Séamus Ó Néill | May 1 2020 13:46 utc | 13

dan of steele , May 1 2020 14:32 utc | 23
GeorgeV

I think there is very good intelligence in the US. so much data is collected and there are many analysts to go over the data and present their forecasts. The World Factbook is an example of collected intelligence made available to the unwashed masses.

what you are thinking is that this information should be used to your benefit. that is where it goes wrong. the big players are able to access and exploit that mass of data and use it to their benefit.

Billmon used to say that this is a feature, not a bug.

Piero Colombo , May 1 2020 15:08 utc | 28
s @19

"Not precluded" are also a Fort Detrick origin and contagion taken to Wuhan by the US military, staying at a hotel where most of the first cluster of patients was identified. So why wouldn't you always mention both in the same breath?

concerned , May 1 2020 15:27 utc | 31
First hollywood movie I am aware of that deals with pandemics and has Fort Detrick front and center was "Outbreak" 1995. In this film, the "Expert" played by D. Huffman uncovers a plot by a rogue 2 star general sitting on the serum from another outbreak years ago, and how he witheld this information and the serum to "protect their bioweapon". There is also a very overt background sub-plot about Dod and CDC being at odds.

DoD is not listed in the credits for Outbreak. Many of the scenes are supposed to take place in CDC and Fort Detrick.

--

Last hollywood movie was "Contagion" 2011. In this film, which pretty much anticipates Covid-19 madness but with an actually scary virus, the "Expert" in charge tells the DHS man that "Nature has already weaponized them!".

So this lie about the little bitty part "function gain" man-made mutations being the critical bit for "weaponizing" viruses is turned on its head. It was "Nature" after all. A wet market, you know.

Contagion does list DoD in its credits. Vincent C. Oglivie as US DoD Liason and Project Officer.

Just some 'fun' trivia for us to while away our lives. Remember that consipirational thought is abberational thought. Have a shot of Victory Gin and relex!

md , May 1 2020 15:34 utc | 32
Ten questions the US needs to answer
https://www.facebook.com/PeoplesDaily/posts/3243339602384501

[May 01, 2020] Coutriers and coutisans vs neocon blobsters and blobstresses in State Department and elsewhere

Blobsters are simply prostitute to the military industrial complex. No honesty, no courage required (Courage is replaced with arrogance in most cases.) Pompeo is a vivid example of this creatures of Washington swamp.
Notable quotes:
"... historically courtiers themselves led their troops on the battlefield and considered it a question of honor for one or both of their oldest sons pursuing a military career, while Renaissance courtesans were among the most intellectual and educated women of their epoch. Neither is true for blobsters and blobstresses. ..."
"... In French and (I think) most other romance languages, the words for courtier and courtesan are the same. Something to think about. ..."
May 01, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Alex (the one that likes Ike) • 13 hours ago

Courtiers and courtesans. That's rich.

On the other hand, though, historically courtiers themselves led their troops on the battlefield and considered it a question of honor for one or both of their oldest sons pursuing a military career, while Renaissance courtesans were among the most intellectual and educated women of their epoch. Neither is true for blobsters and blobstresses.

LFM Alex (the one that likes Ike) • 5 hours ago
In French and (I think) most other romance languages, the words for courtier and courtesan are the same. Something to think about.

[Apr 29, 2020] Trump, despite pretty slick deception during his election campaign, is an typical imperialist and rabid militarist. His administration continuredand in some areas exceeded the hostility of Obama couse against Russia

Highly recommended!
One of trademarks of Trump administration is his that he despises international law and relies on "might makes right" principle all the time. In a way he is a one trick pony, typical unhinged bully.
In a way Pompeo is the fact of Trump administration foreign policy, and it is not pretty
Apr 29, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Passer by , Apr 29 2020 17:32 utc | 7
It is mostly, though not only, Trump related or libertarian pseudo "alt media" behind "just the flu" theories or "China unleashed virus to attack US".

There is a small military/zionist cabal at the White House that is pushing for that information war in order to prop up the dying US empire as well as US oligarhic business interests, and to secure Trump reelection prospects.

It is enough to see how Zerohedge have been turned into full blown imperialist media with many "evil China" outbursts every day.

Beware of Trumptards infiltrating alt media to prop up the dying US Empire and its business interests.

Trump is the biggest US imperialist for the last 30 years. He made a good job at deceiving many anti-system voices.

His WTO attacks are too part of US efforts to take over the organisation. His has no problem with international institutions as long as they are US empire controlled (such as OPCW, WADA, etc.)

Trump-tards and related libertarians (Zerohedge etc.) made their choice on the side of global US imperialism (driven by their hidden racism, hence the evil "chinks" making a good enemy) and are now the enemy of the multipolar world.

Trump is scum. He turned on Russia and Assange after he got into the White House and did far more against Russia than even Obama. I say that as someone who initially made the mistake to support him.

[Apr 28, 2020] Background reading on Pompeo and his mafia

Apr 28, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Stonebird , Apr 27 2020 19:17 utc | 28

Background reading on Pompeo and his mafia.

This is part of Tom's description of the Article on Pompeo, Esper and the gang of 1986 (west pointers). They are well embedded.
In fact, one class from West Point, that of 1986, from which both Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo graduated, is essentially everywhere in a distinctly militarized (if still officially civilian) and wildly hawkish Washington in the Trumpian moment.

In case you missed it the first time, I repeat this link from the beginning of April,

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176686/tomgram%3A_danny_sjursen%2C_trump%27s_own_military_mafia_/

-----------------
Red Ryder | Apr 27 2020 17:07 utc | 14

One addition there. The EU lost "market share" in Iran due to US sanctions. (As they did with Russia). What they would like to do is to get it back. (France was one of the bigger losers)

Yeah, Right , Apr 27 2020 22:48 utc | 45

"Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is preparing a legal argument"...

Oh, a LEGAL argument? In that case the articles of the Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties is going to be our friend.

Article 31(b) prohibits any legal argument that leads to a result that "is manifestly absurd or unreasonable".

Granted that the JCPOA is not a treaty, as such. But it is an international agreement, and that nobody disputes.

Just as nobody disputes that the Vienna Convention is the codification of what had hitherto been accepted as International Customary Law.

LEGALLY-speaking - as we are, apparently - Pompous has handed his lawyers a task that they would call "a hopeless brief".

Dick , Apr 27 2020 23:08 utc | 47
The US is very good at making enemies and loosing friends, simply due to their treatment of other nations in the same manner they treat their domestic population.
Arch , Apr 28 2020 5:12 utc | 61
@jiri #75

The United States announced its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the "Iran nuclear deal" or the "Iran deal", on May 8, 2018.

This document discusses the legal rationale for the US withdrawal from tje JCPOA in detail:


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R44761.pdf

Since when does announcing your "withdrawal" from a contract NOT mean "leaving the agreement" ?

Mina , Apr 28 2020 11:19 utc | 73
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/04/27/pompeo-gantz-and-the-end-of-the-two-state-solution/

[Apr 27, 2020] Pompeo is steering the US Department of State into becoming arm of the Central Intelligence Agency

Apr 27, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Apr 26 2020 23:02 utc | 37

The gloves are now off as China has called out Pompeo quite correctly saying, "Pompeo an enemy to world peace" --and we ought to expect more disruptions here at MoA. Here's just one of several slaps in Pompeo's face:

"The former top intelligence official is steering the US Department of State into becoming the Central Intelligence Agency. He is playing with fire, making the 21st century an era of major power confrontation and undermining the foundations for peace. Despite being the chief diplomat of the US, he totally betrayed the basic responsibility with which he is entrusted to promote international understanding. He has become the enemy of world peace."

What's most unfortunate is few seem to consult Global Times , as I was rather surprised this major editorial wasn't already linked. Here's yet another slap:

"Geopolitics cannot dominate the world anymore. Pompeo and his like are desperately pulling the world backwards. They are unable to handle a diverse and complicated new century and so they attempt to resume the Cold War. They can only 'realize their ambition' in polarized confrontation."

And that clearly wasn't enough as yet another slap's delivered in the closing two sentences:

"Lies may fulfill Pompeo's personal ambition, but they will never accomplish the US dreams to be "great again." Pompeo is not only a figure harmful to world peace, but also should be listed as the worst US secretary of state in its history."

Hmm... Don't know if he qualifies as "worst" yet as he must still top Ms. Clinton, but she certainly didn't treat China as has Pompeo.

[Apr 24, 2020] They can top off the national reserves on the cheap and profit when their war sends prices up again

Apr 24, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Zengine3 , Apr 23 2020 18:03 utc | 30

If ever there was a time, it's now. Oil has bottomed out. They can top off the national reserves on the cheap and profit when their war sends prices up again. Maybe it's why The Orange Goober has ordered the Navy to "shoot down" any Iranian boats that harass/approach/rudely gesture at US ships.

Musburger , Apr 23 2020 18:08 utc | 31

@30

Scott Ritter thinks this is quite possible.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/486598-trump-iran-war-oil/

Tuyzentfloot , Apr 23 2020 18:23 utc | 36
Ritter's article worries me. There is now a sales argument for war: "don't worry about oil prices going sky high, Iran can't use that weapon against us now!".
LOL , Apr 23 2020 18:38 utc | 38
You over excitable little Iran war-monkeys really should take time out of your busy war-monkey daily-schedules to learn something about the topography of Iran and it's defensive and offensive military capabilities.

It would certainly save everyone else from having to listen to you being wrong yet again.

karlof1 , Apr 23 2020 18:53 utc | 39
dh @34--

You're on the right track. There's a huge supply glut as all forms of storage are mostly filled as proven by the negative WTI pricing. Global demand is still being destroyed. War in the Persian Gulf region will further destroy demand; and since very little oil's being shipped from there, the supply glut won't be used up anytime soon--certainly not quickly enough to see a sharp rebound in oil price. The crucial point is domestic US refineries have cut back their runs as their margins are even thinner than before, plus demand destruction is still occurring, thus the domestic storage glut. The wife and I jested last night if we only had a rail spur we could order up a couple of tank cars full of unleaded at the current very distressed price and be set for a longtime.

As The Saker notes in his latest , Trump must make the voting public look everywhere except at him and Congress, the bellowing at Iran being part of that entire theatre. Yes, a mistake could have very negative consequences for the USN and all US assets in the region as well as Occupied Palestine--the overall underlying dynamic hasn't changed since Trump broke the Iran Nuclear Treaty. Too add further insult to Trump and Pompeo, Iran's doing a much better job at containing COVID-19 than the Outlaw US Empire :

"The US pandemic death toll is this week heading above 50,000 compared with Iran's figure of 5,300. Considering the respective population numbers of 330 and 80 million that suggests Iran is doing a much better job at containing the virus. On a per-capita basis, according to publicly available data, Iran's mortality rate is less than half that of the US.

"This is while the US has sanctioned Iran to the hilt. American sanctions – arguably illegal under international law – have hit Iran's ability to import medical supplies to cope with COVID-19 and other fatal diseases, yet Iran through its own resources is evidently managing the crisis much better than the US."

As with the Tar Baby, the more wrestling the Outlaw US Empire does the weaker it gets.

Zengine3 , Apr 23 2020 18:55 utc | 40
@LOLtroll

They can't invade. That's your own moronic straw-man. And yes, it would further cut supply and prices would go up. The current bottom is due to overproduction but so long as civilization cranks along the oil gets used eventually.

[Apr 06, 2020] Pompeo problem: how to continue to bully when the bullied can very effectively shoot back?

Apr 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Bemildred , Apr 6 2020 15:25 utc | 187

Posted by: Walter | Apr 6 2020 15:03 utc | 185

Re: Pompeo and his West Point clique and their associates, I have not spent much time on it, didn't seem like a useful or entertaining thing to do, but my impression is they have lots of plans and very little grasp of what is required to carry them out. (One thinks of Modi here.) This has been ongoing since the Iranians shot our fancy drone down there last year. The first shot across the bow. We are now withdrawing from Syria, Iraq & Afghanistan, however haltingly, as it has dawned on the commanders on the ground there how exposed they really are to Iranian fire, and that of their allies. Israel seems to be struggling with the same problem, how to continue to bully when the bullied can very effectively shoot back?

Many unseemly things being said about Crozier and the Teddy R. situation too. Lot's of heat, very little light. Trump says there is light at the end of the tunnel, I seem to remember that from somewhere in the past. I think that's about where we are again.

[Apr 01, 2020] For just $27K USD you can see John Bolton's relatives in natural environment

Apr 01, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Piotr Berman , Mar 31 2020 17:22 utc | 151

Given some time and currency, I guess Morocco would offer more value for money if you want some exotic customs and landscapes. If you have more money, you could spend them on a carbon-free cruise with stunning vistas and off-the-beaten route: North Pole on board of nuclear-powered ice breaker! It is wise to have swimming costume (a pool is on board, heated, I presume) and sensible apparel -- enough for normal winter (in Moscow). The number of places is below 150, with a little hospital on board too. In the latest ads I read about discounts, but the deal was that you can pay in rubbles with prices below the rubble plunged by 25%, still, for 27 k USD you can see John Bolton's relatives in natural environment (like mommy walrus taking care of youngsters), polar bears, seals, and landscapes of Franz Josef Land. Helicopter rides included. You can also take a plunge into the arctic water -- with safety precautions .

[Mar 30, 2020] Pompeo as a sign of more serious problem with the US military

Mar 30, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Bemildred , Mar 29 2020 18:13 utc | 23

Posted by: Noirette | Mar 29 2020 17:09 utc | 13

I think you have the main danger (some nitwit using a "small nuke") to try to make a point about right.

Other than that, the impression I get from Pompeo and his ilk is that the main thing is having someone to threaten and abuse to show "leadership" and "manhood", at least one shitty little country we can still throw up against the wall and slap around to show we mean business. Dangerous times for Nicaragua.

Neither he nor his other West Point friends seems to have much clue about military affairs either, which is strange. I mean we've always had our George Armstrong Custers, but they didn't run things. Now they seem to have some sort of cult mentality. One is reminded of the French before WWI: "De L'audace, Encore De L'audace, Et Toujours De L'audace ..." and we know how that worked out.

[Mar 29, 2020] United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had a slip of the tongue while addressing the American people from the White House when he stated that COVID-19 is a live military exercise.

Mar 29, 2020 | twitter.com

"This is not about retribution," Pompeo explained. "This matter is going forward -- we are in a live exercise here to get this right."

@realDonaldTrump is mad that the deep state took control through Continuity of Government, there has been a coup? pic.twitter.com/GcrjNNvVsc #Covid_19 #CoronavirusPandemic #MartialLaw

-- Shepard Ambellas (@ShepardAmbellas) March 21, 2020

With a disgusted look on his face, President Trump replied: "You should have let us know."

Military Exercise meaning (from Wikipedia): "A military exercise or war game is the employment of military resources in training for military operations, either exploring the effects of warfare or testing strategies without actual combat. This also serves the purpose of ensuring the combat readiness of garrisoned or deployable forces prior to deployment from a home base."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/3Qscuw_3aUk

What is actually going on here? Does the White House care to explain?

*Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore CC BY 2.0

[Mar 29, 2020] The essence of Trump's psychology is that he likes to dominate people. He accomplishes this by hiring incompetent psychopaths

Mar 29, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Timothy Hagios , Mar 28 2020 18:14 utc | 44

The essence of Trump's psychology is that he likes to dominate people. He accomplishes this by hiring incompetent psychopaths who make him legitimately look good by comparison. This is why he's constantly overruling their worst plans. But once every so often, his incompetent underlings convince him to do something exceptionally stupid. This is because occasionally going along with them allows him to feel like a wise, discerning ruler who occasionally follows his advisors' guidance and occasionally overrules them.

[Mar 26, 2020] Pompeo is on record having said that our government "lies, cheats, and steals" in order to accomplish its anti-Christian objectives.

Mar 26, 2020 | www.unz.com

Sokrates , says: Show Comment March 25, 2020 at 11:54 am GMT

@37 Yesterday I went to Home Depot to buy some water tubing for my ice-maker.

I noticed all doors were blocked with a tape, except one with at least 25 people waiting to get in and a female employee holding a sign "the line starts here".

I ask the lady what was all about and she said because of the virus etc.

I said to her "You must be kidding" and I start going back to my car.

Some old lady from the line waiting to get in she scream to me something about "we protect ourselves" and similar nonsense.

I turn around and I said to her: Quit watching TV you idiot. They rob your money on broad daylight and send your kids to die fighting israels enemies.

RichardTaylor , says: Show Comment March 25, 2020 at 12:01 pm GMT
The overreaction to the virus makes no sense. Is something being hidden from us? The freak out over this virus – to the tune of $trillions – is all out of proportion.

2.8 million Americans die every year. Why the obsession with this one virus which may kill in the thousands?

Something is off. But Trump should have known early if there was some other hidden danger. If there is some hidden suspicion by the people obsessing over this, please share it!

[Mar 26, 2020] The face of Trump in foreign policy is Pompeo and it is wicked, ungly face of a gangster

Yet another Gofgather
Notable quotes:
"... The more I watch these moves by Pompeo the more sympathetic I become to the most sinister theories about COVID-19, its origins and its launch around the world. Read Pepe Escobar's latest to get an idea of how dark and twisted this tale could be . ..."
March 24, 2020 < Older
No Respite for the Wicked, Pompeo Unleashed Written by Tom Luongo Tuesday

There are few things in this life that make me more sick to my stomach than watching Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talking. He truly is one of the evilest men I've ever had the displeasure of covering.

Into the insanity of the over-reaction to the COVID-19 outbreak, Pompeo wasted no time ramping up sanctions on firms doing any business with Iran, one of the countries worse-hit by this virus to date.

It's a seemingly endless refrain, everyday, more sanctions on Chinese, Swiss and South African firms for having the temerity in these deflating times to buy oil from someone Pompeo and his gang of heartless psychopaths disapprove of.

This goes far beyond just the oil industry. Even though I'm well aware that Russia's crashing the price of oil was itself a hybrid war attack on US capital markets. One that has had, to date, devastating effect.

While Pompeo mouths the words publicly that humanitarian aid is exempted from sanctions on Iran, the US is pursuing immense pressure on companies to not do so anyway while the State Dept. bureaucracy takes its sweet time processing waiver applications.

Pompeo and his ilk only think in terms of civilizational warfare. They have become so subsumed by their big war for the moral high ground to prove American exceptionalism that they have lost any shred of humanity they may have ever had.

Because for Pompeo in times like these to stick to his talking points and for his office to continue excising Iran from the global economy when we're supposed to be coming together to fight a global pandemic is the height of soullessness.

And it speaks to the much bigger problem that infects all of our political thinking. There comes a moment when politics and gaining political advantage have to take a back seat to doing the right thing.

I've actually seen moments of that impulse from the Democratic leadership in the US Will wonders never cease?!

Thinking only in Manichean terms of good vs. evil and dehumanizing your opponents is actually costlier than reversing course right now. Because honey is always better at attracting flies than vinegar.

But, unfortunately, that is not the character of the Trump administration.

It can only think in terms of direct leverage and opportunity to hold onto what they think they've achieved. So, until President Trump is no longer consumed with coordinating efforts to control COVID-19 Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper are in charge of foreign policy. They will continue the playbook that has been well established.

Maximum pressure on Iran, hurt China any way they can, hold onto what they have in Syria, stay in Iraq.

To that end Iraqi President Barham Salei nominated Pompeo's best choice to replace Prime Minister Adil Abdel Mahdi to throw Iraq's future into complete turmoil. According to Elijah Magnier, Adnan al-Zarfi is a US asset through and through .

And this looks like Pompeo's Hail Mary to retain US legal presence in Iraq after the Iraqi parliament adopted a measure to demand withdrawal of US troops from the country. Airstrikes against US bases in Iraq continue on a near daily basis and there have been reports of US base closures and redeployments at the same time.

This move looks like desperation by Pompeo et.al. to finally separate the Hashd al-Shaabi from Iraq's official military. So that airstrikes against them can be carried out under the definition of 'fighting Iranian terrorism.'

As Magnier points out in the article above if al-Zarfi puts a government together the war in Iraq will expand just as the US is losing further control in Syria after Turkish President Erdogan's disastrous attempt to remake the front in Idlib. That ended with his effective surrender to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The more I watch these moves by Pompeo the more sympathetic I become to the most sinister theories about COVID-19, its origins and its launch around the world. Read Pepe Escobar's latest to get an idea of how dark and twisted this tale could be .

It is sad that, to me, I see no reason to doubt Pompeo and his ilk in the US government wouldn't do something like that to spark political and social upheaval in those places most targeted by US hybrid war tactics.

But, at the same time, I can see the other side of it, a vicious strike back by China against its tormentors. And China's government does itself, in my mind, no favors threatening to withhold drug precursors and having officials run their mouths giving Americans the excuse they need to validate Trump and Pompeo's divisive rhetoric.

Remaining on the fence about this issue isn't my normal style. But everyone is dirty here and the reality may well be this is a natural event terrible people on both sides are exploiting.

And I can only go by what people do rather than what they say to assess the situation. Trump tries to buy exclusive right to a potential COVID-19 vaccine from a German firm and his administration slow-walks aid to Iran.

China sends aid to Iran and Italy by the container full. Is that to salve their conscience over its initial suppression of information about the virus? Good question. But no one covers themselves in glory by using the confusion and distraction to attempt further regime change and step up war-footing during a public health crisis, manufactured or otherwise.

While Pompeo unctuously talks the talk of compassion and charity, he cannot bring himself to actually walk the walk. Because he is a despicable, bile-filled man of uncommon depravity. His prosecuting a hybrid war during a public health crisis speaks to no other conclusion about him.

It's clear to me that nothing has changed at the top of Trump's administration. I expect COVID-19 will not be a disaster for Trump and the US. It can handle this. But the lack of humanity shown by its diplomatic corps ensures that in the long run the US will be left to fend for itself when the next crisis hits.

Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation .

Related

[Mar 20, 2020] That "beyond dispute" phrase is what retards like Mike Pompeo use to try to shut down a discussion in which he's getting his fat ass kicked.

Mar 20, 2020 | www.unz.com

Twodees Partain , says: Show Comment March 20, 2020 at 3:02 am GMT

@SBaker "It's beyond dispute that the novel coronavirus officially known as COVID-19originated in Wuhan, China."

No, it's being disputed every day. That "beyond dispute" phrase is what retards like Mike Pompeo use to try to shut down a discussion in which he's getting his fat ass kicked.

[Mar 20, 2020] Pompeo myth that USA and the West were unprepared because China withheld information about the virus.

Mar 20, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

occupatio , Mar 19 2020 20:16 utc | 161

@b Another myth to add to your collection ...

... that USA and the West were unprepared because China withheld information about the virus.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 19 2020 18:20 utc | 106

The "Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on COVID-19" states that China transparently reported the identification of virus to the WHO and the international community on January 3rd, and a WHO investigative team was invited to Wuhan a week after that.

From January 3rd, 2020, information on COVID-19 cases has been reported to WHO daily.

On January 7th, full genome sequences of the new virus were shared with WHO and the international community immediately after the pathogen was identified.

On January 10th, an expert group involving Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwanese technical experts and a World Health Organization team was invited to visit Wuhan.

From page 31 of:
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf

[Mar 19, 2020] US imposes sanctions against #Iran after offering to help with #Coronavirus outbreak

Mar 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Mar 18 2020 18:28 utc | 53

This might soon become the global rallying cry :

"USA is the greatest enemy of humanity - I hope they will pay for that:

"US imposes sanctions against #Iran after offering to help with #Coronavirus outbreak"

The situation has now gone well beyond immorality and into the realm of EVIL--an EVIL that's Bipartisan, shared by Ds and Rs alike.

bevin , Mar 18 2020 18:33 utc | 54

Miss Lacy and Arby both draw our attention to the obscenity of the US using this crisis in order to put pressure on governments that it dislikes by cutting off medicine and other resources.

Among the places where people are currently dying in large numbers because Washington chooses that they should are Cuba-under an oil embargo-, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Iran.

Those who cannot bring themselves to believe that government could be so evil as to deploy a virus as a weapon to weaken another state, only have to look at what is happening today: Venezuela desperately needs funds, much of its foreign exchange having been seized illegally by the US and its satellites, in order to weather the pandemic.

Anyone supporting such a policy, condoning the killing of vulnerable people to embarrass another state, is an accessory to murder.

farm ecologist , Mar 18 2020 19:40 utc | 67
Re., IMF refuses emergency funds to Venezuela

Posted by: arby | Mar 18 2020 14:32 utc | 11
Posted by: Miss Lacy | Mar 18 2020 18:15 utc | 50
Posted by: bevin | Mar 18 2020 18:33 utc | 55

Anyone supporting such a policy, condoning the killing of vulnerable people to embarrass another state, is an accessory to murder.

Although many argue that the foreign policies of the US government don't really reflect the views and desires of ordinary citizens, the comments in the Fox News report on this story suggest otherwise (caveat - be prepared to be appalled).

https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuela-asks-imf-for-massive-emergency-loan-to-fight-coronavirus


[Mar 13, 2020] Daffy Duck. cartoon was made in 1953 and like many Looney Tune cartoon's, they are an extreme parody of life. It dawned on me that this cartoon is an almost perfect description of US Military policy and action.

Highly recommended!
Mar 13, 2020 | thesaker.is

Vaughan on March 12, 2020 , · at 7:43 pm EST/EDT

Recently, I was watching the old Looney Tunes Cartoons with my Grandchild and we were watching, "Duck Dodges in the 21st and a Half Century"
I don't know if you've watched this cartoon starring Daffy Duck. You can view it here
https://vimeo.com/76668594

This cartoon was made in 1953 and like many Looney Tune cartoon's, they are an extreme parody of life. But while watching this cartoon, it dawned on me that this cartoon is an almost perfect description of US Military policy and action.
I could write an article on this but I think we'll leave it as a note with a snide laugh to be had by all.

Patricia Ormsby on March 12, 2020 , · at 8:16 pm EST/EDT
Laughter is one of the best medicines. Thank you for this!

[Mar 09, 2020] COVID-19 burst the asset price bubble. In a new low, Pompeo passes buck to Beijing

Mar 09, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

CitizenX , Mar 9 2020 2:58 utc | 57

"Perhaps this will finally burst the out-of-control asset price bubble and drop-kick the Outlaw US Empire's economy into the sewer as the much lower price will rapidly slow the recycling of what remains of the petrodollar. Looks like Trump's reelection push just fell into a massive sinkhole as the economy will tank."

Posted by: karlof1 | Mar 9 2020 1:29 utc | 49
....

Call me crazy- but this Virus provides great cover as to why the economy plummets, the Murikan sheeple will eat it up. Prepare for the double media blitz on the virus AND the economy tanking as its result.

Don't worry...just continue to go shopping and take those selfies.

vk , Mar 9 2020 3:37 utc | 60

Pompeo accuses China of giving "imperfect data" on COVID-19, blame it for US failure in containing the virus:

In new low, Pompeo passes buck to Beijing

It will be hard for the American people to swallow that one. From day 1 I've read a lot of "articles" and "papers" from know-it-all Western doctors and researchers from commenters here in this blog, all of them claiming to have very precise and definitive data on what was happening. A lot of bombastic conclusions I've read here (including one that claimed R0 was through the roof - it's funny how the R0 is being played down after it begun to infect the West; suddenly, it's all just a stronger cold...).

And that's just here, in MoA's comment section. Imagine what was being published in the Western MSM. I wouldn't be surprised there was a lot of rednecks popping their beers celebrating the fall of China already.

--//--

China to back global virus fight with production boost

Since China allegedly had a lot of idle industrial capacity - that is, if we take the Western MSM theories seriously (including the fabled "ghost towns" stories) - then boosting production wouldn't be a problem to China.

Disclaimer: it's normal for any kind of economy - socialist or capitalist - to have a certain percentage of idle capacity. That's necessary in order to insure the economy against unexpected oscillations in demand and to give space of maneuvre for future technological progress. Indeed, that was one of the USSR's mistakes with its economy: they instinctly thought unemployment should be zero, and waste should also be zero, so they planned in a way all the factories always sought to operate at 100% capacity. That became a problem when better machines and better methods were invented, since the factory manager wouldn't want to stop production so that his factory would fall behind the other factories in the five-year plan's goals. So, yes, China indeed has idle capacity - but it is mainly proposital, not a failure of its socialist planning.

--//--

... ... ...

vk , Mar 9 2020 3:56 utc | 61
This is important. The only reason I didn't comment about it is I hadn't the data:

Follow the money: Understanding China's battle against COVID-19

By the latest count, in addition to yuan loans worth 113 billion U.S. dollars granted by financial institutions and more than 70 billion U.S. dollars paid out by insurance companies, the Chinese government has allocated about 13 billion U.S. dollars to counter fallout from the outbreak.

The numbers could look abstract. However, breaking the data down reveals how the money is being carefully targeted. The government is allocating the money based on a thorough evaluation of the system's strengths.

...

Local governments are equipped with more local knowledge that allows them to surgically support key manufacturers or producers that are struggling.

Together, they have borne the bulk of the financial responsibility with an allocation of equivalently more than nine billion U.S. dollars. It is carefully targeted, divided into hundreds of thousands of individual grants that are tailor-made by and for each county, town, city and business.

This is the mark of a socialist system.

The affected capitalist countries will simply use monetary devices (so the private sector can offset the losses) and burn their own reserves with non-profitable palliatives such as masks, tests, other quarantine infrastructure etc.

Pft , Mar 9 2020 4:44 utc | 64
Sounds like US socialism. Basically corporate socialism. Loans are just dollars created out of thin air, same as in US. Insurance payouts come from premiums, nothing socialist about that, pure capitalism. Government hand outs to provinces, cities, state owned corporations,well all of these are run by the party elite, its called pork. US handed out a lot of pork during the last financial crisis. None of it trickled down to the little people. I doubt it does in China either.

All crisis are opportunities for the elite to get richer. Those Biolake firms in Wuhan will make out like bandits. Chinese firms will double the price of API's sold to India and US. China will knock out the small farmer in the wake of concurrent chicken and swine flu so the big enterprises take over, a mimicry of the US practice over the last century. China tech firms will double up on surveillance apps, censoring tools, surveillance and toughen up social credit restrictions. 5G will allow China to experiment with nanobots to monitor citizens health from afar (thanks to Harvards Dr Leiber).

Oh yes, socialism with Chinese characteristics is a technocratic capitalists dream. Thats why the West has never imposed sanctions on China since welcoming them to the global elites club. Sanctions are reserved for those with true socialism, especially those who preach equality and god forbid, democracy.

uncle tungsten , Mar 9 2020 8:35 utc | 83

CitizenX #57

Call me crazy- but this Virus provides great cover as to why the economy plummets, the Murikan sheeple will eat it up. Prepare for the double media blitz on the virus AND the economy tanking as its result.


Don't forget the Russians.. They have to be to blame. See they just kept the price of oil low so now the rest of the world gets gas cheaper than the USA. The USA motorist now has to bail out the dopey frackers and shale oil ponzis.

Global envy will eat murica. Maybe they will just pull out all their troops and go home. ;)

[Mar 03, 2020] The USA policy is to destroy Iran for the crime of existence.

Mar 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Trailer Trash , Mar 2 2020 17:53 utc | 97

>Bernie Sanders will also restore the JCPOA

This is like a new gangster who takes control of a neighborhood and reduces the required weekly protection payment. Hurray For Less Extortion!

Hey Bernie, how about throw away the JCPOA, restore normal diplomatic and commercial relations, and apologize for 40 years of economic warfare?

But that will never happen, because the Dummycrat policy is to destroy Iran for the crime of existence. How is it the Bernie people don't notice that Bernie always caucuses with the Dummycrats in Congress and is running on the Dummycrat ticket? We are supposed to believe that someone elected on the Dummycrat ticket won't follow Dummycrat party polices?

Russ , Mar 2 2020 17:59 utc | 99

"Bernie Sanders will also restore the JCPOA"

He must think the Iranians are really stupid if he thinks he can get them to fall for that one again.

fnord , Mar 2 2020 18:18 utc | 101
@Trailer Trash, 97
We are supposed to believe that someone elected on the Dummycrat ticket won't follow Dummycrat party polices?

The way American electoral politics works, Sanders doesn't really have a choice except to try and steal the Democratic party's ballot line. An independent bid would split the left vote and make it impossible to win the general election, which is winner take all.

At least that's what his supporters say. I think there's a grain of truth there. If Bernie wants to win, and not merely be a protest candidate, he has to take the ballot line of the party with the most left-wing voters, and that's not the Republican party.

[Mar 01, 2020] That the whistleblower works for the CIA is a matter of public record, not some conspiracy theory

Notable quotes:
"... The Democrats did not want Adam Schiff to have to answer questions about the whistleblower, and they don't want the whistleblower's identity to be officially revealed. Such things do not contribute to the greatest cause of our time, the destruction of Donald Trump. ..."
"... The whole point of having the House impeachment investigation proceed from the House Intelligence Committee, headed by Adam Schiff, was to send the signal that Trump is unacceptable to the nefarious powers that make up the Deep State, especially the intelligence agencies, especially the CIA. ..."
"... What a world, then, when OP Democrats are cheering on John Bolton, hoping again for a savior to their sacred resistance cause, and meanwhile they aren't too excited about Rand Paul's intervention. For sure, it is a sign that a "resistance" isn't real when it needs a savior; it's not as if the French Resistance sat back waiting for Gen. de Gaulle. In any case, in the procession of horrible reactionary figures that Democrats have embraced, Bolton is probably the worst, and that's saying quite a lot. ..."
"... People are even talking about "getting used to accepting the help of the CIA with the impeachment," and the like. (I realize I'm being repetitious here, but this stuff blows my mind, it is so disturbing.) At least they are recognizing the reality -- at least partially; that's something. But then what they do with this recognition is something that requires epic levels of TDS -- and, somehow, a great deal of the Left is going down this path. ..."
"... The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars. Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business. Trump is not an asset. ..."
"... Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were, lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the world to see. This cannot be undone. ..."
Mar 01, 2020 | off-guardian.org

First , the whistleblower was ruled out as a possible witness -- this was essentially done behind the scenes, and in reality can be called a Deep State operation, though one exposed to some extent by Rand Paul. This has nothing to do with protecting the whistleblower or upholding the whistleblower statute, but instead with the fact that the whistleblower was a CIA plant in the White House.

That the whistleblower works for the CIA is a matter of public record, not some conspiracy theory. Furthermore, for some time before the impeachment proceedings began, the whistleblower had been coordinating his efforts to undermine Trump with the head of the House Intelligence Committee, who happens to be Adam Schiff. It is possible that the connections with Schiff go even further or deeper. Obviously the Democrats do not want these things exposed.

... ... ...

In this regard, there was a very special moment on January 29, when Chief Justice John Roberts refused to allow the reading of a question from Sen. Rand Paul that identified the alleged whistleblower. Paul then held a press conference in which he read his question.

The question was directed at Adam Schiff, who claims not to have communicated with the whistleblower, despite much evidence to the contrary. (Further details can be read at here .) A propos of what I was just saying, Paul is described in the Politico article as "a longtime antagonist of Republican leaders." Excellent, good on you, Rand Paul.

Whether this was a case of unintended consequences or not, one could say that this episode fed into the case against calling witnesses -- certainly the Democrats should not have been allowed to call witnesses if the Republicans could not call the whistleblower. But clearly this point is completely lost on those working in terms of the moving line of bullshit.

One would think that Democrats would be happy with a Republican Senator who antagonizes leaders of his own party, but of course Rand Paul's effort only led to further "outrage" on the part of Democratic leaders in the House and Senate.

The Democrats did not want Adam Schiff to have to answer questions about the whistleblower, and they don't want the whistleblower's identity to be officially revealed. Such things do not contribute to the greatest cause of our time, the destruction of Donald Trump.

However, you see, there is a complementary purpose at work here, too. The whole point of having the House impeachment investigation proceed from the House Intelligence Committee, headed by Adam Schiff, was to send the signal that Trump is unacceptable to the nefarious powers that make up the Deep State, especially the intelligence agencies, especially the CIA.

The only way these machinations can be combatted is to pull the curtain back further -- but the Republicans do not want this any more than the Democrats do, with a few possible exceptions such as Rand Paul. (As the Politico article states, Paul was chastised publicly by McConnell for submitting his question in the first place, and for criticizing Roberts in the press conference.)

What a world, then, when OP Democrats are cheering on John Bolton, hoping again for a savior to their sacred resistance cause, and meanwhile they aren't too excited about Rand Paul's intervention. For sure, it is a sign that a "resistance" isn't real when it needs a savior; it's not as if the French Resistance sat back waiting for Gen. de Gaulle. In any case, in the procession of horrible reactionary figures that Democrats have embraced, Bolton is probably the worst, and that's saying quite a lot.

... ... ...

Now we are at a moment when "the Left" is recognizing the role that the CIA and the rest of the "intelligence community" is played in the impeachment nonsense. This "Left" was already on board for the "impeachment process" itself, perhaps at moments with caveats about "not leaving everything up to the Democrats," "not just relying on the Democrats," but still accepting their assigned role as cheerleaders and self-important internet commentators. (And, sure, maybe that's all I am, too -- but the inability to distinguish form from content is one of the main problems of the existing Left.)

Now, though, people on the Left are trying to get comfortable with, and trying to explain to themselves how they can get comfortable with, the obvious role of the "intelligence community" (with, in my view, the CIA in the leading role, but of course I'm not privy to the inner workings of this scene) in the impeachment process and other efforts to take down Trump's presidency.

People are even talking about "getting used to accepting the help of the CIA with the impeachment," and the like. (I realize I'm being repetitious here, but this stuff blows my mind, it is so disturbing.) At least they are recognizing the reality -- at least partially; that's something. But then what they do with this recognition is something that requires epic levels of TDS -- and, somehow, a great deal of the Left is going down this path.

They might think about the "help" that the CIA gave to the military in Bolivia to remove Evo Morales from office. They might think about the picture of Donald Trump that they find necessary to paint to justify what they are willing to swallow to remove him from office. They might think about the fact that ordinary Democrats are fine with this role for the CIA, and that Adam Schiff and others routinely offer the criticism/condemnation of Donald Trump that he doesn't accept the findings of the CIA or the rest of the intelligence agencies at face value.

The moment for the Left, what calls itself and thinks of itself as that, to break with this lunacy has passed some time ago, but let us take this moment, of "accepting the help of the CIA, because Trump," as truly marking a point of no return.

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars. Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business. Trump is not an asset.

paul ,

Trump, Sanders and Corbyn were all in their own way agents of creative destruction. Trump tapped into the popular discontent of millions of Americans who realised that the system no longer even pretended to work in their interests, and were not prepared to be diverted down the Identity Politics Rabbit Hole.

The Deep State was outraged that he had disrupted their programme by stealing Clinton's seat in the game of Musical Chairs. Being the most corrupt, dishonest and mendacious political candidate in all US history (despite some pretty stiff opposition) was supposed to be outweighed by her having a vagina. The Deplorables failed to sign up for the programme.

Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were, lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the world to see. This cannot be undone.

For all his pandering to Adelson and the Zionist Mafia, for all his Gives to Netanyahu, Trump has failed to deliver on the Big Ticket Items. Syria was supposed to have been invaded by now, with Hillary cackling demonically over Assad's death as she did over Gaddafi, and rapidly moving on to the main event with Iran. They will not forgive him for this.

They realise they are under severe time pressure. It took them a century to gain their stranglehold over America, and this is a wasting asset. America is in terminal decline, and may soon be unable to fulfil its ordained role as dumb goy muscle serving Zionist interests. And the parasite will find it difficult to find a replacement host.

George Mc ,

Haven't you just agreed with him here?

He thinks the left died in the 1960s, over a half century ago. It's pretty simple to identify a leftist: anti-imperialist/ anti-capitalist. The Democrats are imperialists. People who vote for the Democrats and Republicans are imperialists. This article is a confused mess, that's my whole point;)

If the Democrats and Republicans (and those who vote for them) are imperialists (which they are) then the left are indeed dead – at least as far as political representation goes.

Koba ,

He's sent more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan he staged several coups in Latin America and wanted to take out the dprk and thier nukes and wants to bomb Iran! Winding down?!

sharon marlowe ,

First, an attempted assassination-by-drone on President Maduro of Venezuela happened. Then Trump dropped the largest conventional bomb on Afghanistan, with a mile-wide radius. Then Trump named Juan Guido as the new President of Venezuela in an overt coup. Then he bombed Syria over a fake chemical weapons claim. He bombed it before even an investigation was launched. Then the Trump regime orchestrated a military coup in Bolivia. Then he claimed that he was pulling out of Syria, but instead sent U.S. troops to take over Syrian oil fields. trump then assassinated Gen. Solemeni. Then he claimed that he will leave Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi government asked the U.S. to leave, and Trump rejected the request. The Trump regime has tried orchestrating a coup in Iran, and a coup in Hong Kong. He expelled Russian diplomats en masse for the Skripal incident in England, before an investigation. He has sanctioned Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and Venezuela. He has bombed Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Those are the things I'm aware of, but what else Trump has done in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America you can research if you wish. And now, the claim of leaving Afghanistan is as ridiculous as when he claimed to be leaving Syria and Iraq.

Dungroanin ,

Yeah yeah and 'he' gave Maduro 7 days to let their kid takeover in Venezuela! And built a wall. And got rid of obamacare and started a nuke war with Rocketman and and and ...

sharon marlowe ,

There were at least nine people killed when Trump bombed Douma.

Only a psychopath would kill people because one of its spy drones was shot down. You don't get points for considering killing people for it and then changing your mind.

People should get over Hillary and pay attention to what Trump has been doing. Why even mention what Hillary would have done in Syria, then proceed to be an apologist for what Trump has done around the world in just three years? Trump has been quite a prolific imperialist in such a short time. A second term could well put him above Bush and Obama as the 21st century's most horrible leaders on earth.

Dungroanin ,

...If you think that the potus is the omnipotent ruler of everything he certainly seems to be having some problems with his minions in the CIA, NSA, FBI..State Dept etc.

Savorywill ,

Yes, what you say is right. However, he did warn both the Syrian and Russian military of the attack in the first instance, so no casualties, and in the second attack, he announced that the missiles had been launched before they hit the target, again resulting in no casualties. When the US drone was shot down by an Iranian missile, he considered retaliation. But, when advised of likely casualties, he called it off saying that human lives are more valuable than the cost of the drone. Yes, he did authorize the assassination of the Iranian general, and that was very bad. His claims that the general had organized the placement of roadside bombs that had killed US soldiers rings rather hollow, considering those shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place.

I am definitely not stating that he is perfect and doesn't do objectionable things. And he has authorized US forces to control the oil wells, which is against international law, but at least US soldiers are not actively engaged in fighting the Syrian government, something Hillary set in motion. However, the military does comprise a huge percentage of the US economy and there have to be reasons, and enemies, to justify its existence, so his situation as president must be very difficult, not a job I would want, that is for sure.

The potus is best described (by Assad actually) as a CEO of a board of directors appointed by the shareholders who collectively determine their OWN interests.

Your gaslighting ain't succeeding round here – Regime! So desperate, so so sad 🤣

[Feb 29, 2020] Rand Paul says he will oppose John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani for Secretary of State

Notable quotes:
"... "Bolton is a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose, hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the U.S. has made in the last 15 years - particularly those Trump promised to avoid as president," ..."
"... "It's important that someone who was an unrepentant advocate for the Iraq War, who didn't learn the lessons of the Iraq War, shouldn't be the secretary of state for a president who says Iraq was ..."
Nov 20, 2016 | rare.us

Senator Rand Paul said Tuesday in an op-ed for Rare that he would oppose President-elect Donald Trump's rumored selection of former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton as Secretary of State.

"Bolton is a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose, hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the U.S. has made in the last 15 years - particularly those Trump promised to avoid as president,"

Paul wrote citing U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya that Trump has criticized but that Bolton strongly advocated.

Reports since have indicated that former New York City mayor and loyal Trump ally, Rudy Giuliani is being considered for the post.

The Washington Post's David Weigel reports , "Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a newly reelected member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said this morning that he was inclined to oppose either former U.N. ambassador John Bolton or former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani if they were nominated for secretary of state."

"It's important that someone who was an unrepentant advocate for the Iraq War, who didn't learn the lessons of the Iraq War, shouldn't be the secretary of state for a president who says Iraq was a big lesson," Paul told the Post. "Trump said that a thousand times. It would be a huge mistake for him to give over his foreign policy to someone who [supported the war]. I mean, you could not find more unrepentant advocates of regime change."

Related: Rand Paul: Will Donald Trump betray voters by hiring John Bolton?

[Feb 29, 2020] Secret Wars, Forgotten Betrayals, Global Tyranny. Who s Really In Charge Of The US Military by Cynthia Chung

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country. And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes ..."
Jan 21, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Cynthia Chung via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

"There is a kind of character in thy life, That to the observer doth thy history, fully unfold."

– William Shakespeare

Once again we find ourselves in a situation of crisis, where the entire world holds its breath all at once and can only wait to see whether this volatile black cloud floating amongst us will breakout into a thunderstorm of nuclear war or harmlessly pass us by. The majority in the world seem to have the impression that this destructive fate totters back and forth at the whim of one man. It is only normal then, that during such times of crisis, we find ourselves trying to analyze and predict the thoughts and motives of just this one person. The assassination of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a true hero for his fellow countrymen and undeniably an essential key figure in combating terrorism in Southwest Asia, was a terrible crime, an abhorrently repugnant provocation. It was meant to cause an apoplectic fervour, it was meant to make us who desire peace, lose our minds in indignation. And therefore, that is exactly what we should not do.

In order to assess such situations, we cannot lose sight of the whole picture, and righteous indignation unfortunately causes the opposite to occur. Our focus becomes narrower and narrower to the point where we can only see or react moment to moment with what is right in front of our face. We are reduced to an obsession of twitter feeds, news blips and the doublespeak of 'official government statements'.

Thus, before we may find firm ground to stand on regarding the situation of today, we must first have an understanding as to what caused the United States to enter into an endless campaign of regime-change warfare after WWII, or as former Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff Col. Prouty stated, three decades of the Indochina war.

An Internal Shifting of Chess Pieces in the Shadows

It is interesting timing that on Sept 2, 1945, the very day that WWII ended, Ho Chi Minh would announce the independence of Indochina. That on the very day that one of the most destructive wars to ever occur in history ended, another long war was declared at its doorstep. Churchill would announce his "Iron Curtain" against communism on March 5th, 1946, and there was no turning back at that point. The world had a mere 6 months to recover before it would be embroiled in another terrible war, except for the French, who would go to war against the Viet Minh opponents in French Indochina only days after WWII was over.

In a previous paper I wrote titled "On Churchill's Sinews of Peace" , I went over a major re-organisation of the American government and its foreign intelligence bureau on the onset of Truman's de facto presidency. Recall that there was an attempted military coup d'état, which was exposed by General Butler in a public address in 1933, against the Presidency of FDR who was only inaugurated that year. One could say that there was a very marked disapproval from shadowy corners for how Roosevelt would organise the government.

One key element to this reorganisation under Truman was the dismantling of the previously existing foreign intelligence bureau that was formed by FDR, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) on Sept 20, 1945 only two weeks after WWII was officially declared over. The OSS would be replaced by the CIA officially on Sept 18, 1947, with two years of an American intelligence purge and the internal shifting of chess pieces in the shadows. In addition, de-facto President Truman would also found the United States National Security Council on Sept 18, 1947, the same day he founded the CIA. The NSC was a council whose intended function was to serve as the President's principal arm for coordinating national security, foreign policies and policies among various government agencies.

In Col. Prouty's book he states,

" In 1955, I was designated to establish an office of special operations in compliance with National Security Council (NSC) Directive #5412 of March 15, 1954. This NSC Directive for the first time in the history of the United States defined covert operations and assigned that role to the Central Intelligence Agency to perform such missions , provided they had been directed to do so by the NSC, and further ordered active-duty Armed Forces personnel to avoid such operations. At the same time, the Armed Forces were directed to "provide the military support of the clandestine operations of the CIA" as an official function . "

What this meant, was that there was to be an intermarriage of the foreign intelligence bureau with the military, and that the foreign intelligence bureau would act as top dog in the relationship, only taking orders from the NSC. Though the NSC includes the President, as we will see, the President is very far from being in the position of determining the NSC's policies.

An Inheritance of Secret Wars

" There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare. "

– Sun Tzu

On January 20th, 1961, John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as President of the United States. Along with inheriting the responsibility of the welfare of the country and its people, he was to also inherit a secret war with communist Cuba run by the CIA.

JFK was disliked from the onset by the CIA and certain corridors of the Pentagon, they knew where he stood on foreign matters and that it would be in direct conflict for what they had been working towards for nearly 15 years. Kennedy would inherit the CIA secret operation against Cuba, which Prouty confirms in his book, was quietly upgraded by the CIA from the Eisenhower administration's March 1960 approval of a modest Cuban-exile support program (which included small air drop and over-the-beach operations) to a 3,000 man invasion brigade just before Kennedy entered office.

This was a massive change in plans that was determined by neither President Eisenhower, who warned at the end of his term of the military industrial complex as a loose cannon, nor President Kennedy, but rather the foreign intelligence bureau who has never been subject to election or judgement by the people. It shows the level of hostility that Kennedy encountered as soon as he entered office, and the limitations of a President's power when he does not hold support from these intelligence and military quarters.

Within three months into JFK's term, Operation Bay of Pigs (April 17th to 20th 1961) was scheduled. As the popular revisionist history goes; JFK refused to provide air cover for the exiled Cuban brigade and the land invasion was a calamitous failure and a decisive victory for Castro's Cuba. It was indeed an embarrassment for President Kennedy who had to take public responsibility for the failure, however, it was not an embarrassment because of his questionable competence as a leader. It was an embarrassment because, had he not taken public responsibility, he would have had to explain the real reason why it failed. That the CIA and military were against him and that he did not have control over them. If Kennedy were to admit such a thing, he would have lost all credibility as a President in his own country and internationally, and would have put the people of the United States in immediate danger amidst a Cold War.

What really occurred was that there was a cancellation of the essential pre-dawn airstrike, by the Cuban Exile Brigade bombers from Nicaragua, to destroy Castro's last three combat jets. This airstrike was ordered by Kennedy himself. Kennedy was always against an American invasion of Cuba, and striking Castro's last jets by the Cuban Exile Brigade would have limited Castro's threat, without the U.S. directly supporting a regime change operation within Cuba. This went fully against the CIA's plan for Cuba.

Kennedy's order for the airstrike on Castro's jets would be cancelled by Special Assistant for National Security Affairs McGeorge Bundy, four hours before the Exile Brigade's B-26s were to take off from Nicaragua, Kennedy was not brought into this decision. In addition, the Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles, the man in charge of the Bay of Pigs operation was unbelievably out of the country on the day of the landings.

Col. Prouty, who was Chief of Special Operations during this time, elaborates on this situation:

" Everyone connected with the planning of the Bay of Pigs invasion knew that the policy dictated by NSC 5412, positively prohibited the utilization of active-duty military personnel in covert operations. At no time was an "air cover" position written into the official invasion plan The "air cover" story that has been created is incorrect. "

As a result, JFK who well understood the source of this fiasco, set up a Cuban Study Group the day after and charged it with the responsibility of determining the cause for the failure of the operation. The study group, consisting of Allen Dulles, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, Adm. Arleigh Burke and Attorney General Robert Kennedy (the only member JFK could trust), concluded that the failure was due to Bundy's telephone call to General Cabell (who was also CIA Deputy Director) that cancelled the President's air strike order.

Kennedy had them.

Humiliatingly, CIA Director Allen Dulles was part of formulating the conclusion that the Bay of Pigs op was a failure because of the CIA's intervention into the President's orders. This allowed for Kennedy to issue the National Security Action Memorandum #55 on June 28th, 1961, which began the process of changing the responsibility from the CIA to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As Prouty states,

" When fully implemented, as Kennedy had planned, after his reelection in 1964, it would have taken the CIA out of the covert operation business. This proved to be one of the first nails in John F. Kennedy's coffin. "

If this was not enough of a slap in the face to the CIA, Kennedy forced the resignation of CIA Director Allen Dulles, CIA Deputy Director for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and CIA Deputy Director Charles Cabell.

In Oct 1962, Kennedy was informed that Cuba had offensive Soviet missiles 90 miles from American shores. Soviet ships with more missiles were on their way towards Cuba but ended up turning around last minute. Rumours started to abound that JFK had cut a secret deal with Russian Premier Khrushchev, which was that the U.S. would not invade Cuba if the Soviets withdrew their missiles. Criticisms of JFK being soft on communism began to stir.

NSAM #263, closely overseen by Kennedy, was released on Oct 11th, 1963, and outlined a policy decision " to withdraw 1,000 military personnel [from Vietnam] by the end of 1963 " and further stated that " It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel [including the CIA and military] by 1965. " The Armed Forces newspaper Stars and Stripes had the headline U.S. TROOPS SEEN OUT OF VIET BY '65. Kennedy was winning the game and the American people.

This was to be the final nail in Kennedy's coffin.

Kennedy was brutally shot down only one month later, on Nov, 22nd 1963. His death should not just be seen as a tragic loss but, more importantly, it should be recognised for the successful military coup d'état that it was and is . The CIA showed what lengths it was ready to go to if a President stood in its way. (For more information on this coup refer to District Attorney of New Orleans at the time, Jim Garrison's book . And the excellently researched Oliver Stone movie "JFK")

Through the Looking Glass

On Nov. 26th 1963, a full four days after Kennedy's murder, de facto President Johnson signed NSAM #273 to begin the change of Kennedy's policy under #263. And on March 4th, 1964, Johnson signed NSAM #288 that marked the full escalation of the Vietnam War and involved 2,709,918 Americans directly serving in Vietnam, with 9,087,000 serving with the U.S. Armed Forces during this period.

The Vietnam War, or more accurately the Indochina War, would continue for another 12 years after Kennedy's death, lasting a total of 20 years for Americans.

Scattered black ops wars continued, but the next large scale-never ending war that would involve the world would begin full force on Sept 11, 2001 under the laughable title War on Terror, which is basically another Iron Curtain, a continuation of a 74 year Cold War. A war that is not meant to end until the ultimate regime changes are accomplished and the world sees the toppling of Russia and China. Iraq was destined for invasion long before the vague Gulf War of 1990 and even before Saddam Hussein was being backed by the Americans in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. Iran already suffered a CIA backed regime change in 1979.

It had been understood far in advance by the CIA and US military that the toppling of sovereignty in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran needed to occur before Russia and China could be taken over. Such war tactics were formulaic after 3 decades of counterinsurgency against the CIA fueled "communist-insurgency" of Indochina. This is how today's terrorist-inspired insurgency functions, as a perfect CIA formula for an endless bloodbath.

Former CIA Deputy Director (2010-2013) Michael Morell, who was supporting Hillary Clinton during the presidential election campaign and vehemently against the election of Trump, whom he claimed was being manipulated by Putin, said in a 2016 interview with Charlie Rose that Russians and Iranians in Syria should be killed covertly to 'pay the price' .

Therefore, when a drone stroke occurs assassinating an Iranian Maj. Gen., even if the U.S. President takes onus on it, I would not be so quick as to believe that that is necessarily the case, or the full story. Just as I would not take the statements of President Rouhani accepting responsibility for the Iranian military shooting down 'by accident' the Boeing 737-800 plane which contained 176 civilians, who were mostly Iranian, as something that can be relegated to criminal negligence, but rather that there is very likely something else going on here.

I would also not be quick to dismiss the timely release, or better described as leaked, draft letter from the US Command in Baghdad to the Iraqi government that suggests a removal of American forces from the country. Its timing certainly puts the President in a compromised situation. Though the decision to keep the American forces within Iraq or not is hardly a simple matter that the President alone can determine. In fact there is no reason why, after reviewing the case of JFK, we should think such a thing.

One could speculate that the President was set up, with the official designation of the IRGC as "terrorist" occurring in April 2019 by the US State Department, a decision that was strongly supported by both Bolton and Pompeo, who were both members of the NSC at the time. This made it legal for a US military drone strike to occur against Soleimani under the 2001 AUMF, where the US military can attack any armed group deemed to be a terrorist threat. Both Bolton and Pompeo made no secret that they were overjoyed by Soleimani's assassination and Bolton went so far as to tweet "Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran." Bolton has also made it no secret that he is eager to testify against Trump in his possible impeachment trial.

Former CIA Director Mike Pompeo was recorded at an unknown conference recently, but judging from the gross laughter of the audience it consists of wannabe CIA agents, where he admits that though West Points' cadet motto is "You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.", his training under the CIA was the very opposite, stating " I was the CIA Director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses. (long pause) It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment. "

Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country. And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes .

Tags Politics War Conflict

ThomasChase1776 , 3 minutes ago link

General Smedley Butler had an answer. Read his book.

https://www.americanswhotellthetruth.org/portraits/major-general-smedley-butler

Is-Be , 8 minutes ago link

Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a true hero for his fellow countrymen

All his countrymen?

Element , 15 minutes ago link

Who's Really In Charge Of The US Military? - Cynthia Chung via The Strategic Culture Foundation

Donald Trump, you stupid time-wasting twat .

ThomasChase1776 , 5 minutes ago link

LOL. That's a good one.

Assuming Trump is doing what he said he would, why isn't our military guarding our border?
Why hasn't our military left the middle east already?

Who really runs our government?

InTheLandOfTheBlind , 1 hour ago link

As much as I hate the CIA, mi6 had more of hand in overthrowing iran than Langley did

ThomasChase1776 , 4 minutes ago link

Is that supposed to be an excuse?

GRDguy , 1 hour ago link

". . . the CIA holds no allegiance to any country." But they sure kiss the *** of the financial sociopaths who write their paychecks and finance the black ops.

ThomasChase1776 , 4 minutes ago link

and Mossad

Slaytheist , 1 hour ago link

Does this bitch not know that the CIA is the currency mafia police....ffs, that's a **** ton of words.

oneno , 1 hour ago link

She knows ...

SRV , 1 hour ago link

Fletcher Prouty's book The Secret Team is a must read... he was on the inside and watched the formation of the permanent team established in the late 50s that assumed the power of the president.

JFK fought that team...

cynicalskeptic , 1 hour ago link

Look at who the OSS recruited - Ivy League Skull and Bones types from rich families that made their fortunes in often questionable ventures.

If you're the patriarch of some super wealthy family wouldn't you be thrilled to have younger family members working for the nation's intelligence agencies? Sort of the ultimate in 'inside information'. Plus these families had experience in things like drug smuggling, human trafficking and anything else you can imagine..... While the Brits started the opium trade with China, Americans jumped right in bringing opium from Turkey.

Didn't take long before the now CIA became owned by the families whose members staffed it.

InTheLandOfTheBlind , 43 minutes ago link

Again ignoring the British influence. The CIA does not have a monopoly on intelligence

Spiritual Anunnaki , 2 hours ago link

One major aspect pertaining American involvment in Veitnam was something like 90% of the rubber produced Globally came from the region.

It is more diverse now, being 3rd, with the association revealing that in 2017, Vietnam earned US$2.3 billion from export of 1.4 million tonnes of natural rubber, up 36% in value and 11.4% in volume year on year.

Haboob , 2 hours ago link

Fighting for rubber monopoly in Vietnam,fighting for oil monopoly in the middle east.

That's life.

Benito_Camela , 1 hour ago link

Gunboat diplomacy is nothing new. War is and always has been a racket.

InTheLandOfTheBlind , 38 minutes ago link

Unfortunately it is a winning racket.

Art_Vandelay , 2 hours ago link

Betrayals, secrets, tyranny? Who's in charge? **** Cheney & Co.

Benito_Camela , 1 hour ago link

Mike Pimpeo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPt-zXn05ac

InTheLandOfTheBlind , 36 minutes ago link

The British crown

Kan , 2 hours ago link

Rockfellers formed the OSS then the CIA which is the brute force for the CFR which they also run and own. The bankers run y our country and bought and blackmailed all your politicians... Only buttplug and pedo's get to be in charge now folks.... and some 9th circle witches of course...

TeethVillage88s , 1 hour ago link

OSS & CIA were formed from Ivy League Schools/Uni's... who turned out to be Traitors to England & USSR... Same today I

[Feb 29, 2020] Pompeo lies and smokescreen

Pompeo has just four terms in the House of Representives befor getting postions of Director of CIA (whichsuggests previous involvement with CIA) and then paradoxically the head of the State Department, He retired from the alry in the rank of comptain and never participated in any battles. He serves only in Germany, and this can be classified as a chickenhawk. He never performed any dyplomatic duries in hs life and a large part of his adult life (1998-2006) was a greddy military contractor.
Jan 07, 2020 | www.truthdig.com

UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial Executions Agnes Callamard tweeted,

#Pentagon statement on targeted killing of #suleimani :

1. It mentions that it aimed at "deterring future Iranian attack plans". This however is very vague. Future is not the same as imminent which is the time based test required under international law. (1)

-- Agnes Callamard (@AgnesCallamard) January 3, 2020

2. Overall, the statement places far greater emphasis on past activities and violations allegedly commuted by Suleimani. As such the killing appears far more retaliatory for past acts than anticipatory for imminent self defense.

-- Agnes Callamard (@AgnesCallamard) January 3, 2020

3. The notion that Suleimani was "actively developing plans" is curious both from a semantic and military standpoint. Is it sufficient to meet the test of mecessity and proportionality?

-- Agnes Callamard (@AgnesCallamard) January 3, 2020

4. The statement fails to mention the other individuals killed alongside Suleimani. Collateral? Probably. Unlawful. Absolutely.

-- Agnes Callamard (@AgnesCallamard) January 3, 2020

[Feb 27, 2020] Qasem Soleimani - Wikipedia

Jan 06, 2020 | en.wikipedia.org

Orchestration of military escalation in 2015 In 2015, Soleimani started to gather support from various sources in order to combat the newly resurgent ISIL and rebel groups which were both successful in taking large swathes of territory away from Assad's forces. He was reportedly the main architect of the joint intervention involving Russia as a new partner with Assad and Hezbollah. In 2015, Soleimani started to gather support from various sources in order to combat the newly resurgent ISIL and rebel groups which were both successful in taking large swathes of territory away from Assad's forces. He was reportedly the main architect of the joint intervention involving Russia as a new partner with Assad and Hezbollah. [47] [48] [49] [50]

According to Reuters, at a meeting in Moscow in July, Soleimani unfurled a map of Syria to explain to his Russian hosts how a series of defeats for President Bashar al-Assad could be turned into victory – with Russia's help. Qasem Soleimani's visit to Moscow was the first step in planning for a Russian military intervention that has reshaped the Syrian war and forged a new According to Reuters, at a meeting in Moscow in July, Soleimani unfurled a map of Syria to explain to his Russian hosts how a series of defeats for President Bashar al-Assad could be turned into victory – with Russia's help. Qasem Soleimani's visit to Moscow was the first step in planning for a Russian military intervention that has reshaped the Syrian war and forged a new According to Reuters, at a meeting in Moscow in July, Soleimani unfurled a map of Syria to explain to his Russian hosts how a series of defeats for President Bashar al-Assad could be turned into victory – with Russia's help.

Qasem Soleimani's visit to Moscow was the first step in planning for a Russian military intervention that has reshaped the Syrian war and forged a new Iran–Russia alliance in support of the Syrian (and Iraqi) governments. Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei also sent a senior envoy to Moscow to meet President Vladimir Putin. "Putin reportedly told [a senior Iranian envoy] 'Okay we will intervene. Send Qassem Soleimani.'" General Soleimani went to explain the map of the theatre and coordinate the strategic escalation of military forces in Syria. [49]

Operations in Aleppo
Map of the 2015 Aleppo offensives. [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]

Soleimani had a decisive impact on the theater of operations, which led to a strong advance in southern Aleppo with the government and allied forces re-capturing two military bases and dozens of towns and villages in a matter of weeks. There was also a series of major advances towards Kuweiris air-base to the north-east. [57] By mid-November, the Syrian army and its allies had gained ground in southern areas of Aleppo Governorate, capturing numerous rebel strongholds. Soleimani was reported to have personally led the drive deep into the southern Aleppo countryside where many towns and villages fell into government hands. He reportedly commanded the Syrian Arab Army's 4th Mechanized Division, Hezbollah, Harakat Al-Nujaba (Iraqi), Kata'ib Hezbollah (Iraqi), Liwaa Abu Fadl Al-Abbas (Iraqi), and Firqa Fatayyemoun (Afghan/Iranian volunteers). [58]

In early February 2016, backed by Russian and Syrian air force airstrikes, the 4th Mechanized Division – in close coordination with Hezbollah, the National Defense Forces (NDF), Kata'eb Hezbollah, and Harakat Al-Nujaba – launched an offensive in Aleppo Governorate's northern countryside, [59] which eventually broke the three-year siege of Nubl and Al-Zahraa and cut off the rebels' main supply route from Turkey. According to a senior, non-Syrian security source close to Damascus, Iranian fighters played a crucial role in the conflict. "Qassem Soleimani is there in the same area", he said. [60] In December 2016, new photos emerged of Soleimani at the Citadel of Aleppo , though the exact date of the photos is unknown. [61] [62]

... ... ...

In 2014, Qasem Soleimani was in the Iraqi city of Amirli , to work with the Iraqi forces to push back militants from ISIL. [68] [69] According to the Los Angeles Times , which reported that Amirli was the first town to successfully withstand an ISIS invasion, it was secured thanks to "an unusual partnership of Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers, Iranian-backed Shiite militias and U.S. warplanes". The U.S. acted as a force multiplier for a number of Iranian-backed armed groups – at the same time that was present on the battlefield. [70] [71] Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani prays in the Syrian desert during a local pro-government offensive in 2017

A senior Iraqi official told the BBC that when the city of Mosul fell, the rapid reaction of Iran, rather than American bombing, was what prevented a more widespread collapse. [11] Qasem Soleimani also seems to have been instrumental in planning the operation to relieve Amirli in Saladin Governorate, where ISIL had laid siege to an important city. [66] In fact the Quds force operatives under Soleimani's command seem to have been deeply involved with not only the Iraqi army and Shi'ite militias but also the Kurdish in the Battle of Amirli , [72] not only providing liaisons for intelligence-sharing but also the supply of arms and munitions in addition to "providing expertise". [73]

In the operation to liberate Jurf Al Sakhar , he was reportedly "present on the battlefield". Some Shia militia commanders described Soleimani as "fearless" – one pointing out that the Iranian general never wears a flak jacket , even on the front lines. [74]

In November 2014, Shi'ite and Kurdish forces under Soleimani's command pushed ISIS out of Iraqi villages of Jalawla and Saadia, in the Diyala Governorate . [67]

Soleimani was also intimately involved in the planning and execution of the operation to liberate Tikrit . [75] [76]

Soleimani played an integral role in the organisation and planning of the crucial operation to retake the city of Tikrit in Iraq from ISIS. The city of Tikrit rests on the left bank of the Tigris river and is the largest and most important city between Baghdad and Mosul, giving it a high strategic value. The city fell to ISIS during 2014 when ISIS made immense gains in northern and central Iraq. After its capture, ISIL's massacre at Camp Speicher led to 1,600 to 1,700 deaths of Iraqi Army cadets and soldiers. After months of careful preparation and intelligence gathering an offensive to encircle and capture Tikrit was launched in early March 2015. [76]

[Feb 27, 2020] Geraldo Rivera: "Don't For A Minute" Cheer Killing Of Iranian General; "What We Have Unleashed?"

In view of event of Jan 7 it looks like Geraldo Rivera had the point. He beautifully cut the neocon jerk by reminding him the role of the US intelligence agencies in unleashing Iraq war
Jan 02, 2020 | www.realclearpolitics.com

FOX News correspondent Geraldo Rivera debated "Fox & Friends" hosts Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy Friday about the assassination of Iranian special forces General Qassim al Soleimani in Iraq, warning of dire consequences if Iran chooses to retaliate and telling Kilmeade: "You, like Lindsey Graham, have never met a war you didn't like."

"Your arrogance is exactly what's wrong with the region," Geraldo said. "You're not a front-line fighter that has to go back into Iraq again."

GERALDO RIVERA: We thought that when the de-escalation at the embassy happened a couple of days ago that was the end of this chapter. The U.S., with it's firmness, had won the victory. It wasn't going to be Benghazi, it wasn't going to be Tehran from 1980. We won that technical victory.

Now we have taken this huge military escalation. Now I fear the worst. You're going to see the U.S. markets go crazy today. You're going to see the price of oil spiking today. This is a very, very big deal.

BRIAN KILMEADE: I don't know if you heard, this isn't about his resume of blood and death, it was about what was next. That's what you're missing.

STEVE DOOCY: According to the Secretary of Defense.

GERALDO RIVERA: By what credible source can you predict what the next Iranian move will be?

BRIAN KILMEADE: Secretary fo State and American intelligence provided that material.

GERALDO RIVERA: They've been excellent. They've been excellent, the U.S. intelligence has been excellent since 2003 when we invaded Iraq, disrupted the entire region for no real reason. Don't for a minute start cheering this on, what we have done, what we have unleashed --

BRIAN KILMEADE: I will cheer it on. I am elated.

GERALDO RIVERA: Then you, like Lindsey Graham, have never met a war you didn't like.

BRIAN KILMEADE: That is not true, and don't even say that.

GERALDO RIVERA: If President Trump wanted a de-escalation --

BRIAN KILMEADE: Let them kill us for another 15 years?

GERALDO RIVERA: If President Trump wanted a de-escalation and to bring our troops home--

BRIAN KILMEADE: What about the 700 Americans who are dead, should they not be happy?

GERALDO RIVERA: What about the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have died since 2003? You have to start seeing. What the hell are we doing in Baghdad in the first place? Why are we there?

BRIAN KILMEADE: So you're blaming President Bush for the maniacal killing of Saddam Hussein?

GERALDO RIVERA: I am blaming President Bush in 2003 for the fake weapons of mass destruction that never existed and the con-job that drove us into that war.

[Feb 25, 2020] How John Bolton and a Phony Script Brought Us to the Brink of War by Scott Ritter

Bolton is a typical "Full Spectrum Dominance" hawk, a breed of chickenhawks that recently proliferated in Washinton corridors of power and which are fed by MIC.
Notable quotes:
"... the way the IRGC came to be designated as an FTO is itself predicated on a lie. ..."
"... The person responsible for this lie is President Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton, who while in that position oversaw National Security Council (NSC) interagency policy coordination meetings at the White House for the purpose of formulating a unified government position on Iran. Bolton had stacked the NSC staff with hardliners who were pushing for a strong stance. But representatives from the Department of Defense often pushed back . During such meetings, the Pentagon officials argued that the IRGC was "a state entity" (albeit a "bad" one), and that if the U.S. were to designate it as a terrorist group, there was nothing to stop Iran from responding by designating U.S. military personnel or CIA officers as terrorists. ..."
"... The memoranda on these meetings, consisting of summaries of the various positions put forward, were doctored by the NSC to make it appear as if the Pentagon agreed with its proposed policy. The Defense Department complained to the NSC that the memoranda produced from these meetings were "largely incorrect and inaccurate" -- "essentially fiction," a former Pentagon official claimed. ..."
"... This was a direct result of the bureaucratic dishonesty of John Bolton. Such dishonesty led to a series of policy decisions that gave a green light to use military force against IRGC targets throughout the Middle East. ..."
Feb 25, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
President Trump's decision to assassinate Qassem Soleimani back in January took the United States to the brink of war with Iran.

Trump and his advisors contend that Soleimani's death was necessary to protect American lives, pointing to a continuum of events that began on December 27, when a rocket attack on an American base in Iraq killed a civilian translator. That in turn prompted U.S. airstrikes against a pro-Iranian militia, Khati'ab Hezbollah, which America blamed for the attack. Khati'ab Hezbollah then stormed the U.S. embassy in Baghdad in protest. This reportedly triggered the assassination of Soleimani and a subsequent Iranian retaliatory missile strike on an American base in Iraq. The logic of this continuum appears consistent except for one important fact -- it is all predicated on a lie.

On the night of December 27, a pickup truck modified to carry a launchpad capable of firing 36 107mm Russian-made rockets was used in an attack on a U.S. military compound located at the K-1 Airbase in Iraq's Kirkuk Province. A total of 20 rockets were loaded onto the vehicle, but only 14 were fired. Some of the rockets struck an ammunition dump on the base, setting off a series of secondary explosions. When the smoke and dust cleared, a civilian interpreter was dead and several other personnel , including four American servicemen and two Iraqi military, were wounded. The attack appeared timed to disrupt a major Iraqi military operation targeting insurgents affiliated with ISIS.

The area around K-1 is populated by Sunni Arabs, and has long been considered a bastion of ISIS ideology, even if the organization itself was declared defeated inside Iraq back in 2017 by then-prime minister Haider al Abadi. The Iraqi counterterrorism forces based at K-1 consider the area around the base an ISIS sanctuary so dangerous that they only enter in large numbers.

For their part, the Iraqis had been warning their U.S. counterparts for more than a month that ISIS was planning attacks on K-1. One such report, delivered on November 6, using intelligence dating back to October, was quite specific: "ISIS terrorists have endeavored to target K-1 base in Kirkuk district by indirect fire (Katyusha rockets)."

Another report, dated December 25, warned that ISIS was attempting to seize territory to the northeast of K-1. The Iraqis were so concerned that on December 27, the day of the attack, they requested that the U.S. keep functional its tethered aerostat-based Persistent Threat Detection System (PTSD) -- a high-tech reconnaissance balloon equipped with multi-mission sensors to provide long endurance intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) and communications in support of U.S. and Iraqi forces.

Instead, the U.S. took the PTSD down for maintenance, allowing the attackers to approach unobserved.

The Iraqi military officials at K-1 immediately suspected ISIS as the culprit behind the attack. Their logic was twofold. First, ISIS had been engaged in nearly daily attacks in the area for over a year, launching rockets, firing small arms, and planting roadside bombs. Second, according to the Iraqis , "The villages near here are Turkmen and Arab. There is sympathy with Daesh [i.e., ISIS] there."

As transparent as the Iraqis had been with the U.S. about their belief that ISIS was behind the attack, the U.S. was equally opaque with the Iraqis regarding whom it believed was the culprit. The U.S. took custody of the rocket launcher, all surviving ordnance, and all warhead fragments from the scene.

U.S. intelligence analysts viewed the attack on K-1 as part of a continuum of attacks against U.S. bases in Iraq since early November 2019. The first attack took place on November 9, against the joint U.S.-Iraqi base at Qayarrah , and was very similar to the one that occurred against K-1 -- some 31 107mm rockets were fired from a pickup truck modified to carry a rocket launchpad. As with K-1, the forces located in Qayarrah were engaged in ongoing operations targeting ISIS, and the territory around the base was considered sympathetic to ISIS. The Iraqi government attributed the attack to unspecified "terrorist" groups.

The U.S., however, attributed the attacks to Khati'ab Hezbollah, a Shia militia incorporated with the Popular Mobilization Organization (PMO), a pro-Iranian umbrella organization that had been incorporated into the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. The PMO blamed the U.S. for a series of drone strikes against its facilities throughout the summer of 2019. The feeling among the American analysts was that the PMO attacked the bases as a form of retaliation.

The U.S. launched a series of airstrikes against Khati'ab Hezbollah bases and command posts in Iraq and Syria on December 29, near the Iraqi city of al-Qaim. These attacks were carried out unilaterally, without any effort to coordinate with America's Iraqi counterparts or seek approval from the Iraqi government.

Khati'ab Hezbollah units had seized al-Qaim from ISIS in November 2017, and then crossed into Syria, where they defeated ISIS fighters dug in around the Syrian town of al-Bukamal. They were continuing to secure this strategic border crossing when they were bombed on December 29.

Left unsaid by the U.S. was the fact that the al-Bukamal-al Qaim border crossing was seen as a crucial "land bridge," connecting Iran with Syria via Iraq. Throughout the summer of 2019, the U.S. had been watching as Iranian engineers, working with Khati'ab Hezbollah, constructed a sprawling base that straddled both Iraq and Syria. It was this base, and not Khati'ab Hezbollah per se, that was the reason for the American airstrike. The objective in this attack was to degrade Iranian capability in the region; the K-1 attack was just an excuse, one based on the lie that Khati'ab Hezbollah, and not ISIS, had carried it out.

The U.S. had long condemned what it called Iran's "malign intentions" when it came to its activities in Iraq and Syria. But there is a world of difference between employing tools of diplomacy to counter Iranian regional actions and going kinetic. One of the reasons the U.S. has been able to justify attacking Iranian-affiliated targets, such as the al-Bukamal-al-Qaim complex and Qassem Soleimani, is that the Iranian entity associated with both -- the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC -- has been designated by the U.S. as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), and as such military attacks against it are seen as an extension of the ongoing war on terror. Yet the way the IRGC came to be designated as an FTO is itself predicated on a lie.

The person responsible for this lie is President Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton, who while in that position oversaw National Security Council (NSC) interagency policy coordination meetings at the White House for the purpose of formulating a unified government position on Iran. Bolton had stacked the NSC staff with hardliners who were pushing for a strong stance. But representatives from the Department of Defense often pushed back . During such meetings, the Pentagon officials argued that the IRGC was "a state entity" (albeit a "bad" one), and that if the U.S. were to designate it as a terrorist group, there was nothing to stop Iran from responding by designating U.S. military personnel or CIA officers as terrorists.

The memoranda on these meetings, consisting of summaries of the various positions put forward, were doctored by the NSC to make it appear as if the Pentagon agreed with its proposed policy. The Defense Department complained to the NSC that the memoranda produced from these meetings were "largely incorrect and inaccurate" -- "essentially fiction," a former Pentagon official claimed.

After the Pentagon "informally" requested that the NSC change the memoranda to accurately reflect its position, and were denied, the issue was bumped up to Undersecretary of Defense John Rood. He then formally requested that the memoranda be corrected. Such a request was unprecedented in recent memory, a former official noted. Regardless, the NSC did not budge, and the original memoranda remained as the official records of the meetings in question.

President Trump designated the IRGC a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in April 2018.

This was a direct result of the bureaucratic dishonesty of John Bolton. Such dishonesty led to a series of policy decisions that gave a green light to use military force against IRGC targets throughout the Middle East. The rocket attack against K-1 was attributed to an Iranian proxy -- Khati'ab Hezbollah -- even though there was reason to believe the attack was carried out by ISIS. This was a cover so IRGC-affiliated facilities in al-Bakumal and al-Qaim, which had nothing to do with the attack, could be bombed. Everything to do with Iran's alleged "malign intent." The U.S. embassy was then attacked. Soleimani killed. The American base at al-Assad was bombarded by Iranian missiles. America and Iran were on the brink of war.

All because of a lie.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several books, most recently, Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War (2018).

[Feb 25, 2020] A Worthless 'New Deal' from the Iran Hawks

So Menendez survived as MIC stooge. Nice.
Iran hawks never talk about diplomacy except as a way to discredit it.
Notable quotes:
"... And even if Iran were to accept and proceed comply in good faith, just as Iran complied scrupulously with the JCPOA, what's to prevent any US administration from tearing up that "new deal" and demanding more? ..."
Feb 25, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
|

10:03 am

Daniel Larison Two Iran hawks from the Senate, Bob Menendez and Lindse Graham, are proposing a "new deal" that is guaranteed to be a non-starter with Iran:

Essentially, their idea is that the United States would offer a new nuclear deal to both Iran and the gulf states at the same time. The first part would be an agreement to ensure that Iran and the gulf states have access to nuclear fuel for civilian energy purposes, guaranteed by the international community in perpetuity. In exchange, both Iran and the gulf states would swear off nuclear fuel enrichment inside their own countries forever.

Iran is never going to accept any agreement that requires them to give up domestic enrichment. As far as they are concerned, they are entitled to this under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and they regard it as a matter of their national rights that they keep it. Insisting on "zero enrichment" is what made it impossible to reach an agreement with Iran for the better part of a decade, and it was only when the Obama administration understood this and compromised to allow Iran to enrich under tight restrictions that the negotiations could move forward. Demanding "zero enrichment" today in 2020 amounts to rejecting that compromise and returning to a bankrupt approach that drove Iran to build tens of thousands of centrifuges. As a proposal for negotiations, it is dead on arrival, and Menendez and Graham must know that. Iran hawks never talk about diplomacy except as a way to discredit it. They want to make a bogus offer in the hopes that it will be rejected so that they can use the rejection to justify more aggressive measures.

The identity of the authors of the plan is a giveaway that the offer is not a serious diplomatic proposal. Graham is one of the most incorrigible hard-liners on Iran, and Menendez is probably the most hawkish Democratic senator in office today. Among other things, Menendez has been a booster of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), the deranged cult of Iranian exiles that has been buying the support of American politicians and officials for years. Graham has never seen a diplomatic agreement that he didn't want to destroy. When hard-liners talk about making a "deal," they always mean that they want to demand the other side's surrender.

Another giveaway that this is not a serious proposal is the fact that they want this imaginary agreement submitted as a treaty:

That final deal would be designated as a treaty, ratified by the U.S. Senate, to give Iran confidence that a new president won't just pull out (like President Trump did on President Barack Obama's nuclear deal).

This is silly for many reasons. The Senate doesn't ratify treaties nowadays, so any "new deal" submitted as a treaty would never be ratified. As the current president has shown, it doesn't matter if a treaty has been ratified by the Senate. Presidents can and do withdraw from ratified treaties if they want to, and the fact that it is a ratified treaty doesn't prevent them from doing this. Bush pulled out of the ABM Treaty, which was ratified 88-2 in 1972. Trump withdrew from the INF Treaty just last year. The INF Treaty had been ratified with a 93-5 vote. The hawkish complaint that the JCPOA wasn't submitted as a treaty was, as usual, made in bad faith. There was no chance that the JCPOA would have been ratified, and even if it had been that ratification would not have protected it from being tossed aside by Trump. Insisting on making any new agreement a treaty is just another way of announcing that they have no interest in a diplomatic solution.

Menendez and Graham want to make the obstacles to diplomacy so great that negotiations between the U.S. and Iran can't resume. It isn't a serious proposal, and it shouldn't be taken seriously.

Feral Finster • 5 hours ago

And even if Iran were to accept and proceed comply in good faith, just as Iran complied scrupulously with the JCPOA, what's to prevent any US administration from tearing up that "new deal" and demanding more?

[Feb 24, 2020] Missiles Attack on Al Assad Base was a message: Iran is No Paper Tiger

Feb 24, 2020 | www.winterwatch.net

Although Trump decided to call this as "Iran standing down," analysts on both sides can work the calculus of this test run. I have been suggesting that Iran's cheaper technology is quite effective and an advantage near their "home court."

Read "The Van Riper Gambit: Iran Scores Against Expensive High-Tech US Gadgetry"

The Iranians used a third- or fourth-generation Fateh 110, which was generally given a range of 300 km. But the Al Assad base is 370 km from the border, so it seems the Iranians squeezed out some extra range. The fourth generation Fateh 100 carries a 650 kg warhead. Iran certainly has missiles with more punch. The Quim 1 is essentially a similar missile.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/63ehLAg7mSU

Iran showed that it can put most of Iraq in range of these low-cost missiles should it become a battleground. The Al Assad base is large and target-rich.

Leaked pictures taken by a Puerto Rican soldier of the damage to the Al-Asad US airbase in Iraq, after being hit by Iranian missiles.

The Pentagon have told soldiers not to film the damage. #NoWarWithIran #Iran pic.twitter.com/Kl4WF6tmy0

-- Ian56 (@Ian56789) January 9, 2020

Meanwhile, Russia offered Iraq its state-of-the-art S-400 air defense to defend its air space.

Besides the added range, the accuracy looks impressive.

"Some of the locations struck look like the missiles hit dead center," said David Schmerler, an analyst with the Middlebury Institute.

Numbers and production information relating to the Fateh 110 are currently uncertain, yet Iranian media sources claim that facilities have been created to mass produce the weapon.

Michael Elleman, director of the Nonproliferation and Nuclear Policy Programme at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, estimates that Iran has numbers "in the high hundreds" of the Fateh-110.

Our takeaway is that this night demonstration is hardly a dud and will give Americans some pause. It shows this key base at Al Assad will be vulnerable. If one night Iran threw a hundred of these missiles up and aimed them at personnel, things could get ugly fast.

Observers are asking "where was the Patriot defense missile?" The problem is economic. The cost of each missile is $2.75 million. A Rand study estimated that a Patriot will need three rounds to take down basic short-range ballistic missiles like the Fateh-110. That's 30 times more than the cost of Fateh. Iran would hope the Patriot is wasted on Fatehs and Quims, and they would gladly run that kind of cost-benefit math all over the region.

"For the time being, the Americans have been given a slap, revenge is a different issue," Iran's Fars News Agency quotes Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as saying Wednesday. "Military moves like this are not enough. The Americans' corruption-stirring presence will come to an end."

Winter Watch Takeaway

U.S. vulnerability at Al Assad has now been well demonstrated. If anything -- especially as more sanctions are being slapped on -- the War Party in Iran will be emboldened to run with their advantages and do so well before more American troops and aircraft build up in the theater.

[Feb 23, 2020] Did not Pompous Pompeo accidentally found a good method to ensure vassals compliance?

Notable quotes:
"... He is making the USA a laughing stock, very threatening for sure, but he is a laughing stock and he perfectly sets up the scenario to ridicule his mongrel stupid president. ..."
Feb 14, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Piotr Berman , Feb 11 2020 23:08 utc | 26

On the big issue though I cant help seeing Pontious Pompeo as hurling himself about the globe tilting at windmills. He is making the USA a laughing stock, very threatening for sure, but he is a laughing stock and he perfectly sets up the scenario to ridicule his mongrel stupid president.

uncle tungsten | Feb 11 2020 22:52 utc | 30

Isn't it a good method? This way, the vassals can comply with a smile.

[Feb 22, 2020] The Coming Constitutional Crisis Over Iran

Feb 22, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sakineh Bagoom , Feb 22 2020 2:35 utc | 73

Sorry OT.
Great read, by professor Bruce Ackerman.
Had to share. Amazingly succinct.
The Coming Constitutional Crisis Over Iran
https://prospect.org/justice/trump-pelosi-coming-constitutional-crisis-over-iran/

[Feb 16, 2020] Pompeo's Empty Boasting in Munich

These demented human beings are miserable, self seeking failures by any measurement of dignity. In a way they are possessed with "Full Spectrum Dominance" delution.
Feb 16, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
tone-deaf, arrogant speech in Munich this weekend in which he proclaimed that "the West is winning." In the most hypocritical and absurd section of the speech, Pompeo railed against other states' violations of sovereignty:

Look, this matters. This matters because assaults on sovereignty destabilize. Assaults on sovereignty impoverish. Assaults on sovereignty enslave. Assaults on sovereignty are, indeed, assaults on the very freedom that anchors the Western ideal.

Trump administration officials like talking about the importance of sovereignty almost as much as they enjoy trampling on the sovereignty of other states. The problem with Pompeo's sovereignty talk is that the U.S. obviously doesn't respect the sovereignty of many countries, and almost every criticism that he levels against someone else can be turned around against the U.S. The U.S. daily violates Syrian sovereignty with an illegal military presence. U.S. forces remain in Iraq against the wishes of the Iraqi government, and our military has repeatedly carried out attacks inside Iraq over their government's objections in just the last two months. The Trump administration respects sovereignty and territorial integrity so much that it has endorsed illegal Israeli annexation of Syrian territory and it has given a green light to more annexations in the future. It is now supporting an illegal Turkish incursion into Syria.

Pompeo said at one point:

Respect for sovereignty of nations is a secret of and central to our success. The West is winning.

As we look back on the record of how the U.S. and our allies have behaved over the last 30 years, respect for other nations' sovereignty is not what we see. On the contrary, there has been a series of unnecessary and sometimes illegal wars that the U.S. and its allies have waged either to overthrow a foreign government, or to take sides in an internal conflict, or both. The U.S. and our allies and the other countries certainly would have been better off if that hadn't happened. Our recent record is nothing to boast about. It is typical of Pompeo that he celebrates successes where there aren't any. He says that "the West is winning," but what exactly have we won? The U.S. is still involved in multiple desultory conflicts, and relations with many of our most important allies are more strained than at any time since the start of the Iraq war. If "the West is winning," what would repeated failures look like?

Pompeo calls out economic coercion as one of the harmful things that other states do, but he is part of an administration that has used economic warfare more than anyone else against more targets than ever before. If the U.S. refrained from using economic coercion as one of its main tools in trying to compel other states to do what Washington wants, the attacks on other states' use of economic coercion might carry some weight. As things stand, Pompeo's words are just so much wind.

The theme of Pompeo's speech is refuting criticism from allies about how the U.S. is conducting its foreign policy, but I doubt that many Europeans in the audience were reassured by his hectoring, triumphalist tone. It doesn't help when he is accusing many of our allies of being fools and dupes:

When so-called Iranian moderates play the victim, remember their assassination and terror campaigns against innocent Iranian civilians and right here on European soil itself.

When Russia suggests that Nord Stream 2 is purely a commercial endeavor, don't be fooled. Consider the deprivations caused in the winters of 2006 and 2008 and 2009 and 2015.

When Huawei executives show up at your door, they say you'll lose out if you don't buy in. Don't believe the hype.

Needless to say, many of our European allies have very different views on all of these issues, and berating their position isn't going to make them agree with the Trump administration's unreasonable demands. Pompeo wants to tout the virtues of sovereignty, but as soon as our allies take decisions that displease him and Trump he castigates them for it. Respecting the sovereignty and independence of other states includes respecting their right to make decisions on policy that our government doesn't like. Of course, Pompeo would rather have our allies behave like vassals and expects other partners to obey as if they are colonies. Behind all the sovereignty rhetoric is an unmistakable desire to dictate terms and force others to do the administration's bidding. The countries that are on the receiving end of this insufferable arrogance can see through Pompeo's words. All three of those issues touch on areas where the U.S. insists that our allies abandon their own interests because Washington tells them to. That is exactly the sort of heavy-handed "leadership" that our allies resent, and Pompeo's speech will just remind them why they hate it.

[Feb 16, 2020] Ultimately, a soldier would be diagnosed with a concussion because the soldier (who has financial benefits to gain) says so, and a physician does not dispute it.

Feb 16, 2020 | www.unz.com

The Scalpel , says: Website Show Comment February 13, 2020 at 7:04 am GMT

I posted this on an earlier thread, but it is relevant here.

I have been a working full time in Emergency Medicine for over 20 years. I was a "Flight Surgeon" in the Army. Soldiers are notorious for playing up any combat related injury in order to qualify for disability and the financial benefits that flow from being categorized as being disabled. As far as we know, the most serious claimed injuries were "concussions." As a practicing specialist in Emergency Medicine, I can explain that the diagnosis of "concussion" means, by definition, that no abnormality is seen on CT scanning of the brain. The diagnosis is made based on the injured person's purely subjective complaints, i.e. whatever the allegedly injured person says. If the allegedly injured person says the right things, then a physician may call the symptoms that of a concussion.

So, ultimately, a soldier would be diagnosed with a concussion because the soldier (who has financial benefits to gain) says so, and a physician does not dispute it.

I have seen hundreds if not thousands of diagnoses of "concussion". That diagnosis does not have to be supported by any specific findings or even a proper understanding of the diagnosis. It simply has to be entered in the record by a licensed physician. Once that diagnosis is on the medical record, it is up to subsequent providers to refute that diagnosis if they desire to do so.

This is something subsequent providers are very unlikely to want to dedicate the time and effort required to accomplish. There is usually no financial or professional incentive to do so – often the opposite. There is no specific test to definitively say one way or the other if a person had a "concussion". Like PTSD it is a "functional" diagnosis based mainly on subjective symptoms and not objective test results. This is not to say such things do not exist. They do exist. It is only to say that they can be faked or misinterpreted and that will happen if there is a financial incentive to do so.

Intelligent Dasein , says: Show Comment February 13, 2020 at 3:26 pm GMT
@The Scalpel I'm sure your assessment is accurate, and is symptomatic of a much more general problem affecting the axis of medicine, insurance, pharma, and state pension systems (military or civilian), not to mention all corporations and agencies to various degrees.

When doctors' medical opinions are considered sacrosanct and sufficient to secure payouts, excuse time off from work, and add one's name to the list of medically "made men," they are certain to be pursued like bounty on the high seas. No small number of doctors are content to play along with this system, as it secures a steady stream of income for them as well. Foreign doctors, who are often perfectly comfortable with graft and fraud, are especially bad in this regard.

Employers are left with no recourse except to eat the cost of malingering employees and ever swelling pension rolls, which no employeer can long afford at the micro level and which society itself cannot afford at the macro level.

Another complicating factor is added by the cultural obsession with business efficiency. When the VA scandal broke in 2014, a lot of people were upset by the thought that veterans were receiving shoddy care and insisted that "more must be done," not realizing that this very insistance was at the root of the problem. I said at the time that the real lesson here was that the VA had been "Six-Sigma'ed" by incompetent management who demanded faster claims processing and unrealistic expenditure reductions.

These schizophrenic cultural trends -- viz. , on the one hand, greater and greater demands for doles by an aging and sickening population; and, on the other hand, the feckless attempts to mitigate the very real unaffordability of this by an oligarchic business philosophy that knows only how to downsize, offshore, and automate based on a naive reliance on the dubious benefits of technology -- are going to culminate in an epic breakdown of social functioning over the next decade.

Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment February 13, 2020 at 7:19 pm GMT
@The Scalpel Perhaps you need to return to medical school for a refresher. A "concussion" may, or may not, be seen as an abnormality, usually subdural haematoma, on a CT scan. The reason for requesting the CT scan would be from the patient reported complaints, but also from the objective medical examination for things like pupils and reaction. Radiation is not good for you. If you are ordering CT scans before examination, you've got it backwards.
Max Payne , says: Show Comment February 13, 2020 at 10:37 pm GMT
There are no causalities you guys over estimate the steadfastness of the US military.

Purple heart = disability cheque.

No one can disprove a concussion.

And that's the real embarrassment that the Pentagon is trying to hide.

These guys (US forces) teach other how to fake PTSD to get on disability. I've seen it countless times in Western armed forces. Its how I know Iran will never be invaded or even bombed back to the stone age. You have to have balls for that and clearly the West and Israel have none. (Bush invaded Iraq on the premise of an empty vial; the Iranian counterattack was a legit no-shit missile attack on US forces and . NOTHING HAPPENED).

As for reality I have colleagues who are so disconnected from international politics that reality (past their 9-5 job) means nothing. Reality won't kick in until it comes home to bite them in the ass. It's that simple. A programmer who does nothing for 10 years but play games and write software, what does he care about causalities in Iraq? Seriously. For him that was a 20 second twitter feed which entertained him on his way to work and that's it.

GuestAug , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 12:10 am GMT
This should be no surprise. "The first causality of [any] war is the truth."
The Scalpel , says: Website Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 3:12 am GMT
@Curmudgeon Perhaps you have heard the old proverb, "It is best to keep your mouth shut and have people suspect you are ignorant, than to open it and prove to people that you are ignorant"

A subdural hematoma is (let me say this slowly for you) a sudural hematoma. A concussion is (again slowly) a concussion. They are two separate diagnoses.

Concussion: ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code S06.0
Traumatic Subdural Hematoma: ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code S06.5X0A

Pretty good chance you don't know what these codes mean. If not, there is this thing called Google. Look it up.

"things like pupils and reaction"

WTF? I think you might be trying to describe testing for pupils being reactive to light (the normal state of affairs.) Abnormally reactive pupils are not required for the diagnosis of concussion and, in fact, are not usually present.

Radiation is not good for you. If you are ordering CT scans before examination, you've got it backwards.

That, in fact, is all true. What is not true is that I made any sort of suggestion at all to order tests before an exam. You need to lay off the hash pipe.

FYI:

Concussion: A concussion is a type of brain injury. It is a short loss of normal brain function in response to a head injury. Concussions are a common type of sports injury. You can also suffer from one if you suffer a blow to the head or hit your head after a fall. After a concussion, you may have a

headache or neck pain. You may also experience nausea, ringing in your ears, dizziness, or tiredness. You may feel dazed or not your normal self

for several days or weeks after the injury.

https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/S00-T88/S00-S09/S06/S06.0-

All these symptoms are subjective, i.e. they are basically what the patient reports – truthfully or not.

FWIW, I have found the most reliable symptom in diagnosing concussion is short term memory loss. The patient asks the same question over and over as if he never got an answer.

Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 8:14 pm GMT
@The Scalpel I'm well aware of what a CT is, I was doing them more than 40 years ago, likely before you were in med school. I know what a concussion is, I've had one, and went through the examination. If you actually read my response, I did not say that every concussion resulted in a subdural haematoma.
Patient reaction includes memory loss. Dizziness is what a patient reports. Of course what patients report is subjective, just as pain tolerance is, but it doesn't invalidate them.
The Scalpel , says: Website Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 8:47 pm GMT
I never said or implied that you did not know what a CT scan is. I think I get it now. You really are a curmudgeon (as in elderly) and your cognitive abilities are flagging. I am sorry for being rude earlier. As you may recall, the point being made was that a simple concussion is not visible on CT scan. A subdural hematoma is visible – as well as many other traumatic brain injuries, . A concussion is not visible. Subjective complaints are not invalid. They are as honest as the person making the complaint.
Buck Ransom , says: Show Comment February 16, 2020 at 3:36 pm GMT
@The Scalpel Are you suggesting that The Greatest Fighting Force in the Galaxy in All of History, the military of the world's Exceptional Nation, is riddled with grifters?

[Feb 16, 2020] The highwater mark in SEAsia was the helicopters evacuating the last invaders from Saigon. The highwater mark in the ME is going to be similar scenes in Iraq.

Feb 16, 2020 | off-guardian.org

Dungroanin ,

It seems that history is about to repeat. The highwater mark in SEAsia was the helicopters evacuating the last invaders from Saigon. The highwater mark in the ME is going to be similar scenes in Iraq.

A final warning has been issued to US troops there – 40 days after Soleimanis assassination – the Resistance is ready to move, an irresistible force about to meet a not so immovable object.

Along with Idlib and Allepo its been amazing start to 2020. And its not even spring!

[Feb 16, 2020] Imperialism and Liberation in the Middle East Feb 14, 2020 Written by P l Steigan, translated by Terje Maloy

Notable quotes:
"... Imperialism – the highest stage of capitalism ..."
"... Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians, found home in the EU thanks to madame Merkel. ..."
"... How ligitimate is that? ..."
Feb 16, 2020 | off-guardian.org

At the moment, the United States has great difficulty in retaining its hegemony in the Middle East. Its troops have been declared unwanted in Iraq; and in Syria, the US and their foreign legion of terrorists lose terrain and positions every month. The US has responded to this with a significant escalation, by deploying more troops and by constant threats against Iran. At the same time, we have seen strong protest movements in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran.

When millions of Iraqi took to the streets recently, their main slogan was "THE UNITED STATES OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST!"

How should one analyze this?

Obviously, there are a lot of social tensions in the Middle East – class based, ethnic, religious and cultural. The region is a patchwork of conflicts and tensions that not only goes back hundreds of years, but even a few thousand.

There are always many reasons to rebel against a corrupt upper class, anywhere in the world. But no rebellion can succeed if it is not based on a realistic and thorough analysis of the specific conditions in the individual country and region.

Just as in Africa, the borders in the Middle East are arbitrarily drawn. They are the product of the manipulations of imperialist powers, and only to a lesser extent products of what the peoples themselves have wanted.

During the era of decolonization, there was a strong, secular pan-Arab movement that wanted to create a unified Arab world. This movement was influenced by the nationalist and socialist ideas that had strong popular support at the time.

King Abdallah I of Jordan envisaged a kingdom that would consist of Jordan, Palestine and Syria. Egypt and Syria briefly established a union called the United Arab Republic . Gaddafi wanted to unite Libya, Syria and Egypt in a federation of Arab republics .

In 1958, a quickly dissolved confederation was established between Jordan and Iraq, called the Arab Federation . All these efforts were transient. What remains is the Arab League, which is, after all, not a state federation and not an alliance. And then of course we have the demand for a Kurdish state, or something similar consisting of one or more Kurdish mini-states.

Still, the most divisive product of the First World War was the establishment of the state of Israel on Palestinian soil. During the First World War, Britain's Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour issued what became known as the Balfour Declaration , which " view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

But what is the basis for all these attempts at creating states? What are the prerequisites for success or failure?

The imperialist powers divide the world according to the power relations between them

Lenin gave the best and most durable explanation for this, in his essay Imperialism – the highest stage of capitalism . There, he explained five basic features of the era of imperialism:

The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; The merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this "finance capital", of a financial oligarchy; The export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves; The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.

But Lenin also pointed out that capitalist countries are developing unevenly, not least because of the uneven development of productive forces in the various capitalist countries.

After a while, there arises a discrepancy between how the world is divided and the relative strength of the imperialist powers. This disparity will eventually force through a redistribution, a new division of the world based on the new relationship of strength. And, as Lenin states :

The question is: what means other than war could there be under capitalism to overcome the disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence for finance capital on the other?"

The two world wars were wars that arose because of unevenness in the power relationships between the imperialist powers. The British Empire was past its heyday and British capitalism lagged behind in the competition. The United States and Germany were the great powers that had the largest industrial and technological growth, and eventually this misalignment exploded. Not once, but twice.

Versailles and Yalta

The victors of the First World War divided the world between themselves at the expense of the losers. The main losers were Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia (the Soviet Union) and the Ottoman Empire. This division was drawn up in the Versailles treaty and the following minor treaties.

Europe after the Versailles Treaties (Wikipedia)

This map shows how the Ottoman Empire was partitioned:

At the end of World War II, the victorious superpowers met in the city of Yalta on the Crimean peninsula in the Soviet Union. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin made an agreement on how Europe should be divided following Germany's imminent defeat. This map shows how it was envisaged and the two blocs that emerged and became the foundation for the Cold War.

Note that Yugoslavia, created after Versailles in 1919, was maintained and consolidated as "a country between the blocs". So it is a country that carries in itself the heritage of both the Versailles- and Yalta agreements.

The fateful change of era when the Soviet Union fell

In the era of imperialism, there has always been a struggle between various great powers. The battle has been about markets, access to cheap labor, raw materials, energy, transport routes and military control. And the imperialist countries divide the world between themselves according to their strength. But the imperialist powers are developing unevenly.

If a power collapses or loses control over some areas, rivals will compete to fill the void. Imperialism follows the principle that Aristotle in his Physics called horror vacui – the fear of empty space.

And that was what happened when the Soviet Union lost the Cold War. In 1991, the Soviet Union ceased to exist, and soon the Eastern bloc was also history. And thus the balance was broken, the one that had maintained the old order. And now a huge area was available for re-division. The weakened Russia barely managed to preserve its own territory, and not at all the area that just before was controlled by the Soviet Union.

Never has a so large area been open for redivision. It was the result of two horrible world wars that anew was up for grabs. It could not but lead to war." Pål Steigan, 1999

"Never has a so large area been open for re-division. It was the result of two horrible world wars that anew was up for grabs. It could not but lead to war." Map: Countries either part of the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc or non-aligned (Yugoslavia)

When the Soviet Union disintegrated, both the Yalta and Versailles agreements in reality collapsed, and opened up the way for a fierce race to control this geopolitical empty space.

This laid the foundation for the American Geostrategy for Eurasia , which concentrated on securing control over the vast Eurasian continent. It is this struggle for redistribution in favor of the United States that has been the basis for most wars since 1990: Somalia, the Iraq wars, the Balkan wars, Libya, Ukraine, and Syria.

The United States has been aggressively spearheading this, and the process to expand NATO eastward and create regime changes in the form of so-called "color revolutions" has been part of this struggle. The coup in Kiev, the transformation of Ukraine into an American colony with Nazi elements, and the war in Donbass are also part of this picture. This war will not stop until Russia is conquered and dismembered, or Russia has put an end to the US offensive.

So, to recapitulate: Because the world is already divided between imperialist powers and there are no new colonies to conquer, the great powers can only fight for redistribution. What creates the basis and possibilities for a new division is the uneven development of capitalism. The forces that are developing faster economically and technologically will demand bigger markets, more raw materials, more strategic control.

The results of two terrible wars are again up for grabs

World War I caused perhaps 20 million deaths , as well as at least as many wounded. World War II caused around 72 million deaths . These are approximate numbers, and there is still controversy around the exact figures, but we are talking about this order of magnitude.

The two world wars that ended with the Versailles and Yalta treaties thus caused just below 100 million dead, as well as an incredible number of other suffering and losses.

Since 1991, a low-intensity "world war" has been fought, especially by the US, to conquer "the void". Donald Trump recently stated that the United States have waged wars based on lies, which have cost $ 8 trillion ($ 8,000 billion) and millions of people's lives. So the United States' new distribution of the spoils has not happened peacefully.

"The Rebellion against Sykes-Picot"

In the debate around the situation in the Middle East, certain people that would like to appear leftist, radical and anti-imperialist say that it is time to rebel against the artificial boundaries drawn by the Sykes-Picot and Versailles treaties. And certainly these borders are artificial and imperialist. But how leftist and anti-imperialist is it to fight for these boundaries to be revised now?

In reality, it is the United States and Israel that are fighting for a redistribution of the Middle East. This is the basis underlying Donald Trump's "Deal of the Century", which aims to bury Palestine forever, and it is stated outright in the new US strategy for partitioning Iraq.

Again, this is just an updated version of the Zionist Yinon plan that aimed to cantonize the entire Middle East, with the aim that Israel should have no real opponents and would be able to dominate the entire region and possibly create a Greater Israel.

It is not the anti-imperialists that are leading the way to overhaul the imperialist borders from 1919. It is the imperialists. To achieve this, they can often exploit movements that are initially popular or national, but which then only become tools and proxies in a greater game.

This has happened so many times in history that it can hardly be counted.

Hitler's Germany exploited Croatian nationalism by using the Ustaša gangs as proxies. From 1929 to 1945, they killed hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews and Roma people. And their ideological and political descendants carried out an extremely brutal ethnic cleansing of the Krajina area and forced out more than 200,000 Serbs in their so-called Operation Storm in 1995.

Hitler also used the extreme Ukrainian nationalists of Stepan Bandera's OUN, and after Bandera's death, the CIA continued to use them as a fifth column against the Soviet Union.

The US low-intensity war against Iraq, from the Gulf War in 1991 to the Iraq War in 2003, helped divide the country into enclaves. Iraqi Kurdistan achieved autonomy in the oil-rich north with the help of a US "no-fly zone". The United States thus created a quasi-state that was their tool in Iraq.

Undoubtedly, the Kurds in Iraq had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. But also undoubtedly, their Iraqi "Kurdistan" became a client state under the thumb of United States. And there is also no doubt that the no-fly zones were illegal, as UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali admitted in a conversation with John Pilger .

And now the United States is still using the Kurds in Northern Iraq in its plan to divide Iraq into three parts. To that end, they are building the world's largest consulate in Erbil. What they are planning to do, is simply "creating a country".

As is well known, the United States also uses the Kurds in Syria as a pretext to keep 27 percent of the country occupied. It does not help how much the Kurdish militias SDF and PYD invoke democracy, feminism and communalism; they have ended up pleading for the United States to maintain the occupation of Northeast Syria.

Preparations for a New World War

Israel and the US are preparing for war against Iran. In this fight, they will develop as much "progressive" rhetoric as is required to fool people. Real dissatisfaction in the area, which there is every reason to have, will be magnified and blown out of all proportion. "Social movements" will be equipped with the latest news in the Israeli and US "riot kits" and receive training and logistics support, in addition to plenty of cold hard cash.

There may be good reasons to revise the 1919 borders, but in today's situation, such a move will quickly trigger a major war. Some say that the Kurds are entitled to their own state, and maybe so. The question is ultimately decided by everyone else, except the Kurds themselves.

The problem is that in today's geopolitical situation, creating a unified Kurdistan will require that "one" defeats Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. It's hard to see how that can happen without their allies, not least Russia and China, being drawn into the conflict.

And then we have a new world war on our hands. And in that case, we are not talking about 100 million killed, but maybe ten times as much, or the collapse of civilization as we know it. The Kurdish question is not worth that much.

This does not mean that one should not fight against oppression and injustice, be it social and national. One certainly should. But you have to realize that revising the map of the Middle East is a very dangerous plan and that you run the risk of ending up in very dangerous company. The alternative to this is to support a political struggle that undermines the hegemony of the United States and Israel and thereby creates better conditions for future struggles.

It is nothing new that small nations rely on geopolitical situations to achieve some form of national independence. This was the case, for example, for my home country Norway. It was France's defeat in the Napoleonic War that caused Denmark to lose the province of Norway to Sweden in 1814, but at the same time it created space for a separate Norwegian constitution and internal self rule.

All honor to the Norwegian founding fathers of 1814, but this was decided on the battlefields in Europe. And again, it was Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War that laid the geopolitical foundation for the dissolution of the forced union with Sweden almost a hundred years later, in 1905. (This is very schematically presented and there are many more details, but there is no doubt that Russia's loss of most of its fleet in the Far East had created a power vacuum in the west, which was exploitable.)

Therefore, the best thing to do now is not to support the fragmentation of states, but to support a united front to drive the United States out of the Middle East. The Million Man March in Baghdad got the ball rolling. There is every reason to build up even more strength behind it. Only when the United States is out, will the peoples and countries in the region be able to arrive at peaceful agreements between themselves, which will enable a better future to be developed.

And in this context, it is an advantage that China develops the "Silk Road" (aka Belt and Road Initiative), not because China is any nobler than other major powers, but because this project, at least in the current situation, is non-sectarian, non-exclusive and genuinely multilateral. The alternative to a monopolistic rule by the United States, with a world police under Washington's control, is a multipolar world. It grows as we speak.

The days of the Empire are numbered. What this will look like in 20 or 50 years, remains to be seen.

This article is Creative Commons 4.0. Pål Steigan is a Norwegian veteran journalist and activist, presently editor of the independent news site Steigan.no . Translated by Terje Maloy. Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest WhatsApp vKontakte Email Filed under: 20th Century , historical perspectives , latest Tagged with: Croatia , Egypt , historical perspectives , imperialism , Israel , Jordan , Lenin , Middle East , Pal Steigan , Palestine , russia , Saudi Arabia , Stepan Bandera , Terje Maloy , ukraine , WWII can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

Connect with Connect with Subscribe newest oldest most voted Notify of

George Mc ,

Off topic – but there's nowhere else to put this at the moment:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/16/fran-unsworth-bbc-election-coverge-licence-fee

The BBC was taken aback by leftwing attacks on its general election coverage

No idea what they are talking about. They patiently explained that Corbyn was Hitler. What more could they do?

Dungroanin ,

Ok roll up the sleeves, time to concentrate. I've had enough of being baited as a judae- phobe.

The 'Balfour Declaration' – he didn't write it and it was a contract published in the newspapers within hours of it being inveigled.

Ready?

'Balfour and Lloyd George would have been happy with an unvarnished endorsement of Zionism. The text that the foreign secretary agreed in August was largely written by Weizmann and his colleagues:

"His Majesty's Government accept the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object and will be ready to consider any suggestions on the subject which the Zionist Organisation may desire to lay before them."

Got that – AUGUST?

Dungroanin ,


The leading figure in that drama was a charismatic chemistry professor from Manchester, Chaim Weizmann – with his domed head, goatee beard and fierce intellect. Weizmann had gained an entrée into political circles thanks to CP Scott, the illustrious editor of the Manchester Guardian, and had then sold his Zionist project to government leaders, including David Lloyd George when he was chancellor of the exchequer.

Dungroanin ,

Author(s)
Walter Rothschild, Arthur Balfour, Leo Amery, Lord Milner

Signatories
Arthur James Balfour

Recipient
Walter Rothschild

Dungroanin ,

'In due course the blunt phrase about Palestine being "reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people" was toned down into "the establishment of a home for the Jewish people in Palestine" – a more ambiguous formulation which sidestepped for the moment the idea of a Jewish state. '

Dungroanin ,

'Edwin Montagu, newly appointed as secretary of state for India, was only the third practising Jew to hold cabinet office. Whereas his cousin, Herbert Samuel (who in 1920 would become the first high commissioner of Palestine) was a keen supporter of Zionism, Montagu was an "assimilationist" – one who believed that being Jewish was a matter of religion not ethnicity. His position was summed up in the cabinet minutes:

Mr Montagu urged strong objections to any declaration in which it was stated that Palestine was the "national home" of the Jewish people. He regarded the Jews as a religious community and himself as a Jewish Englishman '

Dungroanin ,

'Montagu considered the proposed Declaration a blatantly anti-Semitic document and claimed that "most English-born Jews were opposed to Zionism", which he said was being pushed mainly by "foreign-born Jews" such as Weizmann, who was born in what is now Belarus.'

Dungroanin ,

The other critic of the proposed Declaration was Lord Curzon, a former viceroy of India, who therefore viewed Palestine within the geopolitics of Asia. A grandee who traced his lineage back to the Norman Conquest, Curzon loftily informed colleagues that the Promised Land was not exactly flowing with milk and honey, but nor was it an empty, uninhabited space.

According to the cabinet minutes, "Lord Curzon urged strong objections upon practical grounds. He stated, from his recollection of Palestine, that the country was, for the most part, barren and desolate a less propitious seat for the future Jewish race could not be imagined."

And, he asked, "how was it proposed to get rid of the existing majority of Mussulman [Muslim] inhabitants and to introduce the Jews in their place?"

Dungroanin ,

Sorry for the length of this bit – but it only makes sense in the whole:

'Between them, Curzon and Montagu had temporarily slowed the Zionist bandwagon. Lord Milner, another member of the war cabinet, hastily added two conditions to the proposed draft, in order to address the two men's respective concerns. The vague phrase about the rights of the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" hints at how little the government knew or cared about those who constituted roughly 90 per cent of the population of what they, too, regarded as their homeland.

After trying out the new version on a few eminent Jews, both of Zionist and accommodationist persuasions, and also securing a firm endorsement from America's President Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George and Balfour took the issue back to the war cabinet on 31 October. By now the strident Montagu had left for India, and on this occasion Balfour, who could often be moody and detached, led from the front, brushing aside the objections that had been raised and reasserting the propaganda imperative. According to the cabinet minutes, he stated firmly: "The vast majority of Jews in Russia and America, as, indeed, all over the world, now appeared to be favourable to Zionism. If we could make a declaration favourable to such an ideal, we should be able to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and America."

This was standard cabinet tactics: a strong lead from a minister supported by the PM, daring his colleagues to argue back. And this time Curzon did not, though he did make another telling comment. He "attached great importance to the necessity of retaining the Christian and Moslem Holy Places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem". If this were done, Curzon added, he "did not see how the Jewish people could have a political capital in Palestine".'

Dungroanin ,

Dates again crucial and the smoking gun:

'securing a firm endorsement from America's President Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George and Balfour took the issue back to the war cabinet on 31 October.'

Dungroanin ,

The two conditions had bought off the two main critics. That was all that seemed to matter, even though the reference to the "rights of the existing non-Jewish communities" stood in potential conflict with the first two clauses about the British supporting and using their "best endeavours" for the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".

Dungroanin ,

There is MORE but I'll pause and see how many are really interested in FACTS, as opposed to invented History, Economics and Capital instead of the only real human motivations of the ages – Money and Power.

George Mc ,

the only real human motivations of the ages – Money and Power.

If this is true then we are all doomed.

Dungroanin ,

Not if we are aware of it George.

Dungroanin ,

Ok a summary fom Brittanica:

'Balfour Declaration Quick Facts

The Balfour Declaration, issued through the continued efforts of Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow, Zionist leaders in London, fell short of the expectations of the Zionists, who had asked for the reconstitution of Palestine as "the" Jewish national home. The declaration specifically stipulated that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The document, however, said nothing of the political or national rights of these communities and did not refer to them by name. Nevertheless, the declaration aroused enthusiastic hopes among Zionists and seemed the fulfillment of the aims of the World Zionist Organization (see Zionism).

The British government hoped that the declaration would rally Jewish opinion, especially in the United States, to the side of the Allied powers against the Central Powers during World War I (1914–18). They hoped also that the settlement in Palestine of a pro-British Jewish population might help to protect the approaches to the Suez Canal in neighbouring Egypt and thus ensure a vital communication route to British colonial possessions in India.

The Balfour Declaration was endorsed by the principal Allied powers and was included in the British mandate over Palestine, formally approved by the newly created League of Nations on July 24, 1922.

In May 1939 the British government altered its policy in a White Paper recommending a limit of 75,000 further immigrants and an end to immigration by 1944, unless the resident Palestinian Arabs of the region consented to further immigration.

Zionists condemned the new policy, accusing Britain of favouring the Arabs. This point was made moot by the outbreak of World War II (1939–45) and the founding of the State of Israel in 1948.'

Dungroanin ,

But what about the timing?

Well there are twin tracks, here is the first.

'But talking about the return of the Jews to the land of Israel was only meaningful because that land seemed up for grabs after the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany in 1914. For Britain, France and Russia – though primarily focused on Europe – war against a declining power long dubbed the "Sick Man of Europe" opened up the prospect of vast gains in the Levant and the Middle East.

The Ottoman army, however, proved no walkover. In 1915 it threatened the Suez Canal, Britain's imperial artery to India, and then repulsed landings by British empire and French forces on the Dardanelles at Gallipoli. Although Baghdad fell in March 1917, two British assaults on Gaza that spring were humiliatingly driven back, with heavy losses. Deadlock in the desert added to Whitehall's list of woes.

In this prescribed narrative of remembrance for 1914-18, what happened outside the Western Front has been almost entirely obscured. The British army's "Historical Lessons, Warfare Branch" has published in-house a fascinating volume of essays about what it tellingly entitles "The Forgotten Fronts of the First World War" – with superb maps and illustrations. The collection covers not only Palestine and Mesopotamia (roughly modern-day Iraq and Kuwait), but also Italy, Africa, Russia, Turkey and the Pacific – indeed much of the world – but sadly it is not currently available to the public. '

Dungroanin ,

The second track is the 'money' track and what everything is about and why we live in such a miasma of blatant lies.

IT can only make sense by asking questions such as :

Can we follow the money?

When was the Fed set up? Why? By whom?
How much money did it lend &
to whom?

When was the first world war started?

When did US declare war?

When did US troops arrive in numbers to enter that war?

What happened in Russia at the same time?

And in Mesopotamia?

How did it end?

How did it fail to end?

What happened to the contract?

Etc.

I have attempted to research and answer some of these already above.

Next I will attempt to walk the other track but be warned that opens more ancient tracks.

Dungroanin ,

'On 2 November, Balfour sent his letter to Lord Rothschild.

7 November, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had seized power in Petrograd. ransacked the Tsarist archives, they published juicy extracts from the "secret treaties" that the Allied powers had made among themselves in 1915-16 to divide the spoils of victory.
The same day the Ottoman Seventh and Eighth Armies evacuated the town of Gaza

9 November Letter published in Times.

Mid November – The Bolsheviks did not discover that the British were also playing footsie with the Turks. In the middle of November 1917, secret meetings took place with Ottoman dissidents in Greece and Switzerland about trying to arrange an armistice in the Near East. The war cabinet recognised that, as bait, it might have to let the Ottomans keep parts of their empire in the region, or at least retain some appearance of control. When Curzon got wind of this, he was incensed: "Almost in the same week that we have pledged ourselves, if successful, to secure Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people, are we to contemplate leaving the Turkish flag flying over Jerusalem?"

End November. The Manchester Guardian's correspondent in Petrograd, Morgan Philips Price, was able to examine the key documents overnight, and his scoop was published by the paper at the end of November. It revealed to the world, among other things, that the British also had an understanding with the French – the Sykes-Picot agreement of January 1916 – to carve up the Near East between them once the Ottoman empire had been defeated. In this, Palestine was slated for some kind of international condominium – not the British protectorate envisaged in the Balfour Declaration.

11 December Allenby formally entered Jerusalem. '

So just a few loose ends left to tie up anyone actually want to go there?

George Mc ,

No.

Dungroanin ,

🤣

Dungroanin ,

Ok on the back stretch:

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/feds_formative_years

The paramount goal of the Fed's founders was to eliminate banking panics, but it was not the only goal. The founders also sought to increase the amount of international trade financed by US banks and to expand the use of the dollar internationally. By 1913 the United States had the world's largest economy, but only a small fraction of US exports and imports were financed by American banks. Instead, most exports and imports were financed by bankers' acceptances drawn on European banks in foreign currencies. (Bankers' acceptances are a type of financial contract used for making payments in the future, for example, upon delivery of goods or services. Bankers' acceptances are drawn on and guaranteed, i.e., "accepted," by a bank.) The Federal Reserve Act allowed national banks to issue bankers' acceptances and open foreign branches, which greatly expanded their ability to finance international transactions Further the Act authorized the Reserve Banks to purchase acceptances in the open market to ensure a liquid market for them, thereby spurring growth of that market.

President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913.

The task of determining the specific number of districts, district boundaries, and which cities would have Reserve Banks was assigned to a Reserve Bank Organization Committee.

On April 2, 1914, the Committee announced that twelve Federal Reserve districts would be formed, identified the boundaries of those districts, and named the cities that would have Reserve Banks.1 The Banks were quickly organized, officers and staff were hired, and boards of directors appointed. The Banks opened for business on November 16, 1914.
..

The Federal Reserve Act addressed perceived shortcomings by creating a new national currency -- Federal Reserve notes -- and requiring members of the Federal Reserve System to hold reserve balances with their local Federal Reserve Banks.

World War I began in Europe in August 1914, before the Federal Reserve Banks had opened for business. The war had a profound impact on the US banking system and economy, as well as on the Federal Reserve.

War disrupted European financial markets and reduced the supply of trade credit offered by European banks, providing US banks with an opening. Low US interest rates, abundant reserves, and new authority to issue trade acceptances enabled American banks to finance a growing share of world trade.

Dungroanin ,

So the denouement :

It appears that the 'first world war' was designed to diminish European banks and boost the US banks.

However the fuller history of the US bankers is worth knowing- the Jekyll Islanders story is widely publicised.

Into this time track enters the Balfour Declaration addressed to Lord Rothschild, steered by Milner (heir to Rhodes empire building and the old EIC), approved by the potus Wilson (another hireling) that finally sent US troops to overwhelm the Germans, while the great gamers took out the Romanovs and the Ottoman Empire.
-- --

When we try to understand such facts and timelines and are attacked as Judaeo-phobes, because we identify Bankers and Robber Barons, it becomes even clearer how deep and wide they have controlled history and it has NOTHING to do with RELIGION (except perhaps Ludism). Nothing to do with Judaism (except perhaps Old Jewry in the City, but Lombard Street was most powerful!) and EVERYTHING to do with POWER and it's representation MONEY. The obscuring of that through various Economic theories including Marxism is the work of the same old bastards who are responsible for all our current malaises.

Thankyou and good evening, if anyone made it this far!

😉

George Mc ,

Well OK Dunnie, let's say I go along with you and assume that all the shit we are facing has nothing to do with religion or all that "Marxian porridge" (as Guido Giacomo Preparata called it). The question is: What do we do about it?

Speaking of GGP , it seems to me that you and him have much in common. He also goes on about "Power" but seems to be on the verge of referring this "Power" to mystical entities in a disconcertingly Ickean manoeuvre. Not that I'm attibuting such a thing to yourself. (No irony intended.)

Dungroanin ,

George – i don't want you or anyone to just go along with me.

I want everyone to make their minds up on FACTS. That is the only way humanity has actually progressed by inventing the only self correcting philosophical system and method of the ages that goes beyond 'personal responsibility teligions' – SCIENTIFIC METHOD – that takes away arbitrary power to rule, from these that inhabit the top of the human pyramid by virtue of being born there and having control over the money and so the power to remain in these positions, which does not benefit the totality of humanity or all life on Earth.

I am not a messiah, I am angry as fuck and I am not going to sit around enjoying whatever soma has been handed to us to keep compliant and leave this Planet worse than I found it. That is the scientific conclusion I have reached.

I suppose some proto buddhist / zoroastrianism / animalist / Shinto / Jain & Quakers seek religious truth in inner experience, and place great reliance on conscience as the basis of morality.

I suppose Ghandi's non-violence rebellion against Imperialists is a model as are various peasants revolts – the Russian / Chinese / Korean / Vietnamese couldn't have survived without the literal grassroots!
..

As for Guido Giacomo Preparata that you have introduced to me – i had nevet heard of him before this morning – my first take on him is that he seems to have arrived at similar conclusions by similar methodology. He seems to have a lot of formal education and a enviable career so far – i'll have to look into him further but the interview that i just read seems to indicate concurrence with what i said above. I see no Ickean references – please give a link.

-- -

As a observation do you not find it funny that there is not a single objection to the verity of the facts which I have presented above?

Good luck George if you are a real seeker of truth. If not insta-karma awaits.

George Mc ,

The Preparata statement I was referring to is in this interview:

https://www.larsschall.com/2012/06/10/the-business-as-usual-behind-the-slaughter/

The statement itself is this:

Power is a purely human suggestion. Suggested by whom? That is the question. The NSDAP thus appeared to have been a front for some kind of nebula of Austro-German magi, dark initiates, and troubling literati (Dietrich Eckhart comes to mind), with very plausible extra-Teutonic ramifications of which we know next to nothing. Hitler came to be inducted in a lodge of this network, endowed as he seemed with a supernatural gift of inflaming oratory.

This is a theme that I am still studying, but from what I gathered, the adepts of the Thule Gesellschaft communed around the belief of being the blood heirs of a breed that seeks redemption / salvation / metempsychosis in some kind of eighth realm away from this earth, which is the shoddy creation of a lesser God -- the archangel of the Hebrews, Jehovah. It all sounds positively insane to post-modern ears, but it should be taken very seriously, I think.

Admittedly it isn't quite interdimensional reptiles but there is a distinct metaphysical flavour there.

I wouldn't go along with everything Preparata says but he is a wonderful writer and I have bought almost everything I can find by him. His "biggie" is "Conjuring Hitler". It was Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed that brought GGP to my attention via that book.

milosevic ,

images on this website look terrible, with very little colour. the problem seems to be caused by this rule, from the file "OffGstyle.css":

.content-wrap-spp img {

filter: sepia(20%) saturate(30%);

}

Open ,

This sepia effect usually works well with Off-Guardian articles, but with these maps in today's article it is definitely terrible. Why have maps if they don't want to show them clearly?
(any extra steps for the user to see the pictures clearly is not the answer)

Another area neglected on this website is crediting photos. The majority of images carry no atribution/credit, despite it [crediting photos] is the best ethical practice even for public domain pictures. I wish Admin gets expert advice on this.

Open ,

Look at the language used by the americans:

On feb. 12 [2020], Coalition forces, conducting a patrol near Qamishli, Syria , encountered a checkpoint occupied by pro-Syrian .. forces .

So, the supremacist unites states' army has found that Syrian forces are occupying Syrian land .. wow wow wow .. according to this logic, Russian forces are occupying Russian land. Iranian forces are occupying Iranian land (how dare they?!). But american forces are not occupying any land, and Israel is not occupying Palestinian and Syrian lands.

This language needs to be known more widely.

Open ,

The americans always use the term 'Coalition forces' when they talk about their illegal presence in Syria. I tried to search online for what countries are in this coalition. I recall I was able to find that in the past, but now, it seems this information is being pushed under wrap.

What are they afraid of? What are they hiding?

Joe ,

Just bring about the end of "Israel" and there'll be peace in the Middle East, and probably in the wider world, too.

Open ,

Ending the Israeli project is certainly a step in the right direction to improve global stability. However, alone, it will not bring about peace because the British/Five-Eyes/Washington's doctrine of spreading disorder and chaos permeates (saturates) the planet.

In fact, current disorders are the results of convergence of Israeli interests with those of Western White Supremacy's* resolve to dominate, erh, eveything.

* Western White Supremacy can also be called Western White Idiocy and Bigotry.

Israel manipulates the West's political and military might. The West also uses Israel to spread Chaos and Disorder.

Antonym ,

Right, back to the good old peace of the graveyard inspired by Mohamed's male sex riot ideology and plunder legitimization before the Westerners showed up with their superior (arms) tech legitimization for their plunder.
Before Israel's 1947 creation the world was a bed of roses .

Open ,

"srael's 1947 creation"

Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Ukranians and Germans, and later South Americans, found home in the Middle East.

How ligitimate is that?

Antonym ,

Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians, found home in the EU thanks to madame Merkel.

How ligitimate is that?

Open ,

"Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians .. etc.."

Do these comments reflect the Zionists' perspective? This is important because they prove that the whole existence of Israel is based on total fabrication and lies.

Maggie ,

Did you have to practice at being THAT stupid! Or did they lobotomise you in Langley?
Somalis, Afghans, Syrians would not have had any cause to leave their homeland had it not been for your employers the CIA/MOSSAD facilitating the raping and pillaging of their homes by the Oil Magnates, leaving them starving and desolate.
https://www.hiiraan.com/op2/2007/may/somalia_the_other_hidden_war_for_oil.aspx
and where does our Aid money go?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/5OInaYenHkU?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
But of course Antonym, if you were in their situation, you would just stick it out?
Shame on you .

To those who care, read "The confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins" to understand how this corrupt system is conducted.

Richard Le Sarc ,

Its 'creation' in blood, murder, rape and terror, in a great ethnic cleansing-the sign of things to come, ceaselessly, for seventy years and ongoing.

paul ,

Ask the people in Gaza about the Zionist "peace of the graveyard."

Antonym ,

Gaza before 2005 was relatively peaceful + prosperous. After the Israeli withdrawal the inhabitants messed up their own economy but kept on making lots of babies just like before.
Quite the opposite of a graveyard or a Warsaw ghetto or a Dachau.

George Mc ,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza

Despite the disengagement, the United Nations, international human rights organisations and most legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel, though this is disputed by Israel and other legal scholars. Following the withdrawal, Israel has continued to maintain direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza: it controls Gaza's air and maritime space, and six of Gaza's seven land crossings, it maintains a no-go buffer zone within the territory, and controls the Palestinian population registry, and Gaza remains dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities.

Interesting definition of "withdrawal". It's amazing those Gazans even managed to have babies!

Richard Le Sarc ,

You would have made a grand Nazi, Antsie-cripes, you have!

paul ,

Gaza was, and is, a huge Zionist concentration camp hermetically sealed off from the outside world and blockaded just like the Warsaw Ghetto. With Zionist thugs and kiddie killers shooting hundreds of kids in the head for the fun of it with British sniper rifles and dum dum bullets, and periodically dropping 20,000 tons of bombs at a time on it, a higher explosive yield than Hiroshima. With parties of Jews going along to hold barbecues and picnics to watch all the fun. Nice people, those chosen folk.

Richard Le Sarc ,

I rather think that Epstein, Weinstein, Moonves and all those orthodox and ultra-orthodox who are such prolific patrons of the sex industry in Israel, know a bit about 'male sex riot ideology', Antsie.

Dungroanin ,

Pathetic.
'Nandy won a major boost when members of the Labour affiliate Jewish Labour Movement gave her their backing after a hustings, saying she understood the need to change the party's culture.'
From the Groaniad

How many members? How many by denomination?

As for the Balfour Contract there were actual English Jewish establishment figures against its premise. Actual imperial servants. The declaration was a stitch up by the new banking powers in the US which then sent in the yanks to stop the Germans in 1917.

History is rewritten daily to memory hole such facts.

Capricornia Man ,

The 'Jewish Labour Movement' is so Jewish that most of its members are not Jewish. And it is so Labour-affiliated that it did not support Labour in the December general election. But it has no shortage of money. It exists solely to prosecute the interests of a foreign power. Much the same could be said for any politician who accepts its endorsement.

Rhys Jaggar ,

Given that Jews are vastly outnumbered by non Jews, the simplest way to stop Jewish manipulation of politics is to form a party from which Jews are specifically banned.

You will not propose any policies harming Jews in any way, you will just make it clear that this is a party free from any Jewish influence in its constitution.

If Jews cannot accept that, then they are utterly racist and must be dealt with without sensibility.

Maggie ,

A better solution Rhys would be to form a party that denies all and any dual citizens
That way all the Zionists would be barred.

Richard Le Sarc ,

Full public financing of political parties would end Zionist control.

paul ,

Thornberry has just thrown in the towel.
She will now have more time to "get down on her hands and knees" and "beg forgiveness" from the Board of Deputies.
Those good little Shabbos are so easily trained.

Dungroanin ,

BoD's??? Another random organisation!

Who are they? Who do they represent? How many people? Which people? How did they get elected? How can they be fired?

Richard Le Sarc ,

The next world war has already started, with the bio-warfare atttack on China aka Covid19.

lundiel ,

Why no comment on the government reshuffle? I don't agree with the Indian middle-class uplifting but totally agree with neutering the ultra-conservative treasury.

Maggie ,

I think it's a case of who gives a fck. We now know that our elections are rigged, and so there is no point in us being involved. My family and I all realised and voted for the last time.
They are all bloody crap actors reading their scripts and playing their parts, whilst the never changing suits in the background pull the strings.
I had to explain to my 10 year old Grandson how politics work, and he said "Why doesn't anyone know the names of, or see the suits?"
What I want to know is why no-one ever asks this question or demands an answer?

tonyopmoc ,

Completely Brilliant Article, but it is Valentines Day, so as I am 66 years old, and in love with my wife (nearly 40 years together = LOVE), I wrote this in response to Craig Murray, who has banned me again.

It may be off topic for him, but it ain't off topic for me. I am still in Love.

"Churchill's mental deterioration from syphilis – which the Eton and Oxford ."

Never had it, and she didn't either. We were young and in love, but we didn't know, if either of us had sex before, but I had a spotty dick, and went to the VD clinic. I had a blood test, and they gave me some zinc cream.

She also had the same thing, and showed her Mum.

We were both completely innocent, and had a sexually transmitted disease called Thrush. It is relatively harmless, but can also give you a sore throat.

We both laughed at each other, and nearly got married.

Natural Yoghurt, is completely brilliant at preventing it.

Far better than Canestan.

Happy Valentines Day, for Everyone still In Love.

Let us all look forwad to a Brighter Day for our Grandchildren.

Tony

Loverat ,

Hey Tony

Dont worry. Craig Murray might not like you but I do. Your stories, here and elsewhere have entertained me for many years.

Mind you, if I were your other half I would have chucked you years ago.

paul ,

Tell him how much you like haggis and tossing your caber.

Dungroanin ,

Without Stalins say so Poland would not have had its borders at the end of ww2.
Also,
On these maps just off the right hand edges is missing Afghanistan.. which the imperialists invaded in 2002 as the Taliban wiped out the opium crops. Back to full production immediately after invasion and 18 years later secret negotiations to hand over to Taliban while leaving 8,000 CUA troops delivering the huge cash crop.

binra ,

Seeking possession and control – in competition with those you see as seeking to dispossess and control or deny you – is the identity or belief in 'kill or be killed'.
This belief overrides and subordinates others – such as to subsume all else to such private agenda that will seek alliance against common threat but only as a shifting strategy of possession and control.

One of the things about this 'game' of power struggle, is that it loses any sense of WHY – and so it is a driven mind or dictate of power or possession for it own sake that cannot really ENJOY or HAVE and share what it Has. The image of the hungry ghost comes to mind here. It will never have enough until you are dead – and even then will offer you torment beyond the grave.

Until this mindset is recognised and released as an 'insanity' it operates as accepted currency of exchange, and maps our a world of its own conflicting and conflicted meanings.

The willingness to destroy or kill, deny or undermine and invalidate others in order to GET for a private agenda set over the whole instead of finding balance within the whole – is destructive to life, no matter how ingenious the thinking that frames it to seem to be progressive, protective, or in fact powerful.
But in our collective alignment and allegiance with such a way of thinking and identifying – we all give power to the destructive – as if to protect the life that it gives us.

The hungry ghost is also in the mass population when separated from their land and lives to seek connection or meaning in proffered 'products and services' instead of creating out of our own lives. Products and services that operate a hidden agenda of possession and control or market and mind capture under threat of fear of pain of loss in losing even the little that we have.

Having – on a spiritual level is our being – and not a matter of stuffing a hole.
Madness that can no longer mask as anything else is all about – and brings a choice to conscious awareness as to whether to persist in it or decide to find another way of seeing and being.

This is not to say there is no place to call upon or seek to limit people in positions of trust from serving an unjust outcome by calling for transparency and accountability – but not to wait on that or make that the be all and end all.

If there is another way and a better way than war masking in and misusing and thus corrupting anything and everything, then it has to be lived one to another.

Everyone seeks a better experience – but many seek it in a negative framing. Negative in the sense of self-lack seeking power in the terms of its current identity. Evils work their own destruction, but find sustainability in selling destructive agenda or toxic debt as ingeniously complex instruments of deceit – by which the targeted buyer believes they have or shall save their 'self' or add to their 'self' rather than growing hollow to a driven mindset of reactive fear-addiction.

I don't need to 'tell this to those who refuse to listen' – but I share it with any moment of a willingness to listen. In the final analysis, we are the ones who live the result of choices in our lives, whatever the times and conditions.

The 'repackaging' of reality to self-deceit, is not new but part of the human mind and experience throughout history. The evil changes forms – as if the good has and shall triumph. But truth undoes illusion by being accepted. It doesn't war on illusion and thus make it real – and remain truth.

Judgement divides to rule.
Discernment arises from the unwillingness to division.
One is set apart from and over life as the invocation of an alien will, dealing death, and the other as the will of true desire revealed.

The idea of independent autonomy is relative to a limited sphere of responsibilities in the world.
The idea of living our own life is an alignment within the same for others and the freedom to do so cannot take from others without becoming possessed by our denials, debts and transgressions – no less so in the driven mind of ingeniously repackaged and wilfully defended narrative identity.

In our own experience, this is not a matter of applied analysis, so much as awareness or space in which to seek and find truth in some willingness of recognition and acceptance or choice, while the triggering or baiting to madness is loud or compelling as the dictate of fear seeking protection and grievance seeking retribution – as if these give freedom and power rather than locking into a fear-framed limitation as substitution for life set in defiance and refusal to look on or share in truth – and so to such a one, war is truth, and love is weakness to exploit, use and weaponise for getting.

paul ,

If you look at the proposed new map of the Middle East, it mirrors Kushner's Deal Of The Century for Palestine – because it has the same Zionist authorship.
The same old dirty Zionist games of divide and rule – break up countries in the region into tiny defenceless little statelets setting different ethnic and religious groups at each others' throats, so that they can rule the roost and steal whatever they wish.
You see this in the past and the recent past. The way Lebanon was torn away from Syria. Or Kuwait from Iraq. Or the Ruritanian petty Gulf dictatorships like Bahrain, Qatar, Dubai.
Trump was being honest for the first time in his miserable life when he said none of these satellites and satraps would last a fortnight if they were not propped up by the US.

paul ,

George Galloway described the whole region as a flock of sheep surrounded by ravenous wolves.

At the same time, there is more than a grain of truth in the Zionists' contention that the people of the region are to some extent the authors of their own misfortune.

They always fall for the divide-and-rule games of outside powers, Britain, America, Israel, who invade, bomb, slaughter, humiliate and exploit them. If they had been united, Israel would not have been created. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, would not have been destroyed and bombed back to the Stone Age. These countries would be genuinely independent and at peace.

When I speak to ordinary moslems, it is surprising and depressing to see how much visceral hatred they express for Shia moslems. They seem blind to the way they are being manipulated to serve outside interests.

So we see moslem Saudi Arabia trying to incite America and Israel to destroy Iran, and offering to pay for the whole cost of the war. Or S. Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, UAE et al, in bed with Israel, paying billions to bankroll the terrorist head choppers in Syria. Or Egypt, which does not even protest, let alone lift a finger, when Israeli aircraft use its air space to carpet bomb Gaza. Or going further back in history, when countries like Egypt and Syria sent troops to join the 1991 US invasion of Iraq. Even though Iraq had sent its forces to the Golan Heights in 1973 to fight and die to prevent Syria being overrun by Israel. How contemptible is all that? Yet those are just a few of many examples of all the backstabbing that has occurred over the years. If these people don't respect themselves, why should anybody else?

paul ,

And this has been going on for hundreds of years.
1096 marked the beginning of The Crusades, a disaster for the region on a par with the creation of Israel.
At that time, London was a little village of 25,000. Baghdad and Alexandria and Cordoba were sophisticated modern cities with populations of hundreds of thousands. They dismissed the Crusaders as mere bandits who would do some looting, steal some cattle, and go home. But 3 years later Jerusalem had been conquered and its inhabitants slaughtered, the start of a 200 year disaster for the region. How? Why?
Because the Arabs were so busy fighting a civil war at the time they barely noticed the foreign invaders. The old, old story. Civil war between Sunnis and Shias.

One day, they will wake up and realise that they have to hang together, or hang separately.
But I wouldn't hold your breath.
There seems to be an endless supply of quisling stooge dictators ready to do the bidding of hostile outside powers. The Mubaraks, the Sisis, the King Abdullahs, the Sinioras, the MBS's, to name but a few.
Conforming to all the worst stereotypes about Arabs and moslems.
You could argue that they deserve all they get, when they are ever ready to bend over and drop their trousers.
Is it really any surprise that they have been invaded, slaughtered, bombed back to the Stone Age, robbed, exploited and humiliated from time immemorial.
Maybe one day they will discover an ounce of dignity and self respect. Who knows?

Maggie ,

"1096 marked the beginning of The Crusades, a disaster for the region on a par with the creation of Israel.
At that time, London was a little village of 25,000. Baghdad and Alexandria and Cordoba were sophisticated modern cities with populations of hundreds of thousands. They dismissed the Crusaders as mere bandits who would do some looting, steal some cattle, and go home. But 3 years later Jerusalem had been conquered and its inhabitants slaughtered, the start of a 200 year disaster for the region. How? Why?"
Because despite the mendacious lies that are told about Muslims, they are tolerant and forgiving. They believe in one God, and live exemplary modest, generous lives in the belief that they will enter in to the kingdom of heaven.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/_2LEgowbzSc?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGz6nrWTsEI

And these are the people we are being encouraged to hate and fear? To enable the neo cons to invade and destroy everything in their path to get their oil.

Hundreds of millions of Muslims the world over 'live in democracies' of some shape or form, from Indonesia to Malaysia to Pakistan to Lebanon to Tunisia to Turkey. Tens of millions of Muslims' live in -- and participate in' -- Western democratic societies. The country that is on course to have the biggest Muslim population in the world in the next couple of decades is India, which also happens to be the world's biggest democracy. Yet a persistent pernicious narrative exists, particularly in the West, that Islam and democracy are incompatible. Islam is often associated with dictatorship, totalitarianism, and a lack of freedom, and many "well paid" analysts and pundits claim that Muslims are philosophically opposed to the idea of democracy .

Richard Le Sarc ,

'Democracy' as practised in the neo-liberal capitalist West, is a nullity, a fiction, a smoke-screen behind which the one and only power, that of the rich owners of the economy, acts alone.

Gall ,

I know. These Zionist morons droning on about how violent Islam is as religion yet ignoring the fact that the Bible is based on the God of Abraham granting them Canaan (like Trump giving the Israelis the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) and urging them to commit complete and utter genocidal annihilation of the inhabitants by not leaving a single living thing breathing.

No violence there folks. Nope. The book of love my ass!

paul ,

Their God was a demented estate agent, rather like Trump or Kushner.

Gall ,

Personally I believe that the chapters of the bible were written after their genocidal blood lust simply to justify their despicable acts. Claiming that God made 'em do it.

Loverat ,

My experience of muslims in the UK is many express support for the Palestinians but don't identify or understand those states which still speak up for their rights, Syria, Iran and a few others.

Sadly like the general UK population they have been exposed to propaganda which excuses evil and mass murder carried out by Saudi Arabia and their lackeys and Israel. This is changing however. People are gradually waking up. Muslims and the general UK public if they really knew the extent of this would be out demonstrating on the streets.

The realisation these policies have exposed all of us to nuclear wipe out in seconds should be enough motivation for any normal person.
The wipe out or (preferably) demonstrations will happen. Just a question of when. You can see why the establishment and people like Higgins, Lucas and York are so active recently. These idiots, blinded by their pay checks can't see the harm they are causing through their irresponsible lies even to their own families. Perhaps they all have nuclear shelters in their back garden.

Richard Le Sarc ,

Saudi Arabia is NOT 'Moslem'. It is Wahhabist, a genocide cult created by doenmeh, ie crypto-Jewish followers of the failed 17th century Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, which is homicidally opposed to all Moslems but fellow Wahhabists.

milosevic ,

I thought it was created by the British Empire, in order to provide reliable stooges and puppet regimes.

Richard Le Sarc ,

What people must realise is that,for the Zionassty secular and Talmudic religious leaderships, by far the dominant forces in Israel and among many of the Diaspora sayanim, the drive to create 'Eretz Yisrael', '..from the Nile to the Euphrates' (and some include the Arabian Peninsula as well), is a real, religious, ambition-indeed an obligation. With the alliance with the 'Christian Zionist' lunatics in the USA, the fate of humanity is in the hands of the Evil Brain Dead.

BigB ,

I despair. This is why there is 'No Deal For Nature' because the hegemonic cultural movement is to extend cultural hegemony over nature. We cannot seem to help it or stop ourselves. Do we suppose a glossy website will change that? Or empty sloganneering subvertisements? Or waiving placards outside banks? Or some other futile conscience salving symbolic gesture?

No, we have to subvert the cultural hegemony over nature at every point at every chance. Which is thankless because cultural normativity is ubiquitous. And it's killing us. And BRI is the very antithesis of alternative an eternal return into the cultural consumerism and commodification that is the global hegemony at least at an elite level. And we are among that elite – in terms of consumption and pollution. We are the problem. If we seek to extend or preserve our own Eurocentric priviliges and consumptions we can only do so by extracting evermore global resources and maldeveloping the Rest. Which is also what Samir Amin said: following Wallerstein's World Systems Theory.

The progressive packaging of all our sins and transferring them to something called 'American Imperialism' is nothing less than mass psychological transference to a Fetish. By which we maintain autonomy from any blame in the ecological disaster we are co-creating. Which is why it is a powerful cultural narrative constructivism. 'We' do not have to reform: the scapegoated Otherised 'they' do. Whilst we all sit smugly in our inauthentic imaginary autonomy: the ecological destruction caused entirely by our collectivist consumption carries on. 'They' have to clean up 'their' act – not us. 'We' align with the 'counter-hegemonic alliance': the alternative BRI. 'We' are so bourgeois and progressive in our invented independence and totally aligned with the destructive forces of capitalist endocolonised culture because of our own internalised screening discourse. Which is why there is #NoDealForNature. 'We' don't actually give a flying fuck not beyond some hollow totemic gestures in transference of our own responsibility.

'We' are pushing for the financialisation of nature: as the teleology of our particular complicit cultural narratives. It's not just 'them'. Supply and demand are dialectically exponential. Who is demanding less, more fairly distributed North to South? Exponential expansionism via BRI is no more alternative than colonising the Moon or Mars. For nature to have a deal: we have to stop demanding growth. And in doing that: become self-responsible right through to the narratives we produce. For which every person in the global consumer bourgeoisie – that's us – will have to change their imperatives from culture to nature. Which means a new naturalised culture: not just complicitly advocating the 'same old, same old' exponential expansionism of the extractivist commodification of every last standing resource. Under the guise of new narrative constructions like this. That's not progress: it's capitalist propaganda and personal self-propaganda. We are among the consumer elite. Which is driving the financialisation and commodification of everything. For us.

#NoDealForNature until we take full and honest self-responsibility to create one with our every enaction including speech-enactivism.

Gall ,

I'm sure Thomas Robert Malthus and Charles Darwin are smiling upon you my child from their very special place in hell.

Richard Le Sarc ,

Charles Darwin? What on Earth are you on about?

Gall ,

Ever heard of social Darwinism? This is how the elite justify genocide and theft of resources. It is one of the basics of Neoliberalism.

Richard Le Sarc ,

Darwin had NOTHING to do with 'social Darwinism'. It's like blaming Jesus for the KKK.

Gall ,

Uh huh:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

BigB ,

Every appraisal from a cultural POV extends the cultural hegemony over nature – with no exceptions. If we do not address the false dichotomy of culture and nature – and invert the privileged status of cultural domination over nature – this never changes. If nothing changes its going to be a very short century the last in the history of culture.

I'm expressing my own private POV with the intention of at least highlighting the issue of only ever expressing the distorted cultural-centric POV. It would be nice if we could all agree to do something other than waste our privileged status and access to resources for other than meaningless sarcasm. It's not like we'd all benefit from a change in POV and the entailed potential in a change of course that can only happen if we think of nature first, is it? 😉

Gall ,

The only thing I don't like about the environmentally "woke" is that many are easily manipulated by the neoliberal elite. Greta is a perfect example.

That is they go after the little guy while the Military and big industry continue to pollute unhampered.

George Mc ,

I despair.

Well that's what you do.

Dungroanin ,

The M5 highway is secured. Allepo access points too and Idlib is surrounded- where are the US backed /Saudi paid / Tukish passport holding Uighars and various Turkmen proxy jihadist anti Chinese / anti Russian, Central asian caliphate establishing mercenaries supposed to go now??

Pompeo is buzzing around Africa now like a blue bottomed cadaverous fly, non-stop buzzing from piles of shot, trying to find them homes – no Libya doesn't want anymore of them, nor the UAE and Saudis, or Turks maybe dump them in Canada with all these ex Ukrainian still nazis? Its a big country nobody will know!
Or bring them to the US and give them a ticker tape parade?

Or let them surrender and have them testify as to how the fuck they let themselves be bought for $$$$ maybe just fry them with the low yield nuke and blame Assad for it!

Dumbass yanks, fukus, 5+1 eyed gollum and Nutty- 'it's the Belgian airforce bombing Russian weapons in Syria' -yahoo!

Up-Pompeos farce and buzzing is about to sizzle in the blue light of death for dumbfuck poison spreading flies.

normal wisdom ,

so much disrespect here hare here.

these takfiri these giants these beards are hero

of the oded yinon plan

they raped murdered and stole
dustified atomised the syriana so
is rael can become real

the red heffers have been cloned the temple will grow

the semites must leave for norway,sweden wales scotland and detroit
already

the khazar ashkanazim need the land returned to it's true owners from the turkic russio steppe

tonight back to back i watch reality
fiddler on the roof and exodus and schindlers lists.
i watch bbc simon scharmas new rabbi revised history of mighty israel.
every day it grows massive every day hezbollah become weak husk

shirley you can sea more that

my life already

Francis Lee ,

Very interesting and informative article. Lenin's 5 conditions of the imperialism of his time have been matched by similar conditions in our own time, as listed by the Egyptian Marxist, Samir Amin. These conditions being as follows.

1. Control of technology.

2. Access to natural resources.

3. Finance.

4. Global media.

5. The means of mass destruction.

Only by overturning these monopolies can real progress be made. Easily said. But a life and death struggle for humanity.

The collapse of the Soviet Union opened up the space for increased penetration of Europe to the East by the US and its West European allies in NATO. At that time the subaltern US powers in Europe were the UK and West Germany, as it then was. There was a semblance of sovereignty in France under De Gaulle, but this has since disappeared. Europe as a whole is now occupied and controlled by the US which has used EU/NATO bloc to push right up to the Russian border. Most, if not all, the non-sovereign quasi states, in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe, are Quisling-Petainist puppet regimes regardless of whether they are inside our outside of the EU. (I say 'states' but of course if a country is not sovereign it cannot be a 'state' in the full meaning of the word).

A political, social and economic crisis in Europe seems to be taking taking shape. Perhaps the key problem, particularly Eastern Europe, has been depopulation. There is not one European state in which fertility (replacement) rates has reached 2.1 children. Western European imperial states have to large degree been able to counter-act this tendency by immigration from their former colonies, particularly the UK and France. But this has not been possible in states such as Sweden and Germany where the migration of non-christian guest workers from Turkey to Germany and Islamic refugees
from the middle-east hot-spots have had a free passage to Sweden. This has become a serious social and economic problem; a problem resulting from a neoliberal open borders policy. The fact of the matter is that radically different cultures will tend to clash. Thank you Mr Soros.

British immigration policy was successful in so far as immigrants from the Caribbean were English speakers, they were also protestant Christians, and the culture was not very different from the UK. Later immigration from the Indian sub-continent and Indian settled East Africa were generally professional and middle-class business people. Again English speakers. Assimilation of these newcomers was not unduly difficult.

However it wouldn't be exaggerating to say that Eastern Europe is facing a demographic disaster. This particular zone is literally bleeding people. Ukraine for example has lost 10 million people since 1990. Every month it is estimated that 100,000 Ukrainians leave the country, usually for good. In terms of migration – no-one wants to go to Eastern Europe, but everyone wants to leave, asap. This process is complemented by low birth rates, and high death rates. These are un-developing states in an un-developing world. But now we have new kids on the bloc. A counter-hegemonic alliance. No guesses who.

BigB ,

Rubbish. There is no 'counter-hegemonic alliance' to humanities rapacious demand for fossil fuels and ecological resources. Where are the material consumption resources for BRI coming from – the Moon, Mars? Passing asteroids? Or from the Earth?

When its gone: its gone. Russia and China provide absolutely no alternative to this. China's consumption alone is driving us over the brink. To which the real alternative is a complicit silence. As we all align with culture-centric capitalist views: there is no naturalistic 'counter-hegemonic alliance'. Just some hunters in the Amazon we are having shot right now so we can have the privilige of extending cultural hegemony over nature.

When it's gone: it's gone. And so will we be too. Probably as we are still praising the wonders of the 'counter-hegemonic alliance' that killed us.

Gall ,

Actually there is a naturalistic alliance forming but it seems you haven't been paying attention because you seem stuck in some Malthusian mind set. In order to defeat capitalism you have to defeat Globalism so you first have to eliminate the Anglo-American Hegemony and get back to a multipolar world.

Ranting on about like Gretchen doesn't do any good.

BigB ,

Resources are finite and thermodynamics exist. These are the ineliminable, indisputable, and rock solid epistemology of the Earth System. Everything else is metaphysics – literally 'beyond nature; beyond physics'. Or, as it is more commonly known – economics. The imaginary epistemology of political economics and political theory. 'Theory' is the non-scientific sense of unfounded opinion and non-sense. A philosophical truth-theory that is not and cannot ever be true. Hypothetical non-sense.

I get my information from a wide range of sources that realise these foundational predicates. That is: a foundational set of beliefs that require no underpinning. I can only paraphrase Eddington on thermodynamics: "if your theory is found to be against the second law I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

Which is to say all modern political theory and economics – and by extension all opinions based on its internalisation – is the product of vivid and unfounded imagination. To which a naturalised epistemology is the only remedy.

There are lots of people working on the problem: but not in the political sphere. Which is why we are stuck in a hallucinated metaphysical political-economic theatre of the absurd and absolutised cultural non-sense. Which is not beyond anyone to rectify: if and when we accept the limitations of the physical-material Earth System. And apply them to our thinking.

#NoDealForNature until we accept that the thermodynamics of depletion naturally limit growth. Anything anyone says to the contrary should be treated with scepticism and cause a collapse into deepest humiliation of any rational thinker.

Richard Le Sarc ,

'Depopulation' is only a problem if you believe in the capitalist cancer cult of infinite growth on a finite planet, ie black magic. If you value Life on Earth, and its continuance, human depopulation is necessary. Best done slowly and humanely, by redistributing the wealth stolen by the capitalist parasites. The process seen in the Baltics and Ukraine is the capitalist way, cruel and inhumane. Even worse is planned for the Africans, south Asians and Chinese etc.

Gall ,

They don't for a minute believe in "infinite growth". They believe in the "bottom line","instant gratification" and "primitive accumulation". "Infinite growth" is a sales pitch that they use to sell the unwary on their rapaciousness. That is all. If they actually believed in "infinite growth" they've be investing in renewable resources not fracking, strip mining and other environmentally unfriendly practices.

Gall ,

The problem for Imperialists is that they only know how to plunder, rape and destroy thus all their weaponry and tactics is used for aggression they know nothing about actual defense which is their weak point. General George C Custer found this out some time back and so did Trump just recently when the American were assaulted by a barrage of missiles they couldn't stop.

Iran, Russia and China have one of the most advanced arsenal of defensive weapons ever developed such as the S- series of air defense system that can turn a Tomahawk attack into a turkey shoot. What was it? I think it was 100 Tomahawks fired on Syria after that false flag chemical attack and only 15 or so got through and this was the earlier version of the S missile defense S-300. They've already developed 500 which practically makes them impervious and is a true iron dome compared the iron sieve that the Israelis got for free during GW1 and then repackaged and sold back to the US Military for 15B with very few improvements except maybe for a pretty blue bow.

Not only that but they can return fire with hypersonic weapons that are unstoppable and can turn a base or Aircraft Carrier into a floating pinnate.

lundiel ,

Very well presented. Excellent article.

Gall ,

Actually the US proudly waving the banner of the East India Company is following in the footsteps of the deceased British Empire into the boneyard of empires which is Afghanistan. Iraq, Syria and Ukraine are just side shows. America can not escape history no matter what it does now since its days of empire are now numbered. Just as they were for the late unlamented Soviet Union.

The "New American Century" is ending preemptively early like Hitler's "Thousand Year Reich" and we can all breath a sigh of relief when it does.

Frank ,

The only thing that will get the bastard yanks out of the middle east is dead Americans.

Lots and lots of dead Americans.

Enough dead Americans to make the braindead jingoistic American masses notice.

Enough dead Americans to touch every family that produces grunts that serve their criminal state by raping and pillaging foreign countries.

Enough dead Americans to make dumbfuck Americans who say, 'Thank you for your service" squirm in literal pain at the words.

Dungroanin ,

They got brain damage in their bunkers in the best US base in the ME from just a handful of Kinetic energy missiles.

Their low yield nuke is their response.

The Israelis keep prodding the Bear – they even targeted a Russian Pantir system in Syria!

I suppose only a downing or infact destroying on the ground of a squadron of useless F35's with a threat to escalate into a full blown mobilisation is ever going to stop these imperialist chancers. Or a fully coordinated assassination campaign of the leads and their heirs as they frolic on their superyachts and space stations and secret Tracey islands.

And they can pay their taxes in full.

The Third world war is already fought – this really is a world war rather than some Anglo Imperialist bankers playing king of the castle – and they have LOST – the Empire is dead.

Long live the new Empire – the first not beholden to the bankers.

wardropper ,

Even with a new empire, our godless world would soon enough breed another generation of bankers to which we would be beholden.
That's what the fundamentally dishonest people in any society do.
Something wrong? Oh, well, we'll form a committee to discuss it, and in future we will look into creating a banking system which will enable us pay ourselves high wages for our invaluable contribution to human evolution.
It's MORALITY which is lacking today, not more legislation or a new constitution.

Gall ,

All one has to do is move off the centralized banking system developed and controlled by the Rothschilds that is totally based on creating finance out of thin air and return to a commodity based currency (not gold!!) that represents actual value like scrip or wampum or barter and the bankers will eventually starve.

Actually this system is starting to take hold in the US to a small extend to avoid the depredations of the IRS since Tax is based mostly on currency.

Stop using fiat currency and the problem's solved.

After WW II the French didn't have a press to press Francs so their standard of exchange became cigarettes and chocolate. It worked quite well until the presses started churning out paper again.

wardropper ,

My fear is that without the Rothschilds, some other over-ambitious family would simply step in and fill their shoes. It's the motivation to be greedy and wicked which needs addressing. How that would be done, of course, I have no idea.

Gall ,

This is only if you embrace the concept of centralized banking and the "magic" of compound interest. Current "banking" is all smoke and mirrors that favors the parasite who lives on the production of others through what is called "unearned income".

wardropper ,

I agree. But how to stop it?

Gall ,

Ignore the bastards instead. Just go off the grid.

wardropper ,

I can't deny the wisdom in that.

Dungroanin ,

The Red Shield ancient silk road trader and slaving company employees are only a family as say the Vatican is a family

wardropper ,

I know, but "only a family" with the wealth to buy whole nations
I find that very unsettling, to say the least.

Dungroanin ,

Indeed but there is always hope as the poet saw – THEY are the few, we are many.

Gall ,

Actually the Israelis are going a little slower now that isolated reports indicate that those flying turkeys AKA F-35s are getting popped out of the skies of Syria by antiquated Soviet SAMs. Of course there is no mention of this in the Mainstream Press. Just like there wasn't a word of a IDF General and his staff taken out by a shoulder launched RPG fired by Hezbollah in retaliation for attacking their media center in Beirut.

Antonym ,

Anybody who believes that the Israeli tail wags the US mil-ind. complex dog is contributing to the Jewish superiority myth.

Ken ,

They're not superior, but they do wag the US MIC dog in and ebb-and-flow kind of way. That 9/11 thing was quite the wag. Read Christopher Bollyn and study other aspects of the event if you're not sure of this.

Antonym ,

Langley and Riyadh love you; you fell for their ploy. See: Tel Aviv is much worse them.
The CIA/FBI failure explained.

The Mossad loves you too: for keeping mum on this Entebbe Mach 2.0 on their familiar New York crap they got huge US support in the ME.
Makes them look invincible too as a bonus .

5 dancing guys was all the proof needed – cheapest op in history.

Ken ,

"5 dancing guys was all the proof needed – cheapest op in history"

Oh please, that was such a minor bit of evidence of any Zionist/Israeli involvement, which spanned nearly every facet of the event and its aftermath.

The list of false flagging Zionist Jews in love with you is too long to list.

Gall ,

Oh please. What about the close to 200 Israelis who were arrested that day? Not to mention the helpful warning by Odigo which was only given to citizens of Israel?

Also one has to act who benefitted? Definitely not the Saudis or the Americans leaving Sharon who was trying to suppress a Palestinian uprising that he arrogantly started.

Speaking of your friendly five doing a fiddler on the roof on top of an Urban Moving Van that just happened to owned by another Israeli who fled the country. Didn't they say something stupid when arrested like "we are not your problem. It's the Palestinians who are your problem!"?

A pathetic frame up attempt but a frame none the less. Speaking of frame ups wasn't Fat Katz at SiteIntel (propaganda) who posted some stock footage of Palestinians celebrating which has been proven to be false since the only people who seem to celebrating that day was your friends the Dancing Israelis which doesn't prove their mental superiority at all but their arrogant stupidity,

Richard Le Sarc ,

The three, the USA, Saudi Arabia and the USA, are allies in destruction-the Real Axis of Evil. The dominant force, these days, given the control of the USA by Israel First Fifth Columnists, in the MSM, political 'contributions', the financial Moloch etc, is most certainly the Zionassties. Why don't you, like so many other Zionassties, glory in your power, Antsie. Nobody believes your ritual denials.

Gall ,

They don't really wag the dog by themselves. They have a lot of help from the Stand with Israel brain dead Christian Zionists who like Israelis consider themselves the chosen ones as well.

Ken ,

@Gall Yep! I had a long time friend who went Pentecostal and we drifted apart but still kept in touch. I lost him completely just after telling him that Israelis played a big part in 9/11.

Gall ,

Chuck Baldwin and a few other it seems have seen the light and are now questioning their colleagues undying support of Israel. Maybe you could show this article to your friend who seems enthralled by the terrorist snake er I mean state:
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/02/13/emperor-trump/

Ken ,

Thanks for that article. Were I ever able to get it in front of my estranged friend, it would make his head explode and kill him. Baldwin does seem to nail it. Chuck for president! I came across this rather intersting piece on 9/11 while at VT for your article.
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/02/10/9-11-the-bottom-line-an-open-letter-to-all-researchers/

Gall ,

Yes that pretty much sums up how 9/11 was carried on. Both Heinz Pommer and VT have done some excellent research based on facts not fantasy.

As far as your friend and many Christian Zionists in general. They seem to live in some alternative universe and dislike being confused by such irrelevant things as facts.

binra ,

It is a story that can be told in some detail – but when you say myth do you actually mean fallacy – ie – are you saying that Jewish power doesn't exercise considerable influence – if not control over US social and political and corporate development across of broad spectrum of leverages?

Richard Le Sarc ,

Yes-all those addresses of Congress, by Bibi, where the Congress critters compete to display the most extreme groveling and adulation, are just the natural expression of reverence and awe at his semi-Divine moral excellence. Denying the undeniable is SOP for Zionassties.

normal wisdom ,

what jews?
i do not see any jews
just a sea of khazar ashkanazim pirates
a kaballa talmudick race trick
a crime syndicate pretending to be semite
jew is just the cover
init

[Feb 15, 2020] Shifting narrative: Trump administration now Justifies Killing Soleimani for Past Actions, not Imminent Threat by Dave DeCamp

Notable quotes:
"... Although the memo says one purpose of the action was to "deter Iran from conducting or supporting further attacks against United States forces," it does not cite any specific threats. Both President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the killing was done to prevent imminent attacks and led on like they had the intelligence to prove it. ..."
"... The New York Times recently reported that Iraqi military and intelligence officials believe the December 27 th rocket attack that killed a US contractor was likely carried out by ISIS, not the Shi'ite militia the US blamed and retaliated against. This attack led to a series of provocations that resulted in the assassination of Soleimani. Iraqi officials do not have proof that ISIS carried out the attack, but this possibility makes the US justification for killing Soleimani even more flimsy. ..."
"... Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) responded to the White House's memo in a statement on Friday, "The administration's explanation in this report makes no mention of any imminent threat and shows that the justification the president offered to the American people was false, plain and simple." ..."
Feb 14, 2020 | news.antiwar.com

The White House released a memo on Friday to Congress justifying the assassination of top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. Despite earlier claims from the administration of Soleimani and his Quds Force planning imminent attacks on US personnel in the region, the memo uses past actions as the justification for the killing.

The memo says President Trump ordered the assassination on January 2nd "in response to an escalating series of attacks in preceding months by Iran and Iran-backed militias on United States forces and interests in the Middle East region."

Although the memo says one purpose of the action was to "deter Iran from conducting or supporting further attacks against United States forces," it does not cite any specific threats. Both President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the killing was done to prevent imminent attacks and led on like they had the intelligence to prove it.

The New York Times recently reported that Iraqi military and intelligence officials believe the December 27 th rocket attack that killed a US contractor was likely carried out by ISIS, not the Shi'ite militia the US blamed and retaliated against. This attack led to a series of provocations that resulted in the assassination of Soleimani. Iraqi officials do not have proof that ISIS carried out the attack, but this possibility makes the US justification for killing Soleimani even more flimsy.

Lawmakers from both parties criticized Trump for killing Iran's top general without congressional approval. The memo argues that Trump had authority to order the attack under Article II of the US Constitution, and under the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (2002 AUMF).

Congress is taking measures to limit Trump's ability to wage war with Iran. The Senate passed the Iran War Powers Resolution on Thursday, and the House voted to repeal the 2002 AUMF in January.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) responded to the White House's memo in a statement on Friday, "The administration's explanation in this report makes no mention of any imminent threat and shows that the justification the president offered to the American people was false, plain and simple."

[Feb 15, 2020] US assassinated Suleimani to quash Iran s talks with Gulf monarchies by Bill Van Auken

Feb 15, 2020 | www.wsws.org

The Trump administration ordered the January 3 assassination of Major General Qassem Suleimani, one of Iran's most senior officials, not because he posed some "imminent threat," but rather in a calculated bid to disrupt Tehran's attempts to reach an accommodation with Washington's allies in the region.

This is the inescapable conclusion flowing from a report published Thursday in the New York Times , citing unnamed senior officials from the US, Iran and other countries in the Middle East.

It recounts the arrival last September in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, of a plane carrying senior Iranian officials for talks aimed at achieving a bilateral peace agreement between the two countries.

The trip came in the context of a steady sharpening of US-Iranian tensions as a result of Trump's abrogation of the Iranian nuclear agreement in 2018 along with the imposition of a punishing sanctions regime tantamount to a state of war. This was followed by a major escalation of the US military presence in the region a year later.

While the US dispatched an aircraft carrier strike group and a B-52-led bomber task force to the region in May of last year, the same month saw the use of limpet mines to damage four oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic "chokepoint" through which 20 percent of the world's oil is shipped.

In June of last year, the Iranians downed a US Navy spy drone over the same area, with the Trump White House first ordering and then calling off retaliatory air strikes against Iran. And in September, Saudi oil installations came under a devastating attack from drones and cruise missiles.

Washington blamed both the attacks on the oil tankers and the strike against the Saudi oil installations -- for which the Houthi rebels in Yemen claimed responsibility -- on Iran, charges that Tehran denied.

As early as last August, there were reports indicating concerns within Washington that the UAE was veering away from the anti-Iran front that the US has attempted to cobble together, based upon Israel and the Gulf oil sheikdoms. The Emirates' coast guard had signed a maritime security agreement with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the UAE had clashed openly with Saudi Arabia over the control of southern Yemen's port city of Aden. At the time, the Washington Post warned that the UAE "is breaking ranks with Washington, calling into question how reliable an ally it would be in the event of a war between the United States and Iran."

According to the Times report, the meeting with the Iranian delegation in Abu Dhabi, which had been kept secret from Washington, "set off alarms inside the White House ... A united front against Iran -- carefully built by the Trump administration over more than two years -- seemed to be crumbling."

Both the Emirati monarchy and its counterpart in Saudi Arabia had become increasingly distrustful of Washington's Iran policy and concerned that they would find themselves on the frontline of any confrontation without any guarantee of the US defending them.

Saudi Arabia also began a secret diplomatic approach to Tehran, using the Iraqi and Pakistani governments as intermediaries. Suleimani played the central role in organizing the talks with both Gulf kingdoms, the Times reports.

In October, according to the report, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo flew to Tel Aviv for a meeting with Yossi Cohen, the chief of Mossad, who warned him that "Iran was achieving its primary goal: to break up the anti-Iran alliance."

Last month's assassination of General Suleimani was initially defended by Trump and administration officials as a preemptive strike aimed at foiling supposedly "imminent" attacks on US personnel or interests in the Middle East. This pretext soon fell apart, however, and the US president and his aides fell back to justifying the extra-judicial murder of a senior state official as revenge for his support for Shia militias that resisted the US occupation of Iraq 15 years earlier and retaliation for a missile strike that killed an American military contractor last December.

That strike was launched against a military base housing American troops in the northern Iraqi province of Kirkuk. Iraqi security officials have since contradicted the US claim that an Iranian-backed Shia militia was responsible for the attack. They have pointed out that the missiles were launched from a predominantly Sunni area where the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is active, and that Iraqi intelligence had warned US forces in November and December that ISIS was preparing to target the base.

The US responded to the missile strike on the base in Iraq by targeting Iraqi Shia militia positions on the Syria-Iraq border, killing 25 members of the Kataib Hezbollah militia. The attack provoked an angry demonstration that laid siege to the US embassy in Baghdad on December 31.

Two days later, a US Reaper drone fired missiles into a convoy at Baghdad International Airport, killing Suleimani along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a central leader of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces, the coalition of militias that constitutes an arm of Iraq's security forces, as well as eight others.

In the wake of the drone assassinations, US Secretary of State Pompeo sarcastically told the media: "Is there any history that would indicate that it was remotely possible that this kind gentleman, this diplomat of great order -- Qassem Suleimani -- had traveled to Baghdad for the idea of conducting a peace mission? We know that wasn't true."

As the Times report indicates, that was precisely what Suleimani was doing in Baghdad, the US knew it and that is why it assassinated him. Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi said at the time that General Suleimani had flown into the country, on a commercial flight and using his diplomatic passport, for the express purpose of delivering an Iranian response to a message from Saudi Arabia as part of talks aimed at de-escalating tensions.

The more that emerges about the assassination of Suleimani, the more the abject criminality of his murder becomes clear. It was carried out neither as a reckless act of revenge nor to ward off unspecified attacks. Rather, it was a calculated act of imperialist terror designed to disrupt talks aimed at defusing tensions in the Persian Gulf and to convince the wavering Gulf monarchies that Washington is prepared to go to war against Iran.

This is the policy not merely of the Trump administration. Among the most significant moments in Trump's State of the Union address earlier this month was the standing ovation by Democratic lawmakers as he gloated over the murder of Suleimani, a war crime.

The resort to such criminal actions is a measure of the extreme crisis of a capitalist system that threatens to drag humanity into a new world war.

[Feb 14, 2020] More Lies on Iran The White House Just Can t Help Itself as New Facts Emerge by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die. ..."
"... It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS. ..."
Feb 14, 2020 | www.unz.com

Admittedly the news cycle in the United States seldom runs longer than twenty-four hours, but that should not serve as an excuse when a major story that contradicts what the Trump Administration has been claiming appears and suddenly dies. The public that actually follows the news might recall a little more than one month ago the United States assassinated a senior Iranian official named Qassem Soleimani. Openly killing someone in the government of a country with which one is not at war is, to say the least, unusual, particularly when the crime is carried out in yet another country with which both the perpetrator and the victim have friendly relations. The justification provided by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking for the administration, was that Soleimani was in Iraq planning an "imminent" mass killing of Americans, for which no additional evidence was provided at that time or since.

It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die.

The incident that started the killing cycle that eventually included Soleimani consisted of a December 27th attack on a US base in Iraq in which four American soldiers and two Iraqis were wounded while one US contractor, an Iraqi-born translator, was killed. The United States immediately blamed Iran, claiming that it had been carried out by an Iranian supported Shi'ite militia called Kata'ib Hezbollah. It provided no evidence for that claim and retaliated by striking a Kata'ib base, killing 25 Iraqis who were in the field fighting the remnants of Islamic State (IS). The militiamen had been incorporated into the Iraqi Army and this disproportionate response led to riots outside the US Embassy in Baghdad, which were also blamed on Iran by the US There then followed the assassinations of Soleimani and nine senior Iraqi militia officers. Iran retaliated when it fired missiles at American forces , injuring more than one hundred soldiers, and then mistakenly shot down a passenger jet , killing an additional 176 people. As a consequence due to the killing by the US of 34 Iraqis in the two incidents, the Iraqi Parliament also voted to expel all American troops.

It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS.

This new development was reported in the New York Times in an article that was headlined "Was US Wrong About Attack That Nearly Started a War With Iran? Iraqi military and intelligence officials have raised doubts about who fired the rockets that started a dangerous spiral of events." In spite of the sensational nature of the report it generally was ignored in television news and in other mainstream media outlets, letting the Trump administration get away with yet another big lie, one that could easily have led to a war with Iran.

Iraqi investigators found and identified the abandoned white Kia pickup with an improvised Katyusha rocket launcher in the vehicle's bed that was used to stage the attack. It was discovered down a desert road within range of the K-1 joint Iraqi-American base that was hit by at least ten missiles in December, most of which struck the American area.

There is no direct evidence tying the attack to any particular party and the improvised KIA truck is used by all sides in the regional fighting, but the Iraqi officials point to the undisputed fact that it was the Islamic State that had carried out three separate attacks near the base over the 10 days preceding December 27th. And there are reports that IS has been increasingly active in Kirkuk Province during the past year, carrying out near daily attacks with improvised roadside bombs and ambushes using small arms. There had, in fact, been reports from Iraqi intelligence that were shared with the American command warning that there might be an IS attack on K-1 itself, which is an Iraqi air base in that is shared with US forces.

The intelligence on the attack has been shared with American investigators, who have also examined the pick-up truck. The Times reports that the US command in Iraq continue to insist that the attack was carried out by Kata'ib based on information, including claimed communications intercepts, that it refuses to make public. The US forces may not have shared the intelligence they have with the Iraqis due to concerns that it would be leaked to Iran, but senior Iraqi military officers are nevertheless perplexed by the reticence to confide in an ally.

If the Iraqi investigation of the facts around the December attack on K-1 is reliable, the Donald Trump administration's reckless actions in Iraq in late December and early January cannot be justified. Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one. To be sure, the Trump administration has lied about developments in the Middle East so many times that it can no longer be trusted. Unfortunately, demanding any accountability from the Trump team would require a Congress that is willing to shoulder its responsibility for truth in government backed up by a media that is willing to take on an administration that regularly punishes anyone or any entity that dares to challenge it

That is the unfortunate reality in America today.


AnonStarter , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 12:25 am GMT

Well, the 9/11 Commission lied about Israeli involvement, Israeli neocons lied America into Iraq, and Netanyahu lied about Iranian nukes, so this latest news is just par for the course.
KA , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 12:59 am GMT
@04398436986 lets stay focused.

Pompeo had evidence of immediate catastrophic attack. That turned out to be a lie and plain BS.
Why should we believe Pompeo or White House or intelligence about the situation developing around 27-29 Dec ? Is it because it's USA who is saying so?

anonymous [307] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 1:12 am GMT
[it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.]

The Jewish mafia stooge and fifth column, Trump, is a war criminal and an ASSASSIN.

... ... ...

melpol , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 1:13 am GMT
War with Iran is off the table. Carpet bombing Iran would lead to the destruction of Israel and its nuclear facility...
Sean , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 2:23 am GMT

Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.

Soleimani was a soldier involved in covert operations, Iran's most celebrated hero, and had been featured in the Iraq media as the target of multiple Western assassination attempts. He did not have diplomatic status.

As it happens Iran did not declare war on America and America did not declare war on Iran. If Americans soldiers killed in Iraq should not have been there in the first place, then the same goes for an Iranian soldier killed there too.

KA , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 2:30 am GMT
@04398436986 There is western assertion and western assertion only that Iran influences Iraqi administration and intelligence . It can be a projection from a failing America . It can be also a valid possibility .

But lying is America's alter ego . It comes easily and as default explanation even when admitting truth would do a better job .

Now let's focus on ISIS 's claims . Why is Ametica not taking it ( claim of ISIS) as truth and fact when USA has for last 19 years has jailed , bombed, attacked mentally retarded , caves and countries because somebody has pledged allegiance to Al Quida or to ISIS!!!

It seems neither truth nor lies , but what suits a particular psychopath at a particular time – that becomes USA's report ( kind of unassigned sex – neither truth nor lies – take your pick and find the toilet to flush it down memory hole) – so Pompeo lies to nation hoping no one in administration will ask . When administrative staff gets interested to know the truth , Pompeo tells them to suck it up , move on and get ready to explain the next batch of reality manufactured by a regime and well trained by philosopher Karl Rove

AnonStarter , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 4:06 am GMT
@04398436986 conspiracy mongers

To what "conspiracy" are you referring? It's a well established fact that your ilk was, at the very least, aware that the 9/11 attacks would occur and celebrated them in broad daylight. No conspiracy theory needed. Mossad ordnance experts were living practically next door to the hijackers. Well established fact.

It's also undeniable that the 9/11 Commission airbrushed Israeli involvement from their report. No conspiracy theory there, either.

Same goes for Israeli neocons and their media mandarins using "faulty intel" to get their war in Iraq. "Clean Break"? "Rebuilding America's Defenses"? Openly written and published. Judith Miller's lies? Also no conspiracy.

And Israel's own intelligence directors were undermining Netanyahu's lies on Iran. Not a conspiracy in sight.

contemplating the outcome of normal everyday competition, influenced by good & bad luck, is just too much truth for some psychological makeups

That's one of the lamest attempts at deflection I've seen thus far, and I've seen quite a few here.

Those who deny the official version of 9/11 are in the majority now:

https://www.livescience.com/56479-americans-believe-conspiracy-theories.html

We've reached critical mass. Clearly, that's just too much truth for your psychological makeup. Were we really that worthy of ignoring, your people wouldn't be working 24/7/365 to peddle your malarkey in fora of this variety.

JUSA , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 5:23 am GMT
I have thought that Trump's true impeachable crime was the illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat. Pence should also be impeached for the botched coup in Venezuela. That was true embarrassment bringing that "El Presidente" that no one recognizes to the SOTU.

USA is basically JU-S-A now, Jews own and run this country from top to bottom, side to side, and because of it, pretty much run the world. China-Russia-Iran form their new "Axis of Evil" to be brought in line. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Covid-19 is a bioweapon, except not one created by China. Israel has been working on an ethnic based bioweapon for years. US sent 172 military "athletes" to the Military World Games in Wuhan in October, 2019, two weeks before the first case of coronavirus appeared. Almost too coincidental.

animalogic , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 6:20 am GMT
@Sean He wasn't there as a soldier -- he was there in a diplomatic role. (regardless of his official "status"). It also appears he was lured there with intent to assaninate.
Your last para is not only terrible logic but ignores the point of the article. Iran likely was not responsible for the US deaths. Even had it been responsible it would still not legitimate such a baldly criminal action.
Sean , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 6:29 am GMT
@JUSA

[I]illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat

Lawful combat according to the Geneva Convention in which war is openly declared and fought between two countries each of which have regular uniformed forces that do all the actual fighting is an extremely rare thing. It is all proxy forces, deniability and asymmetric warfare in which one side (the stronger) is attacked by phantom combatants.

The Israeli PM publically alluded to the fact that Soleimani had almost been killed in the Mossad operation to kill Imad Mughniyeh a decade ago. The Iranian public knew that Soleimani had narrowly escaped death from Israeli drones, because Soleimani appeared on Iranian TV in October and told the story. A plot kill him by at a memorial service in Iran was supposedly foiled. He came from Lebanon by way of Syria into Iraq as if none of this had happened. Trump had sacked Bolton and failed to react to the drone attack on Saudi oil.

Iran seems to have thought that refusal to actually fight in the type of war that the international conventions were designed to regulate is a licence to exert pressure by launch attacks without being targeted oneself. Now do they understand.

Ace , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 8:41 am GMT
@Sean American troops invaded Iraq under false pretenses, killed thousands, and caused great destruction. Chaos and vengeful Sunnis spilled over into Syria where the US proceeded to grovel before the terrorists we fret about. Soleimani was effective in organizing resistance in Iraq and Syria and was in both countries with the blessing of their governments.

How you get Soleimani shouldn't be there out of that I have no idea.

Zen , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 12:04 pm GMT
@04398436986 Yet you ignore that the Neocons have lied about virtually every cause if war ever. Lied about Iraq, North Korea and Iran nuclear info actions, about chem weapons in Syria, lied about Kosovo, lied about Libya, lied about Benghazi, lied about Venezuela. So Whom I gonna believe, no government, but a Neocon led one least of all
Vojkan , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 1:05 pm GMT
@Sean American soldiers went there uninvited. Soleimani went there because he was invited. That makes a hell of a difference.
Robjil , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 1:05 pm GMT
It is common knowledge that ISIS is a US/Israeli creation. ISIS is the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. Thus, the US/Israel staged the attack on the US base on 12.27.2019.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-is-a-us-israeli-creation-top-ten-indications/5518627

ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #2: ISIS Never Attacks Israel

It is more than highly strange and suspicious that ISIS never attacks Israel – it is another indication that ISIS is controlled by Israel. If ISIS were a genuine and independent uprising that was not covertly orchestrated by the US and Israel, why would they not try to attack the Zionist regime, which has attacked almost of all of its Muslim neighbors ever since its inception in 1948? Israel has attacked Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, and of course has decimated Palestine. It has systemically tried to divide and conquer its Arab neighbors. It continually complains of Islamic terrorism. Yet, when ISIS comes on the scene as the bloody and barbaric king of Islamic terrorism, it finds no fault with Israel and sees no reason to target a regime which has perpetrated massive injustice against Muslims? This stretches credibility to a snapping point.

ISIS and Israel don't attack each other – they help each other. Israel was treating ISIS soldiers and other anti-Assad rebels in its hospitals! Mortal enemies or best of friends?

Coward Corps , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 1:07 pm GMT
The MQ-9 pilot and sensor operator will be looking over their shoulders for a long time. They're as famous as Soleimani. Their command chain is well known too, hide though they might far away.

And who briefed the president that terror Tuesday? The murder program isn't Air Force.

Eek , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 1:25 pm GMT
Hey now, you learn to put the best gloss on things when your troops are pathetic little timmies scared of rocks and 12-year olds. Bunch of pussies.

https://southfront.org/dumbfucks-russian-troops-react-to-us-forces-using-firearms-against-syrian-villagers/

The IRGC is going to make mincemeat of these chumps.

Moi , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 1:36 pm GMT
@anonymous The kind of crap Trump pulled in the assassination of Soleimani is what he should be impeached about–not the piss-ant stuff about Hunter Biden's job in the Ukaranian gas company and his pappy's role in it.
Sick of Orcs , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 1:49 pm GMT
We're really benefitting, carrying water for (((our greatest ally.)))
Really No Shit , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 1:59 pm GMT
Iraq an ally of the United States! Is it some kind of a joke? How can a master and slave be equal? We, the big dog want their oil and the tail that wags us, Israel, want all Muslims pacified and the Congress, which is us wether we like or not, compliant out of financial fears. Unless we curb our own greedy appetite for fossil fuels and at the same time tell an ally, which Israel is by being equal in a sense that it can get away with murder and not a pip is raised, to limit its ambition, nothing is going to be done to improve the situation. Until then it's an exercise in futility, at best!
anonymous [307] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 2:46 pm GMT
@Ozymandias You are so ignorant.

Iran has NO choice but to defend itself from the savages. It has not been Iran that invaded US, but US with a plan that design years before 9/11 invaded many countries. Remember: seven countries in five years. Soleimani was a wise man working towards peace by creating options for Iran to defend itself. Iran is not the aggressor, but US -Israel-UK are the aggressor for centuries now. Is this so difficult to understand. 9/11 was staged by US/Israel killing 3000 Christians to implement their criminal plan.

Soleimani, was on a peace mission, where was assassinated by Trump, an Israeli firster and a fifth column and the baby killer Netanyahu. Is this difficult to understand by the Trump worshiper, a traitor.

Now, Khamenie is saying the same thing: "Iran should be strong in military warfare and sciences to prevent war and maintain PEACE.

Only ignorant, arrogant, and racists don't understand this fact and refuse to understand how the victims have been pushed to defend themselves.

The Assassin at the black house should receive the same fate in order to bring the peace.

anonymous [307] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 2:48 pm GMT
@Moi I totally agree with you. Both parties are a fifth column and criminals.
Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist , says: Website Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 2:57 pm GMT
When does Amerikastan *not* lie about anything? If an Amerikastani tells you the sun rises in the east, you're probably on Venus, where it rises in the west.
DaveE , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 3:05 pm GMT
I think this article is getting close to the truth, that this whole operation was and is an ISIS (meaning Israeli Secret Intelligence Service) affair designed to pit America against the zionists' most formidable enemy thus far, Iran.

I'm of the opinion that Trump did not order the hit on Soleimani, but was forced to take credit for it, if he didn't want to forfeit any chance of being reelected this year. The same ISIS (Israeli) forces that did the hit also orchestrated the "retaliation" that Mr. Giraldi so heroically documents in this piece.

As usual, this is looking more and more like a zionist /jewish false flag attack on the Muslim world, with the real dirty-work to be done by the American military.

Ahoy , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 3:17 pm GMT
The dealer in the M.E. poker game is Putin. This is what drives the very elite crazy. How could this have happened? We had conquered Russia in 1917.

Well, you must have made a small mistake along the way. Trumpstein can't save you. Soon the dollar won't have any value. There is nothing behind it.

The new policeman in the M.E. will be Iran. The legacy of Lawrence of Arabia has died long time ago.

Greg Bacon , says: Website Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 3:33 pm GMT

It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently knew about may even have approved.

It's now obvious that the slumlord son-in-law Jared Kushner is really running the USA's ME policy.
Kushner is not only a dear friend of at-large war criminal Bibi Nuttyahoo, he also belongs to the Judaic religious cult of Chabad Lubavitcher, whom make the war-loving Christian Evangelicals almost look sane. Chabad also prays for some kind of Armageddon to bring forth their Messiah, just like the Evangelicals.

One can tell by Kushner's nasty comments he makes about Arabs/Persians and Palestinians in particular, that he loathes and despises those people and has an idiotic ear to cry into in the malignant form of Zion Don, AKA President Trump.

It's been said that Kushner is also a Mossad agent or asset, which is a good guess, since that agency has been placing their agents into the WH since at least the days of Clinton, who had Rahm Emmanuel to whisper hate into his ear.

That the Iranian General Soleimani was lured into Iraq so the WH could murder the man probably most responsible for halting the terrorist activities of the heart-eating, head-chopping US/Israel/KSA creation ISIS brings to mind the motto of the Israeli version of the CIA, the Mossad.

"By way of deception thou shalt make war."

Between Trump's incompetence, his vanity–and yes, his stupidity– and his appointing Swamp creatures into his cabinet and allowing Jared to run the ME show, Trump is showing himself to be a worse choice than Hillary.
If that maniac gets another 4 years, humanity is doomed. Or at least the USA for sure will perish.

[Feb 14, 2020] The Right-Wing Pro-Israel, Evangelical Agenda has Taken Over Trump's Middle East Policy

Notable quotes:
"... Until recently, President Donald Trump's pro-Israel policy was centered on taking steps related to fulfilling campaign promises and strengthening his standing domestically with his evangelical base. Chief among these steps was his decision to pull out of the nuclear accord with Iran, and the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (and at the same time announcing moving the American embassy to Jerusalem). Trump also signed a presidential proclamation recognizing "Israeli sovereignty" over the Golan Heights. ..."
"... By deciding to carry out this assassination operation, Trump has brought his pro-Israel policy to an entirely new, and dangerous level. ..."
"... Israel may have found in the Trump administration the perfect ally when it comes to the demonization of Iran and the groups it supports. ..."
Feb 14, 2020 | responsiblestatecraft.org

Until recently, President Donald Trump's pro-Israel policy was centered on taking steps related to fulfilling campaign promises and strengthening his standing domestically with his evangelical base. Chief among these steps was his decision to pull out of the nuclear accord with Iran, and the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (and at the same time announcing moving the American embassy to Jerusalem). Trump also signed a presidential proclamation recognizing "Israeli sovereignty" over the Golan Heights.

All of this has changed, however, with the assassination of the commander of the Quds Force in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) General Qassem Soleimani and the deputy head of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), Abu Mehdi Al-Muhandis.

By deciding to carry out this assassination operation, Trump has brought his pro-Israel policy to an entirely new, and dangerous level.

Targeting the IRGC and PMF: An Israeli policy

It is worth remembering that Israel set the precedent for carrying out lethal operations in Iraq by targeting elements of the IRGC and the PMF.

Israel began these operations last year, with the first taking place on July 19 near the Iraqi town of Amerli. Iranian media later reported that senior IRGC commander Abu Alfazl Sarabian had died in the attack.

Another Israeli attack on August 25 led to the death of a senior PMF commander in the Iraqi town of Al-Qaim near the border with Syria, while 21 PMF members were killed in an Israeli operation near the city of Hit in Iraq's Anbar province on September 20.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even admitted that Israel was behind these attacks.

"We are working against Iranian consolidation in Iraq as well [as in Syria]" remarked Netanyahu on August 22.

Trump administration officials adopt the Israel line of demonizing Iran

The Israeli fingerprints on U.S. policy could also be seen in the apparent stances taken by U.S. officials following the assassination of Soleimani and Al-Muhandis.

According to the New York Times , Trump administration officials have compared the assassination of Soleimani to the killing of former ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. Such a comparison is no doubt to Israel's liking.

Not only has Israel long sought to equate the IRGC and its allies, including the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Iraqi PMF, with terrorist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS, it has even described the latter groups as being the lesser of the two evils.

According to sources in Washington, one of the most common complaints made by visiting Israeli officials over the past years was that the U.S. was focusing too much on fighting Sunni Jihadist groups (al-Qaida, ISIS, etc.) and not enough on fighting Iran and its network of allies.

Israel's former ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren referred to this dynamic in an interview with the Jerusalem Post back in September 2013, where he summed up the Israeli policy regarding Syria. "The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted (President) Bashar Assad to go" he stated, further adding; "we always preferred the bad guys who weren't back by Iran (al-Qaida affiliates) to the bad guys who were backed by Iran".

For his part, former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon referred to an " axis of evil ' comprising Iran, Syria, and Lebanon.

Yaalon made those remarks during a meeting with former chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey in August 2013, underscoring that this "axis of evil" must not emerge victorious in Syria.

Israel may have found in the Trump administration the perfect ally when it comes to the demonization of Iran and the groups it supports.

Hard-core evangelicals like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence have a strong ideological affinity for Israel and its anti-Iranian agenda.

During a Senate hearing last April, Pompeo repeated the long-debunked claim that Iran and al-Qaida have cooperated for years. "There is no doubt there is a connection between the Islamic Republic of Iran and al-Qaida. Period, full stop," Pompeo asserted.

Pence, meanwhile, has even gone so far as to claim that Soleimani was involved with 9/11 . Following the assassination, Pence tweeted that Soleimani had "assisted in the clandestine travel of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States."

American troops in danger as a result of the Israeli evangelical agenda

With the assassination of Soleimani and Al-Muhandes, Israel and its Christian evangelical allies in Washington appear to have succeeded more than any time before in steering Trump's foreign policy. Their success, however, may have placed U.S. troops in the region in grave danger.

In a speech commemorating the death of Soleimani and Al-Muhandes, the leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah warned that retaliation would be aimed at U.S. military assets.

In remarks which brought back the memories of the 1983 attacks on the Marine Barracks in Beirut, Nasrallah suggested that the U.S. military presence in the region would become a target for suicide bombers.

"The suicide attackers who forced the Americans to leave our region in the past are still here today and in far greater numbers," Nasrallah asserted.

[Feb 10, 2020] Stench of Netanyahu in attack on K-1 base near Kirkuk: Did Washington Use a False Pretext for Its Recent Escalation in Iraq?

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times's ..."
Feb 08, 2020 | responsiblestatecraft.org

In a key piece of actual extensive, on-the-ground reporting , the New York Times's Alissa Rubin has raised serious questions about the official US account of who it was that attacked the K-1 base near Kirkuk, in eastern Iraq, on December 27. The United States almost immediately accused the Iran-backed Ketaib Hizbullah (KH) militia of responsibility. But Rubin quotes by name Brig. General Ahmed Adnan, the chief of intelligence for the Iraqi federal police at the same base, as saying, "All the indications are that it was Daesh" -- that is, ISIS.

She also presents considerable further detailed reporting on the matter. And she notes that though U.S. investigators claim to have evidence about KH's responsibility for the attack, they have presented none of it publicly. Nor have they shared it with the Iraqi government.

KH is a paramilitary organization that operates under the command of the Iraqi military and has been deeply involved in the anti-ISIS campaigns throughout the country.

The December 27 attack killed one Iraqi-American contractor and was cited by the Trump administration as reason to launch a large-scale attack on five KH bases some 400 miles to the west which killed around 50 KH fighters. Outraged KH fighters then mobbed the US embassy in Baghdad, breaking through an outside perimeter on its large campus, but causing no casualties. On January 2, Pres. Trump decided to escalate again, ordering the assassination of Iran's Gen. Qasem Soleimani and bringing the region and the world close to a massive shooting war.

The new evidence presented by Rubin makes it look as if Trump and his advisors had previously decided on a broad-scale plan to attack Iran's very influential allies in Iraq and were waiting for a triggering event– any triggering event!– to use as a pretext to launch it. The attack against the K-1 base presented them with that trigger, even though they have not been able to present any evidence that it was KH that undertook it.

This playbook looks very similar to the one that Ariel Sharon, who was Israel's Defense Minister in summer 1982, used to launch his wide attack against the PLO's presence in Lebanon in June that year. The "trigger" Sharon used to launch his long-prepared attack was the serious (but not fatal) wounding of Israel's ambassador in London, Shlomo Argov, which the Israeli government immediately blamed on the PLO.

Regarding London in 1982, as regarding K-1 last December, the actual identity of the assailant(s) was misreported by the government that used it as a trigger for escalation. In London, the police fairly speedily established that it was not the PLO but operatives of an anti-PLO group headed by a man called Abu Nidal who had attacked Argov. But by the time they had discovered and publicized that fact, Israeli tanks were already deep inside Lebanon.

The parallels and connections between the two cases go further. If, as now seems likely, the authors of the K-1 attack were indeed Da'esh, then they succeeded brilliantly in triggering a bitter fight between two substantial forces in the coalition that had been fighting against them in Iraq. Regarding the 1982 London attack, its authors also succeeded brilliantly in triggering a lethal conflict between two forces (one substantial, one far less so) that were both engaged in bitter combat against Abu Nidal's networks.

Worth noting: Abu Nidal's main backer, throughout his whole campaign against the PLO, was Saddam Hussein's brutal government in Iraq. (The London assailants deposited their weapons in the Iraqi embassy after completing the attack.) Many senior strategists and planners for ISIS in Iraq were diehard remnants of Saddam's formerly intimidating security forces.

Also worth noting: Three months in to Sharon's massive 1982 invasion of Lebanon, it seemed to have successfully reached its goals of expelling the PLO's fighting forces from Lebanon and installing a strongly pro-Israeli government there. But over the longer haul, the invasion looked much less successful. The lengthy Israeli occupation of south Lebanon that followed 1982 served to incubate the birth and growth of the (pro-Iranian) Hizbullah there. Today, Hizbullah is a strong political movement inside Lebanon that commands a very capable fighting force that expelled Israel's last presence from Lebanon in 2000, rebuffed a subsequent Israeli invasion of the country six years later, and still exerts considerable deterrent power against Israel today

Very few people in Israel today judge the 1982 invasion of Lebanon to have been a wise move. How will the historians of the future view Trump's decision to launch his big escalation against Iran's allies in Iraq, presumably as part of his "maximum pressure" campaign against Tehran?

This article has been republished with permission from Just World News .

[Feb 09, 2020] Following the US assassination of Soleimani, the Trump administration is leading American conduct abroad into a zone of probably unprecedented lawlessness by Patrick Lawrence

Notable quotes:
"... In our late-imperial phase, we seem to have reached that moment when, whatever high officials say in matters of the empire's foreign policy, we must consider whether the opposite is in fact the case. So we have it now. ..."
"... Lawlessness begets lawlessness is the operative (and obvious) principle. In a remarkable speech at the Hoover Institution last week, Pompeo termed the Soleimani assassination "the restoration of deterrence" and appeared to promise other such operations against other nations Washington considers adversaries. Ominously enough, Pompeo singled out China and Russia. ..."
"... Against the background of the events noted above, it is clear from this speech alone that our secretary of state is a dangerously incompetent figure when it comes to judging global events, the proper responses to them, and the probable consequences of a given response. If we are going to think about costs, the heaviest will fall on Americans in months to come. ..."
"... Immediately after the U.S. drone that killed Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport, Mohammad Javad Zarif sent out a message whose importance should not be missed. "End of US's malign presence in West Asia has begun," Iran's foreign minister wrote. These few words, rendered in Twitterese, bear careful consideration given they come from an official whose nation had just sustained a critical blow. ..."
"... Gradually but rather certainly now, the community of nations is losing its patience with late-phase imperial America. With exceptions such as Japan and Israel, the Baltics and Saudi Arabia, this is so across both oceans and more or less across the non–Western world. In the Middle East, the American presence will remain for the time being, but we are now in the beginning-of-the-end phase. This was Zarif's meaning. And we now know the end will come neither peaceably nor lawfully. ..."
"... Amazing how the US government is bringing back the old days: "Slave markets" See: reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-rights/executions-torture-and-slave-markets-persist-in-libya-u-n-idUSKBN1GX1JY "Pillage", as pointed out in this article. ..."
"... To have such a person as the top diplomat in the USA shows how low the USA has sunk. For him to pretend to be some sort of Christian is sinister and extremely dangerous for everyone. There is NO reason for the US animosity towards Iran except subservience to Israel, which, again without real justification, claims to be terrified of Iran, which unlike Israel is NOT attacking others and has not for centuries. ..."
"... SecStae's remarks about deterrence befit a military commander, NOT a diplomat. Paranoia, grandiosity and violence begin with potus and cascade downward and about. Congress does its part in investing in machinery of war. ..."
"... Pompeo reminds me of the pigs in Animal Farm. He is a grotesque figure, steely-eyed, cold-blooded, fanatical, and hateful. "We lied, cheated, and stole" Pompous Maximus will get his comeuppance one of these days ..."
"... Pillage as policy. The Empire has fully embraced gangster capitalism for its modus operandi. ..."
"... Here is an interesting article that explains how governments have changed the rules so that they can justify killing anyone who they believe may at some point in time have the potential to be involved in a terrorist plot: viableopposition.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-new.html ..."
"... This rather Orwellian move gives governments the justification that they to kill any of us just because they feel that we might pose a threat and that is a very, very scary prospect. It is very reminiscent of the movie Minority Report where crimes of the future are punished in the present. ..."
Jan 21, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

Special to Consortium News

Of all the preposterous assertions made since the drone assassination of Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad on Jan. 3, the prize for bottomless ignorance must go to the bottomlessly ignorant Mike Pompeo.

Speaking after the influential Iranian general's death, our frightening secretary of state declaimed on CBS's Face the Nation , "There was sound and just and legal reason for the actions the President took, and the world is safer as a result." In appearances on five news programs on the same Sunday morning, the evangelical paranoid who now runs American foreign policy was a singer with a one-note tune. "It's very clear the world's a safer place today," Pompeo said on ABC's Jan. 5 edition of This Week.

In our late-imperial phase, we seem to have reached that moment when, whatever high officials say in matters of the empire's foreign policy, we must consider whether the opposite is in fact the case. So we have it now.

We are not safer now that Soleimani, a revered figure across much of the Middle East, has been murdered. The planet has just become significantly more dangerous, especially but not only for Americans, and this is so for one simple reason: The Trump administration, Pompeo bearing the standard, has just tipped American conduct abroad into a zone of probably unprecedented lawlessness, Pompeo's nonsensical claim to legality notwithstanding .

This is a very consequential line to cross.

Hardly does it hold that Washington's foreign policy cliques customarily keep international law uppermost in their minds and that recent events are aberrations. Nothing suggests policy planners even consider legalities except when it makes useful propaganda to charge others with violating international statutes and conventions.

Please donate to the Winter Fund Drive.

Neither can the Soleimani assassination be understood in isolation: This was only the most reckless of numerous policy decisions recently taken in the Middle East. Since late last year, to consider merely the immediate past, the Trump administration has acted ever more flagrantly in violation of all international legal authorities and documents -- the UN Charter, the International Criminal Court, and the International Court of Justice in the Hague chief among them.

Washington is into full-frontal lawlessness now.

'Keeping the Oil'

Shortly after Trump announced the withdrawal of U.S. forces from northern Syria last October, the president reversed course -- probably under Pentagon and State Department pressure -- and said some troops would remain to protect Syria's oilfields. "We want to keep the oil," Trump declared in the course of a Twitter storm. It soon emerged that the administration's true intent was to prevent the Assad government in Damascus from reasserting sovereign control over Syrian oilfields.

The Russians had the honesty to call this for what it was. "Washington's attempt to put oilfields there under [its] control is illegal," Sergei Lavrov said at the time. "In fact, it's tantamount to robbery," the Russian foreign minister added. (John Kiriakou, writing for Consortium News, pointed out that it is a violation of the 1907 Hague Convention. It is call pillage.)

Few outside the Trump administration, and possibly no one, has argued that Soleimani's murder was legitimate under international law. Not only was the Iranian general from a country with which the U.S. is not at war, which means the crime is murder; the drone attack was also a clear violation of Iraqi sovereignty, as has been widely reported.

In response to Baghdad's subsequent demand that all foreign troops withdraw from Iraqi soil, Pompeo flatly refused even to discuss the matter with Iraqi officials -- yet another openly contemptuous violation of Iraqi sovereignty.

It gets worse. In his own response to Baghdad's decision to evict foreign troops, Trump threatened sanctions -- "sanctions like they've never seen before" -- and said Iraq would have to pay the U.S. the cost of the bases the Pentagon has built there despite binding agreements that all fixed installations the U.S. has built in Iraq are Iraqi government-owned.

At Baghdad's Throat

Trump, who seems to have oil eternally on his mind, has been at Baghdad's throat for some time. Twice since taking office three years ago, he has tried to intimidate the Iraqis into "repaying" the U.S. for its 2003 invasion with access to Iraqi oil. "We did a lot, we did a lot over there, we spent trillions over there, and a lot of people have been talking about the oil," he said on the second of these occasions.

Baghdad rebuffed Trump both times, but he has been at it since, according to Adil Abdul–Mahdi, Iraq's interim prime minister. Last year the U.S. administration asked Baghdad for 50 percent of the nation's oil output -- in total roughly 4.5 million barrels daily -- in exchange for various promised reconstruction projects.

Rejecting the offer, Abdul–Mahdi signed an "oil for reconstruction" agreement with China last autumn -- whereupon Trump threatened to instigate widespread demonstrations in Baghdad if Abdul–Mahdi did not cancel the China deal. (He did not do so and, coincidentally or otherwise, civil unrest ensued.)

U.S. Army forces operating in southern Iraq, April. 2, 2003. (U.S. Navy)

Blueprints for Reprisal

If American lawlessness is nothing new, the brazenly imperious character of all the events noted in this brief résumé has nonetheless pushed U.S. foreign policy beyond a tipping point.

No American -- and certainly no American official or military personnel -- can any longer travel in the Middle East with an assurance of safety. All American diplomats, all military officers, and all embassies and bases in the region are now vulnerable to reprisals. The Associated Press reported after the Jan. 3 drone strike that Iran has developed 13 blueprints for reprisals against the U.S.

Lawlessness begets lawlessness is the operative (and obvious) principle. In a remarkable speech at the Hoover Institution last week, Pompeo termed the Soleimani assassination "the restoration of deterrence" and appeared to promise other such operations against other nations Washington considers adversaries. Ominously enough, Pompeo singled out China and Russia.

Here is a snippet from Pompeo's remarks:

"In strategic terms, deterrence simply means persuading the other party that the costs of a specific behavior exceed its benefits. It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it. Your adversary must understand not only do you have the capacity to impose costs but that you are, in fact, willing to do so . In all cases we have to do this."

Against the background of the events noted above, it is clear from this speech alone that our secretary of state is a dangerously incompetent figure when it comes to judging global events, the proper responses to them, and the probable consequences of a given response. If we are going to think about costs, the heaviest will fall on Americans in months to come.

Immediately after the U.S. drone that killed Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport, Mohammad Javad Zarif sent out a message whose importance should not be missed. "End of US's malign presence in West Asia has begun," Iran's foreign minister wrote. These few words, rendered in Twitterese, bear careful consideration given they come from an official whose nation had just sustained a critical blow.

24 hrs ago, an arrogant clown -- masquerading as a diplomat -- claimed people were dancing in the cities of Iraq.

Today, hundreds of thousands of our proud Iraqi brothers and sisters offered him their response across their soil.

End of US malign presence in West Asia has begun. pic.twitter.com/eTDRyLN11c

-- Javad Zarif (@JZarif) January 4, 2020

Gradually but rather certainly now, the community of nations is losing its patience with late-phase imperial America. With exceptions such as Japan and Israel, the Baltics and Saudi Arabia, this is so across both oceans and more or less across the non–Western world. In the Middle East, the American presence will remain for the time being, but we are now in the beginning-of-the-end phase. This was Zarif's meaning. And we now know the end will come neither peaceably nor lawfully.

Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via his Patreon site .

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

Please donate to the Winter Fund Drive.

Jeff Harrison , January 21, 2020 at 19:38

Well, there's two relevant bits here. Bullshit walks and money talks. Our money stopped talking $23T ago. What goes around, comes around. Whenever, however it comes down, it's gonna hurt.

Antiwar7 , January 21, 2020 at 13:46

Amazing how the US government is bringing back the old days: "Slave markets" See: reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-rights/executions-torture-and-slave-markets-persist-in-libya-u-n-idUSKBN1GX1JY "Pillage", as pointed out in this article.

rosemerry , January 21, 2020 at 13:28

To have such a person as the top diplomat in the USA shows how low the USA has sunk. For him to pretend to be some sort of Christian is sinister and extremely dangerous for everyone. There is NO reason for the US animosity towards Iran except subservience to Israel, which, again without real justification, claims to be terrified of Iran, which unlike Israel is NOT attacking others and has not for centuries.

Even if the USA hates Iran, it has already done inestimable damage to the Islamic Republic before this disgraceful action. Cruelty to 80 million people who have never harmed, even really threatened, the mighty USA, by tossing out a working JCPOA and installing economic "sanctions", should not be accepted by the rest of the world-giving in to blackmail encourages worse behavior, as we have already seen.

"It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it. " This is exactly what should be rejected by us all. These "leaders" will not change their behavior without solidarity among "allies" like the European Union, which has already caved in and blamed Iran for the changes -Iran has explained clearly why it made- to the JCPOA which the USA has left.

Abby , January 21, 2020 at 20:15

The only difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump doesn't hide the US naked aggression as well as Obama did. So far Trump hasn't started any new wars. By this time in Obama's tenure we had started bombing more countries and accepted one coup.

dfnslblty , January 21, 2020 at 12:43

SecStae's remarks about deterrence befit a military commander, NOT a diplomat. Paranoia, grandiosity and violence begin with potus and cascade downward and about. Congress does its part in investing in machinery of war.

Cheyenne , January 21, 2020 at 11:49

The above comment shows exactly why bellicose adventurism for oil etc. is so stupid and dangerous. If we continually prance around robbing people, they're gonna unite to slap us down.

Hardly seems like anyone should need that pointed out but if anybody mentioned it to Trump or any other gung ho warhawk, he must not have been listening.

Dan Kuhn , January 21, 2020 at 13:08

Trump and Pompeo seem to have entered the Wild West stage of recent American history. I think they watch too many western movies, without understanding the underrlying plot of 100% of them. It is the bad guys take over a town, where they impose their will on the population, terrorizing everyone into obediance. They steal everything in sight and any who oppose them are summarily killed off. In the end a good guy ( In American parlance, " a good guy with a gun" shows up . The town`s people approach him and beg him to oppose the bad guys. He then proceeds to kill off the bad guys after the general population joins him in his crusade. it looks as though we are at the stage in the movie where the general population is ready to take up arms against the bad guys.

The moral of the story the bad guys, the bullies, Pompeo and Trump, are either killed or chased out of town. But perhaps the problem is that this plot is too difficult for Trump and Pompeo to understand. So they don`t quite get the peril that there gunmen and killers are now in. They don`t see the writing on the wall.

Caveman , January 21, 2020 at 11:30

It seems the only US considerations in the assassination were – will it weaken Iran, will it strengthen the American position? On that perspective, the answer is probably yes on both counts. Legal considerations do not seem to have carried any weight. In the UK we recently saw a chilling interview with Brian Hook, U.S. Special Representative for Iran and Senior Policy Advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. It was clear that he saw the assassination as another nail in the coffin of the Iranian regime, simply furthering a policy objective.

Vera Gottlieb , January 21, 2020 at 11:19

What is even sadder is the world's lack of gonads to stand up to this bully nation – that has caused so much grief and still does.

Michael McNulty , January 21, 2020 at 11:01

The US government became a crime syndicate. Today its bootleg liquor is oil, the boys they send round to steal it are armies and their drive-by shootings are Warthog strafings using DU ammunition. Their drug rackets in the back streets are high-grade reefer, heroin and amphetamines, with pharmaceutical-grade chemicals on Main Street. They still print banknotes just as before; but this time it's legal but still doesn't make them enough, so to make up the shortfalls they've taken armed robbery abroad.

paul easton , January 21, 2020 at 12:55

The US Government is running a protection racket, literally. In return for US protection of their sources of oil, the NATO countries provide international support for US war crimes. But now that the (figurative) Don is visibly out of his mind, they are likely to turn to other protectors.

Gary Weglarz , January 21, 2020 at 10:34

One need not step back very far in order to look at the bigger longer range picture. What immediately comes into focus is that this is simply the current moment in what is now 500 plus years of Western colonialism/neocolonialism. When has the law EVER had anything to do with any of this?

ML , January 21, 2020 at 10:31

Pompeo reminds me of the pigs in Animal Farm. He is a grotesque figure, steely-eyed, cold-blooded, fanatical, and hateful. "We lied, cheated, and stole" Pompous Maximus will get his comeuppance one of these days. I hope he plans more overseas trips for himself. He is a vile person, a psychopath proud of his psychopathy. He alone would make anyone considering conversion to Christianity, his brand of it, run screaming into the night. Repulsive man.

Michael Crockett , January 21, 2020 at 09:40

Pillage as policy. The Empire has fully embraced gangster capitalism for its modus operandi. That said, IMO, the axis of resistance has the military capability and the resolve to fight back and win. Combining China and Russia into a greater axis of resistance could further shrink the Outlaw US Empire presence in West Asia. Thank you Patrick for your keen insight and observations. The Empires days are numbered.

Sally Snyder , January 21, 2020 at 07:28

Here is an interesting article that explains how governments have changed the rules so that they can justify killing anyone who they believe may at some point in time have the potential to be involved in a terrorist plot: viableopposition.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-new.html

This rather Orwellian move gives governments the justification that they to kill any of us just because they feel that we might pose a threat and that is a very, very scary prospect. It is very reminiscent of the movie Minority Report where crimes of the future are punished in the present.

[Feb 09, 2020] Trump Secretly Threatened Europe With Auto Tariffs If It Didn t Declare Iran In Breach Of Nuclear Deal

Notable quotes:
"... Trump's threats of auto tariffs to gain trade concessions with the Europeans is certainly nothing new, but using the same to dictate foreign policy is, notes WaPo's diplomatic correspondent John Hudson. ..."
"... Interestingly, in Wednesday's joint statement the European signatories attempted to distance their drastic action away from Washington's so-called "maximum pressure" campaign. "Our three countries are not joining a campaign to implement maximum pressure against Iran," they said . ..."
"... The statement also underscored Europe hopes to use the mechanism "to bring Iran back into full compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA" and in the words of one official quoted in The Guardian to prevent nuclear advancement to the point that the Iranians "learn something that it is not possible for them to unlearn" . ..."
Jan 15, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

A bombshell revelation from The Washington Post a day after France, Britain and Germany took unprecedented action against Iran by formally triggering the dispute resolution mechanism regulating conformity to the deal, seen as the harshest measure taken by the European signatories thus far. The European powers officially see Iran as in breach of the deal which means UN and EU punitive sanctions are now on the table.

But according to The Post , how things quickly escalated to this point is real story : " Days before Europeans warned Iran of nuclear deal violations, Trump secretly threatened to impose 25% tariff on European autos if they didn't," says the report.

This came as a "shock" to all three countries, with one top European official calling it essentially "extortion" and a new level of hardball tactics from the Trump administration.

After the US leveraged the new tariffs threat according to the report, European capitals moved quick to trigger the mechanism, which involved the individual European states formally notifying the agreement's guarantor, the European Union, that Iran is in breach of the nuclear deal.

This followed the Jan.6 declaration of Tehran's leadership to no longer be beholden to uranium enrichment limits. And that's where things got interesting as Washington's pressure campaign dramatically turned up the heat on Europe.

"Within days, the three countries would formally accuse Iran of violating the deal, triggering a recourse provision that could reimpose United Nations sanctions on Iran and unravel the last remaining vestiges of the Obama-era agreement," the report continues .

However, the report notes France, the UK, and Germany were already in deep discussion on moving forward with triggering the mechanism. "We didn't want to look weak, so we agreed to keep the existence of the threat a secret," a European official cited by WaPo claims.

Trump's threats of auto tariffs to gain trade concessions with the Europeans is certainly nothing new, but using the same to dictate foreign policy is, notes WaPo's diplomatic correspondent John Hudson.

Interestingly, in Wednesday's joint statement the European signatories attempted to distance their drastic action away from Washington's so-called "maximum pressure" campaign. "Our three countries are not joining a campaign to implement maximum pressure against Iran," they said .

The statement also underscored Europe hopes to use the mechanism "to bring Iran back into full compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA" and in the words of one official quoted in The Guardian to prevent nuclear advancement to the point that the Iranians "learn something that it is not possible for them to unlearn" .

Now that the mechanism has been enacted, the clock starts on 65 days of intensive negotiations before UN sanctions would be reimposed if no resolution is reached. Specifically a blanket arms embargo would be imposed among other measures, and certainly it would mark the deal's final demise, given the Europeans are Iran's last hope for being equal partners in the deal.

Also interesting is that in the hours before The Washington Post report was published, Iranian FM Zarif charged that the EU investigation into Iran's alleged non-compliance meant Europe is allowing itself to be bulled by the United States .

Indeed the new revelation of the secret threats attempting to dictate Europe's course appear to confirm precisely Zarif's words to reporters earlier on Wednesday : "They say 'We are not responsible for what the United States did.' OK, but you are independent" he began. And then added a stinging rebuke: "Europe, EU, is the largest global economy. So why do you allow the United States to bully you around?"

[Feb 09, 2020] The Deeper Story Behind The Assassination Of Soleimani

Highly recommended!
Looks like the end of Full Spectrum Dominance the the USA enjoyed since 1991. Alliance of Iran, Russia and China (with Turkey and Pakistan as two possible members) is serious military competitor and while the USA has its set of trump cards, the military victory against such an alliance no longer guaranteed.
Jan 09, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Days after the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, new and important information is coming to light from a speech given by the Iraqi prime minister. The story behind Soleimani's assassination seems to go much deeper than what has thus far been reported, involving Saudi Arabia and China as well the US dollar's role as the global reserve currency .

The Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, has revealed details of his interactions with Trump in the weeks leading up to Soleimani's assassination in a speech to the Iraqi parliament. He tried to explain several times on live television how Washington had been browbeating him and other Iraqi members of parliament to toe the American line, even threatening to engage in false-flag sniper shootings of both protesters and security personnel in order to inflame the situation, recalling similar modi operandi seen in Cairo in 2009, Libya in 2011, and Maidan in 2014. The purpose of such cynicism was to throw Iraq into chaos.

Here is the reconstruction of the story:

[Speaker of the Council of Representatives of Iraq] Halbousi attended the parliamentary session while almost none of the Sunni members did. This was because the Americans had learned that Abdul-Mehdi was planning to reveal sensitive secrets in the session and sent Halbousi to prevent this. Halbousi cut Abdul-Mehdi off at the commencement of his speech and then asked for the live airing of the session to be stopped. After this, Halbousi together with other members, sat next to Abdul-Mehdi, speaking openly with him but without it being recorded. This is what was discussed in that session that was not broadcast:

Abdul-Mehdi spoke angrily about how the Americans had ruined the country and now refused to complete infrastructure and electricity grid projects unless they were promised 50% of oil revenues, which Abdul-Mehdi refused.

The complete (translated) words of Abdul-Mahdi's speech to parliament:

This is why I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the construction instead. Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement. When I refused, he threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my premiership.

Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me.

I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us rescinding our deal with the Chinese.

After this, when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting both protestors and security personnel alike (just as Trump had threatened he would do), I received a new call from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we kept on talking about this "third party".

Nobody imagined that the threat was to be applied to General Soleimani, but it was difficult for Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi to reveal the weekslong backstory behind the terrorist attack.

I was supposed to meet him [Soleimani] later in the morning when he was killed. He came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered to the Iranians from the Saudis.

We can surmise, judging by Saudi Arabia's reaction , that some kind of negotiation was going on between Tehran and Riyadh:

The Kingdom's statement regarding the events in Iraq stresses the Kingdom's view of the importance of de-escalation to save the countries of the region and their people from the risks of any escalation.

Above all, the Saudi Royal family wanted to let people know immediately that they had not been informed of the US operation:

The kingdom of Saudi Arabia was not consulted regarding the US strike. In light of the rapid developments, the Kingdom stresses the importance of exercising restraint to guard against all acts that may lead to escalation, with severe consequences.

And to emphasize his reluctance for war, Mohammad bin Salman sent a delegation to the United States. Liz Sly , the Washington Post Beirut bureau chief, tweated:

Saudi Arabia is sending a delegation to Washington to urge restraint with Iran on behalf of [Persian] Gulf states. The message will be: 'Please spare us the pain of going through another war'.

What clearly emerges is that the success of the operation against Soleimani had nothing to do with the intelligence gathering of the US or Israel. It was known to all and sundry that Soleimani was heading to Baghdad in a diplomatic capacity that acknowledged Iraq's efforts to mediate a solution to the regional crisis with Saudi Arabia.

It would seem that the Saudis, Iranians and Iraqis were well on the way towards averting a regional conflict involving Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Riyadh's reaction to the American strike evinced no public joy or celebration. Qatar, while not seeing eye to eye with Riyadh on many issues, also immediately expressed solidarity with Tehran, hosting a meeting at a senior government level with Mohammad Zarif Jarif, the Iranian foreign minister. Even Turkey and Egypt , when commenting on the asassination, employed moderating language.

This could reflect a fear of being on the receiving end of Iran's retaliation. Qatar, the country from which the drone that killed Soleimani took off, is only a stone's throw away from Iran, situated on the other side of the Strait of Hormuz. Riyadh and Tel Aviv, Tehran's regional enemies, both know that a military conflict with Iran would mean the end of the Saudi royal family.

When the words of the Iraqi prime minister are linked back to the geopolitical and energy agreements in the region, then the worrying picture starts to emerge of a desperate US lashing out at a world turning its back on a unipolar world order in favor of the emerging multipolar about which I have long written .

The US, now considering itself a net energy exporter as a result of the shale-oil revolution (on which the jury is still out), no longer needs to import oil from the Middle East. However, this does not mean that oil can now be traded in any other currency other than the US dollar.

The petrodollar is what ensures that the US dollar retains its status as the global reserve currency, granting the US a monopolistic position from which it derives enormous benefits from playing the role of regional hegemon.

This privileged position of holding the global reserve currency also ensures that the US can easily fund its war machine by virtue of the fact that much of the world is obliged to buy its treasury bonds that it is simply able to conjure out of thin air. To threaten this comfortable arrangement is to threaten Washington's global power.

Even so, the geopolitical and economic trend is inexorably towards a multipolar world order, with China increasingly playing a leading role, especially in the Middle East and South America.

Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Qatar and Saudi Arabia together make up the overwhelming majority of oil and gas reserves in the world. The first three have an elevated relationship with Beijing and are very much in the multipolar camp, something that China and Russia are keen to further consolidate in order to ensure the future growth for the Eurasian supercontinent without war and conflict.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is pro-US but could gravitate towards the Sino-Russian camp both militarily and in terms of energy. The same process is going on with Iraq and Qatar thanks to Washington's numerous strategic errors in the region starting from Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011 and Syria and Yemen in recent years.

The agreement between Iraq and China is a prime example of how Beijing intends to use the Iraq-Iran-Syria troika to revive the Middle East and and link it to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative.

While Doha and Riyadh would be the first to suffer economically from such an agreement, Beijing's economic power is such that, with its win-win approach, there is room for everyone.

Saudi Arabia provides China with most of its oil and Qatar, together with the Russian Federation, supply China with most of its LNG needs, which lines up with Xi Jinping's 2030 vision that aims to greatly reduce polluting emissions.

The US is absent in this picture, with little ability to influence events or offer any appealing economic alternatives.

Washington would like to prevent any Eurasian integration by unleashing chaos and destruction in the region, and killing Soleimani served this purpose. The US cannot contemplate the idea of the dollar losing its status as the global reserve currency. Trump is engaging in a desperate gamble that could have disastrous consequences.

The region, in a worst-case scenario, could be engulfed in a devastating war involving multiple countries. Oil refineries could be destroyed all across the region, a quarter of the world's oil transit could be blocked, oil prices would skyrocket ($200-$300 a barrel) and dozens of countries would be plunged into a global financial crisis. The blame would be laid squarely at Trump's feet, ending his chances for re-election.

To try and keep everyone in line, Washington is left to resort to terrorism, lies and unspecified threats of visiting destruction on friends and enemies alike.

Trump has evidently been convinced by someone that the US can do without the Middle East, that it can do without allies in the region, and that nobody would ever dare to sell oil in any other currency than the US dollar.

Soleimani's death is the result of a convergence of US and Israeli interests. With no other way of halting Eurasian integration, Washington can only throw the region into chaos by targeting countries like Iran, Iraq and Syria that are central to the Eurasian project. While Israel has never had the ability or audacity to carry out such an assassination itself, the importance of the Israel Lobby to Trump's electoral success would have influenced his decision, all the more so in an election year .

Trump believed his drone attack could solve all his problems by frightening his opponents, winning the support of his voters (by equating Soleimani's assassination to Osama bin Laden's), and sending a warning to Arab countries of the dangers of deepening their ties with China.

The assassination of Soleimani is the US lashing out at its steady loss of influence in the region. The Iraqi attempt to mediate a lasting peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been scuppered by the US and Israel's determination to prevent peace in the region and instead increase chaos and instability.

Washington has not achieved its hegemonic status through a preference for diplomacy and calm dialogue, and Trump has no intention of departing from this approach.

Washington's friends and enemies alike must acknowledge this reality and implement the countermeasures necessary to contain the madness.

Boundless Energy , 1 minute ago link

Very good article, straight to the point. In fact its much worse. I know is hard to swallow for my US american brother and sisters.

But as sooner you wake up and see the reality as it is, as better chances the US has to survive with honor. Stop the wars around the globe and do not look for excuses. Isnt it already obvious what is going on with the US war machine? How many more examples some people need to wake up?

Noob678 , 8 minutes ago link

For those who love to connect the dots:

Iran Situation from Someone Who Knows Something

Not all said in video above is accurate but the recent events in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Africa are all related to prevent China from overtaking the zionist hegemonic world and to recolonize China (at least the parasite is trying to hop to China as new host).

Trade war, Huawei, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet ..... the concerted efforts from all zionist controlled media (ZeroHedge included) to slander, smearing, fake news against China should tell you what the Zionists agenda are :)

............

Trump Threatens to Kill Iraqi PM if He Doesn't Cancel China Oil Deal - MoA

The American President's threatened the Iraqi Prime Minister to liquidate him directly with the Minister of Defense. The Marines are the third party that sniped the demonstrators and the security men:

Abdul Mahdi continued:

"After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I also refused, and he threatened me with massive demonstrations that would topple me. Indeed, the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event of non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, so that the third party (Marines snipers) would target the demonstrators and security forces and kill them from the highest structures and the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and cancel the China agreement, so I did not respond and submitted my resignation and the Americans still insist to this day on canceling the China agreement and when the defense minister said that who kills the demonstrators is a third party, Trump called me immediately and physically threatened me and defense minister in the event of talk about the third party."

.........


The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission found George W. Bush guilty of war crimes in absentia for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Bush, **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia.

... ... ..

Thom Paine , 9 minutes ago link

When Iran has nukes, what then Trump?

I think Israel's fear is loss of regional goals if Iran becomes untouchable

TupacShakur , 13 minutes ago link

Empire is lashing out of desperation because we've crossed peak Empire.

Things are going downhill and will get more volatile as we go.

Buckle up folks because the final act will be very nasty.

Stalking Wolf , 12 minutes ago link

Unfortunately, this article makes a lot of sense. The US is losing influence and lashing out carelessly. I hope the rest of the world realizes how detached majority of the citizens within the states are from the federal government. The Federal government brings no good to our nation. None. From the mis management of our once tax revenues to the corrupt Congress who accepts bribes from the highest bidder, it's a rats best that is not only harmful to its own people, but the world at large. USD won't go down without a fight it seems... All empires end with a bang. Be ready

[Feb 07, 2020] The Facts About Iran and Terrorism by Larry C Johnson

Jan 10, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The Facts About Iran and Terrorism

When emotion rules the day facts do not matter. Sadly, that is the reality we confront when it comes to talking about Iran and terrorism. The U.S. Government and almost all of the media continue to declare that Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism. That is not true. That is a lie. I realize that calling this assertion a lie opens me to accusations of being an apologist for Iran. But simply look at the facts.

Here is the most recent U.S. State Department claim about Iran and terrorism :

Iran remains the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism. The regime has spent nearly one billion dollars per year to support terrorist groups that serve as its proxies and expand its malign influence across the globe. Tehran has funded international terrorist groups such as Hizballah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It also has engaged in its own terrorist plotting around the world, particularly in Europe. In January, German authorities investigated 10 suspected Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force operatives. In the summer, authorities in Belgium, France, and Germany thwarted an Iranian plot to bomb a political rally near Paris, France. In October, an Iranian operative was arrested for planning an assassination in Denmark, and in December, Albania expelled two Iranian officials for plotting terrorist attacks. Furthermore, Tehran continued to allow an AQ facilitation network to operate in Iran, which sends fighters and money to conflict zones in Afghanistan and Syria, and it has extended sanctuary to AQ members residing in the country.

You notice what is absent? A list of specific attacks that caused actual casualties. Plans and plots are not the same as actions. If Iran's malevolent influence was so powerful, we should be able to point to specific attacks and specific casualties. But you will not find those facts in the U.S. State Department report because they do not exist. The statistical annex that details the attacks and the groups responsible reports the following:

The Taliban was responsible for 8,509 deaths and 4,943 injuries, about 25 percent of the total casualties attributed to terrorism globally in 2018. With 647 terrorist attacks, ISIS was the next-most-active terrorist organization, responsible for 3,585 fatalities and 1,761 injuries. Having conducted 535 attacks, al-Shabaab was responsible for 2,062 deaths and 1,278 injuries. Boko Haram was among the top-five terrorist perpetrators, with 220 incidents, 1,311 deaths, and 927 injuries. It should be noted that local sources do not always differentiate between Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa.

Not a single group linked to Iran or supported by Iran is identified. Look at the this table from the statistical annex:

Table-3.1.-Top-10-Known-Perpetrator-Groups-With-the-Most-Incidents-2018

No Hezbollah and no Hamas. If a country is going to "sponsor" terrorism then we should expect to see terrorist attacks. The attacks that are taking place are predominantly from Sunni affiliated groups that have ties to Saudi Arabia, not Iran.

The State Department's explanation about Iranian support for terrorism exposes what the real issue is (I am quoting the 2016 report but, if you read the 2017 or 2018 versions there is no significant difference):

Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity in 2016, including support for Hizballah, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various groups in Syria, Iraq, and throughout the Middle East. Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps‑Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East. Iran has acknowledged the involvement of the IRGC-QF in the conflicts in Iraq and Syria and the IRGC-QF is Iran's primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.

In 2016, Iran supported various Iraqi Shia terrorist groups, including Kata'ib Hizballah, as part of an effort to fight ISIS in Iraq and bolster the Assad regime in Syria. Iran views the Assad regime in Syria as a crucial ally and Syria and Iraq as crucial routes to supply weapons to Hizballah, Iran's primary terrorist partner. Iran has facilitated and coerced, through financial or residency enticements, primarily Shia fighters from Afghanistan and Pakistan to participate in the Assad regime's brutal crackdown in Syria. Iranian-supported Shia militias in Iraq have committed serious human rights abuses against primarily Sunni civilians and Iranian forces have directly backed militia operations in Syria with armored vehicles, artillery, and drones.

The United States is upset with Iran because it has thwarted the U.S. covert action in Syria. It was the United States, along with the U.K., Saudi Arabia and Turkey, that helped ignite and escalate the civil war in Syria. Why? The Saudis and the Israelis were growing increasingly concerned in 2011 about Iran's spreading influence in the region. And what enabled Iran to do that? We did. When the United States removed Saddam Hussein and destroyed the Baathist movement in Iraq, the Bush Administration thought it was a dandy idea to install Iraqi Shia in positions of leadership. Not one of the key policymakers on the U.S. side of the equation expressed any qualms about the fact that these Iraqi politicians and military personnel had longstanding relationships with Iran, which included financial support.

Iran also had a longstanding relationship with Syria. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton decided that if we could eliminate Bashir Assad, the Syrian leader, then we would weaken Iran. This was a policy that many Republicans, most notably John McCain and Lindsey Graham, supported. But the scheme to weaken Iran backfired. Iran, along with Russia, came to the aid of the Government of Syria in full blown counter-insurgency campaign. Iran, the Russians and the Syrian Government were fighting radical Sunni islamists, many of whom were funded by the Western alliance.

Iran's military support for the Government of Syria clearly rankles U.S. policymakers, but it is not "terrorism." It is pure counter insurgency.

Wikipedia offers additional evidence about the true nature of international terrorism. I have reviewed the lists of incidents, which includes the description of the attacks, the perpetrators and the number of casualties for 2016-2018. I have only been able to put the 2016 incidents into a spreadsheet. Here are the actual facts.

In 2016 there were seven terrorist attacks that caused at least 100 casualties. All were attributed to ISIL aka the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Not one was linked to Iran or any group receiving financial support from Iran. There were a total of 1753 terrorist attacks and at least 15,993 deaths during 2016.

Here is the monthly breakdown for 2016:

  • January -- 105 terrorist attacks that caused the deaths of at least 1,351 people. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah. The seven attacks in Israel that left 7 dead were ascribed to a "Palestinian" lone-wolf.
  • February -- 72 attacks that left 1075 dead. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah. There were seven attacks and 3 dead attributed to "lone-wolf" Palestinians.
  • March -- 112 attacks leaving at least 778 dead. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah. There were 13 attacks in Israel identified as "lone-wolf" Palestinian. No significant Israeli casualties.
  • April -- 152 attacks that caused at least 1012 fatalities. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
  • May -- 202 attacks leaving at least 1600 dead. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
  • June -- 187 attacks and at least 1693 fatalities. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
  • July -- 187 attacks with at least 1684 deaths. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
  • August -- 139 terrorist attacks resulting in 1224 dead. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
  • September -- 128 terrorist attacks, which caused at least 849 fatalities. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
  • October -- 166 terrorist attacks and at least 2139 deaths. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
  • November -- 153 terrorist attacks that killed at least 1446. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
  • December -- 147 terrorist attacks, which resulted in at least 930 deaths. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.

The U.S. State Department continues to insist that Iran is providing indirect support to Al Qaeda. That is pure nonsense. Iran is fighting and killing Al Qaeda forces inside Syria. They have no ideological affinity with Al Qaeda.

I wish the American people would take the time to be educated about the actual nature and extent of "international terrorism." There was a time in the 1980s when Iran was very active in using terrorism as weapon to attack U.S. military and diplomatic targets. But even those attacks were focused in areas where Iran's perceived national interests were at stake. I am not excusing nor endorsing their actions. But I do think we need to understand that terrorism usually has a context. It is not the actions of a mentally ill person who is angry and lashing out at the nearest available target. Those attacks were planned and very calculated.

The real issue that we should be focused on is whether or not we can halt the expansion of Iran's influence in the Middle East. This remains a major concern for Israel and Saudi Arabia. U.S. policymakers are betting that isolating Iran diplomatically, ratcheting up economic pressure and using some military power will somehow energize the regime opposition and lead to the overthrow of the Mullahs. We tried that same policy with Cuba. It did not work there and will not likely work now in Iran.

Iran has options and is pursuing them aggressively. China and Russia, who are facing their own bullying from the United States, already are helping Iran tweak the the nose of the Trump Administration. In late December 2019, Iran, Russia and China carried out a joint military exercise . The Iranians were very clear about their view of this cooperation:

"The most important achievement of these drills . . . is this message that the Islamic republic of Iran cannot be isolated," vice-admiral Gholamreza Tahani, a deputy naval commander, said. "These exercises show that relations between Iran, Russia and China have reached a new high level while this trend will continue in the coming years."

The Trump Administration needs to stop with its infantile ranting and railing about Iran and terrorism. The actual issues surrounding Iran's growing influence in the region have little to do with terrorism. Our policies and actions towards Iran are accelerating their cooperation with China and Russia, not diminishing it. I do not think that serves the longterm interests of the United States or our allies in the Middle East.

[Feb 05, 2020] Stumbling Into Catastrophe by Daniel McAdams

Feb 04, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Daniel McAdams via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

There is a real danger for foreign policy advisors and analysts – and especially those they serve – when they are in a bubble, an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are based on faulty inputs. Needless to say it's even worse when they believe they can create their own reality and invent outcomes out of whole cloth.

Things seldom go as planned in these circumstances.

President Trump was sold a bill of goods on the assassination of Iran's revered military leader, Qassim Soleimani, likely by a cabal around Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the long-discredited neocon David Wurmser. A former Netanyahu advisor and Iraq war propagandist, Wurmser reportedly sent memos to his mentor, John Bolton, while Bolton was Trump's National Security Advisor (now, of course, he's the hero of the #resistance for having turned on his former boss) promising that killing Soleimani would be a cost-free operation that would catalyze the Iranian people against their government and bring about the long-awaited regime change in that country. The murder of Soleimani – the architect of the defeat of ISIS – would "rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them upon which the [Iranian] regime depends for stability and survival," wrote Wurmser.

As is most often the case with neocons, he was dead wrong.

The operation was not cost-free. On the contrary. Assassinating Soleimani on Iraqi soil resulted in the Iraqi parliament – itself the product of our "bringing democracy" to the country – voting to expel US forces even as the vote by the people's representatives was roundly rejected by the people who brought the people the people's representatives. In a manner of speaking.

Trump's move had an effect opposite to the one promised by neocons. It did not bring Iranians out to the street to overthrow their government – it catalyzed opposition across Iraq's various political and religious factions to the continued US military presence and further tightened Iraq's relationship with Iran. And short of what would be a catastrophic war initiated by the US (with little or no support from allies), there is not a thing Trump can do about it.

Iran's retaliatory attack on two US bases in Iraq was initially sold by President Trump as merely a pin-prick. No harm, no foul, no injuries. This despite the fact that he must have known about US personnel injured in the attack. The reason for the lie was that Trump likely understands how devastating it would be to his presidency to escalate with Iran. So the truth began to trickle out slowly – 11 US military members were injured, but it was just "like a headache." Now we know that 50 US troops were treated for traumatic brain injury after the attack. This may not be the last of it – but don't count on the mainstream media to do any reporting.

The Iranian FARS news agency reported at the time of the attack that US personnel had been injured and the response by the US government was to completely take that media outlet off the Internet by order of the US Treasury !

Last week the US House voted to cancel the 2002 authorization for war on Iraq and to prohibit the use of funds for war on Iran without Congressional authorization. It is a significant, if largely symbolic, move to rein in the oft-used excuse of the Iraq war authorization for blatantly unrelated actions like the assassination of Soleimani and Obama's thousands of airstrikes on Syria and Iraq .

President Trump has argued that prohibiting funds for military action against Iran actually makes war more likely, as he would be restricted from the kinds of military-strikes-short-of-war like his attack on Syria after the alleged chemical attack in Douma in 2018 (claims which have recently fallen apart ). The logic is faulty and reflects again the danger of believing one's own propaganda. As we have seen from the Iranian military response to the Soleimani assassination, Trump's military-strikes-short-of-war are having a ratchet-like effect rather than a pressure-release or deterrent effect.

As the financial and current events analysis site ZeroHedge put it recently:

[S]ince last summer's "tanker wars", Trump has painted himself into a corner on Iran, jumping from escalation to escalation (to this latest "point of no return big one" in the form of the ordered Soleimani assassination) -- yet all the while hoping to avoid a major direct war. The situation reached a climax where there were "no outs" (Trump was left with two 'bad options' of either back down or go to war).

The Iranians have little to lose at this point and America's European allies are, even if impotent, fed up with the US obsession with Saudi Arabia and Israel as a basis for its Middle East policy.

So why open this essay with a photo of Trump celebrating his dead-on-arrival "Deal of The Century" for Israel and Palestine? Because this is once again a gullible and weak President Trump being led by the nose into the coming Middle East conflagration. Left without even a semblance of US sympathy for their plight, the Palestinians after the roll-out of this "peace" plan will again see that they have no friends outside Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. As Israel continues to flirt with the idea of simply annexing large parts of the West Bank, it is clear that the brakes are off of any Israeli reticence to push for maximum control over Palestinian territory. So what is there to lose?

Trump believes he's advancing peace in the Middle East, while the excellent Mondoweiss website rightly observes that a main architect of the "peace plan," Trump's own son-in-law Jared Kushner, "taunts Palestinians because he wants them to reject his 'peace plan.'" Rejection of the plan is a green light to a war of annihilation on the Palestinians.

It appears that the center may not hold, that the self-referential echo chamber that passes for Beltway "expert" analysis will again be caught off guard in the consequence-free profession that is neocon foreign policy analysis. "Gosh we didn't see that coming!" But the next day they are back on the teevee stations as great experts.

Clouds gathering...

Minamoto , 23 minutes ago link

It is hard to believe that Trump has any confidence in Jared Kushner. Yet, he does enough to go public with a one-sided plan developed without Palestinian input.

francis scott falseflag , 41 minutes ago link

a real danger for foreign policy advisors and analysts – and especially those they serve – when they are in a bubble, an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are based on faulty inputs.

The same is true of the economists and financial analysts who live in the bubble of the NSYE and the echo chamber of Manhattan. All of their conclusions are based on faulty inputs.

Ruler , 1 hour ago link

The problem all incompetent leaders have, is seeing how their opponents see them.

Bokkenrijder , 1 hour ago link

If Trump continues to be 'dumb' enough to consistently hire these people and consistently listen to them, and if his supporters continue to be dumb enough to consistently believe all the lies and excuses, then Trump and his supporters are 100% involved in the neoCON.

RafterManFMJ , 1 hour ago link

Dude, it's 666D chess!

The Real John Bolton

[Feb 02, 2020] This neocon snake Pompeo

Feb 02, 2020 | newrepublic.com

Then Trump ordered the drone strike on Soleimani, drastically escalating a simmering conflict between Iran and the United States. All of a sudden the roles were reversed, with Bolton praising the president and asserting that Soleimani's death was " the first step to regime change in Tehran ." A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's "decisive action." It was Carlson who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades," Carlson said . "They still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it."

[Feb 02, 2020] The most interesting issue is the role of NSC in this impeachment story

Highly recommended!
Edited for clarity
Notable quotes:
"... Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment. ..."
"... In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump slightly deviated. ..."
Feb 02, 2020 | angrybearblog.com

likbez , February 2, 2020 10:40 pm

Far more interesting issue is the role of NSC in this impeachment story.

Potential whistleblower (actually CIA informant) was from NSC as were Fiona Hill, Alex Vindman and a couple of other major Ukrainegate players.

In this NSC coup d'état against the President or what ? About earlier role of NSC see

https://off-guardian.org/2020/02/01/secret-wars-forgotten-betrayals-global-tyranny-who-is-really-in-charge-of-the-u-s-military/

As for "evil republican senators", they would be viewed as evil by electorate if and only only if actual crimes of Trump regime like Douma false flag, Suleimani assassination (actually here Trump was set up By Bolton and Pompeo) and other were discussed.

Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment.

Both sides are afraid to discuss real issues, real Trump regime crimes.

Schiff proved to be patently inept in this whole story even taking into account limitations put by Kabuki theater on him, and in case of Trump acquittal *which is "highly probable" borrowing May government terminology in Skripals case :-) to resign would be a honest thing for him to do.

Assuming that he has some honestly left. Which is highly doubtful with statements like:

"The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there so we don't have to fight Russia here."

And

"More than 15,000 Ukrainians have died fighting Russian forces and their proxies. 15,000."

Actually it was the USA interference in Ukraine (aka Nulandgate) that killed 15K Ukrainians, mainly Donbas residents and badly trained recruits of the Ukrainian army sent to fight them, as well as volunteers of paramilitary "death squads" like Asov battalion financed by oligarch Igor Kolomyskiy

In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump slightly deviated.

[Feb 01, 2020] The Real John Bolton - CounterPunch.org

Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post, ..."
"... Bolton targeted every arms control and disarmament agreement over the past several decades, and played a major role in abrogating two of the most significant ones. As an arms control official in the Bush administration, he lobbied successfully for the abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. As soon as he joined the Trump administration, he went after the Intermediate-Nuclear Forces Treaty, which was abrogated in 2018. He criticized the Nunn-Lugar agreement in the 1990s, which played a key role in the denuclearization of former Soviet republics, and maligned the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as well as the Iran nuclear accord. He helped to derail the Biological Weapons Conference in Geneva in 2001. ..."
Feb 01, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org

It isn't enough for the corporate media to praise John Bolton for his timely manuscript that confirms Donald Trump's explicit linkage between military aid to Ukraine and investigations into his political foe Joe Biden. As a result, the media have made John Bolton a "man of principle," according to the Washington Post, and a fearless infighter for the "sovereignty of the United States." Writing in the Post , Kathleen Parker notes that Bolton isn't motivated by the money he will earn from his book (in the neighborhood of $2 million), but that he is far more interested in "saving his legacy." Perhaps this is a good time to examine that legacy.

Bolton, who used student deferments and service in the Maryland National Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam, is a classic Chicken Hawk. He supported the Vietnam War and continues to support the war in Iraq. Bolton endorsed preemptive military strikes in North Korea and Iran in recent years, and lobbied for regime change in Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. When George W. Bush declared an "axis of evil" in 2002 consisting of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, Bolton added an equally bizarre axis of Cuba, Libya, and Syria.

When Bolton occupied official positions at the Department of State and the United Nations, he regularly ignored assessments of the intelligence community in order to make false arguments regarding weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Cuba and Syria in order to promote the use of force. When serving as President Bush's Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and Disarmament, Bolton ran his own intelligence program, issuing white papers on WMD that lacked support within the intelligence community. He used his own reports to testify to congressional committees in 2002 in effort to justify the use of military force against Iraq.

Bolton presented misinformation to the Congress on a Cuban biological weapons program. When the Central Intelligence Agency challenged the accuracy of Bolton's information in 2003, he was forced to cancel a similar briefing on Syria. In a briefing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2005, the former chief of intelligence at the Department of State, Carl Ford, referred to Bolton as a "serial abuser" in his efforts to pressure intelligence analysts. Ford testified that he had "never seen anybody quite like Secretary Bolton in terms of the way he abuses his power and authority with little people."

The hearings in 2005 included a statement from a whistleblower, a former contractor at the Agency for International Development, who accused Bolton of using inflammatory language and even throwing objects at her. The whistleblower told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff that Bolton made derogatory remarks about her sexual orientation and weight among other improprieties. The critical testimony against Bolton meant that the Republican-led Foreign Relations Committee couldn't confirm his appointment as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. President Bush made Bolton a recess appointment, which he later regretted.

The United Nations, after all, was an ironic assignment for Bolton, who has been a strong critic of the UN and most international organizations throughout his career because they infringed on the "sovereignty of the United States." In 1994, he stated there was no such thing as the United Nations, but there is an international community that "can be led by the only real power left in the world," the United States. Bolton stated that the "Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories," and that if it "lost ten stories, it wouldn't make any difference."

Bolton said the "happiest moment" in his political career was when the United States pulled out of the International Criminal Court. Years later, he told the Federalist Society that Bush's withdrawal from the UN's Rome Statute, which created the ICC, was "one of my proudest achievements."

Bolton targeted every arms control and disarmament agreement over the past several decades, and played a major role in abrogating two of the most significant ones. As an arms control official in the Bush administration, he lobbied successfully for the abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. As soon as he joined the Trump administration, he went after the Intermediate-Nuclear Forces Treaty, which was abrogated in 2018. He criticized the Nunn-Lugar agreement in the 1990s, which played a key role in the denuclearization of former Soviet republics, and maligned the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as well as the Iran nuclear accord. He helped to derail the Biological Weapons Conference in Geneva in 2001.

U.S. efforts at diplomatic reconciliation have drawn Bolton's ire. The two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian situation as well as Richard Nixon's one-China policy have been particular targets. He is also a frequent critic of the European Union, and a passionate supporter of Brexit. From 2013 to 2018, he was the chairman of the Gatestone Institute, a well-known anti-Muslim organization. He was the director of the Project for the New American Century, which led the campaign for the use of force against Iraq. The fact that he was a protege of former senator Jesse Helms should come as no surprise.

It is useful to have Bolton's testimony at the climactic moment in the current impeachment trial, but it should't blind us to his deceit and disinformation over his thirty years of opposition to U.S. international diplomacy. As an assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, he fought against reparations to Japanese-Americans who had been held in internment camps during World War II. Two secretaries of state, Colin Powell and Condi Rice, have accused Bolton with holding back important information on important international issues, and Bolton did his best to sabotage Powell's efforts to pursue negotiations with North Korea. Bolton had a hand in the disinformation campaign against Iraq in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of 2003. The legacy of John Bolton is well established; his manuscript will not alter this legacy. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Melvin Goodman Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University. A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism . and A Whistleblower at the CIA . His most recent book is "American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump" (Opus Publishing), and he is the author of the forthcoming "The Dangerous National Security State" (2020)." Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org .

[Feb 01, 2020] Bolton's mustache is trying to impeach his face: Trump tweets 'game over' after Bolton, Schiff videos resurface

Feb 01, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Matthew Rand , 22 hours ago

Bolton's mustache is trying to impeach his face.

G Blizzard , 1 day ago

Well, if his credibility is done, Michael Bolton can always go back to singing.


Curt Stolpe , 1 day ago

"We can't beat him so we have to impeach him" no truer words were ever spoken. Too bad they couldn't come up with a reason. I think November will be a Democrat Slaughter.

IJJ , 1 day ago

Bolton & Schiff - Bozo 1 and Bozo 2 😂


MoralHi , 1 day ago

That old man Bolton would sell his Gandma to sell his book !

[Jan 31, 2020] Tucker John Bolton has always been a snake

Bolton was appointed by Adelson.
Jan 27, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Bolton's tell-all book leaks during Senate trial. #FoxNews

Yamaha Venture , 3 days ago

Mitt Romney is a joke.

Michael Harvey , 2 days ago

John Bolton wants war everywhere to line his pockets with money.

Stephen C , 1 day ago

The "right" gets the left, but doesn't agree with them. The "left" doesn't understand the "right".

Citizen Se7en , 2 days ago

"Bolton's resignation was one of the highlights of the president's first term." Truer words have never been spoken.

Jack Albright , 2 days ago

This story is also called "the scorpion and the frog".

Ragnar Lothbrok , 3 days ago

John Bolton should be given a helmet and a gun and sent to the next war. Let's see how he likes it.

Stratchona , 1 day ago

Trump.." I don't know John Bolton,never met him,don't know what he does."

Jaret Glenn , 2 days ago

Time to investigate Romney's son working for the oil company in the Ukraine.

Regan Orr , 2 days ago

Romney's Holy Underwear is Cutting off the Blood Supply to his Deep St Brain!

Marjo , 2 days ago (edited)

I never liked Bolton. I sensed he was out for himself, at anyone's expense. War monger too. He had many people fooled.

Shara Kirkby , 3 days ago

Bolton wants war anywhere and forever!

David Dorrell , 1 day ago (edited)

Frickin' Globalist peckerwoods. John Bolton and his pal, Mitt Romney.

Olivier Bolton , 2 days ago

Bolton wanted war so he got the boot...the fact he brings out his book now just looks like vengean$$

Max Liftoff , 2 days ago

2:30 Because Bolton never served in the military he truly passionately loved war :)) LMAO Tucker nailed it.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ , 1 day ago

The left's championing of John Bolton is further proof that TDS has made their minds turn to sludge.

j abe , 3 days ago

Can someone expaine to me how mit romney is still geting votes from ppl

Mark Whitley , 2 days ago

Bolton is a war mongering narcissist that wanted his war, didn't get it, & is now acting like a spoilt child that didn't get his way & is laying on the floor kicking & screaming!

Tim Fronimos , 2 days ago

Regarding John Bolton's book, is this the first book that he's colored. just curious

newuserandhiscrew 22 , 2 days ago

Everyone: Bolton: "take me in oh tender woman, take me in for heaven's sake"

Brittany Ward , 1 day ago

I can't fathom that people actually believe everything the media says!

[Jan 31, 2020] Trump excoriates Bolton in tweets this morning

Highly recommended!
Trump is lying. Bolton was appointed by Adelson and Trump can't refuse Adelson protégé.
Jan 31, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Trump excoriates Bolton in tweets this morning:
"For a guy who couldn't get approved for the Ambassador to the U.N. years ago, couldn't get approved for anything since, 'begged' me for a non Senate approved job, which I gave him despite many saying 'Don't do it, sir,' takes the job, mistakenly says 'Libyan Model' on T.V., and ... many more mistakes of judgement [sic], gets fired because frankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty & untrue book. All Classified National Security. Who would do this?"

IMO, Trump is a fantastic POTUS for this day and age, but he wasn't on his A game when he brought Bolton onboard. He should have known better and, was, apparently, warned. Maybe Trump thought he could control him and use him as a threatening pit bull. Mistake. Bolton is greedy as well as vindictive.

Posted by: Eric Newhill | 29 January 2020 at 09:30 AM

[Jan 31, 2020] Two "nice" Americans

Jan 31, 2020 | off-guardian.org

Norn ,

"nice" Americans: .. Here is a sample of nice Americans who want to control our breath: Pompeo , Fri 24 Jan 2020: "You Think Americans Really Give A F**k About Ukraine?"

Michael Richard Pompeo (57 y.o.) is the United States secretary of state. He is a former United States Army officer and was Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from January 2017 until April 2018

Nuland , earlier than Feb 2014: "Fuck the EU."

Victoria Jane Nuland (59 y.o) is the former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State. She held the rank of Career Ambassador, the highest diplomatic rank in the United States Foreign Service. She is the former CEO of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and is also a Member of the Board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)

[Jan 30, 2020] The Neocons Strike Back by Jacob Heilbrunn

Notable quotes:
"... A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's "decisive action." It was Carlson who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades," Carlson said . "They still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it." ..."
"... Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani's killing -- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals in the region -- a central part of his 2020 reelection bid . ..."
"... The neocons are starting to realize that Trump's presidency, at least when it comes to foreign policy, is no less vulnerable to hijacking than those of previous Republican presidents, including the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The leading hawks inside and outside the administration shaping its approach to Iran include Robert O'Brien, Bolton's disciple and successor as national security adviser; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook; Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; David Wurmser, a former adviser to Bolton; and Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. Perhaps no one better exemplifies the neocon ethos better than Cotton, a Kristol protégé who soaked up the teachings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss while studying at Harvard. Others who have been baying for conflict with Iran include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now Trump's personal lawyer and partner in Ukrainian crime. In June 2018, Giuliani went to Paris to address the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose parent organization is the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK. Giuliani, who has been on the payroll of the MeK for years, demanded -- what else? -- regime change. ..."
"... The fresh charge into battle of what Sidney Blumenthal once aptly referred to as an ideological light brigade brings to mind Hobbes's observation in Leviathan : "All men that are ambitious of military command are inclined to continue the causes of war; and to stir up trouble and sedition; for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mend an ill game, as by causing a new shuffle." The neocons, it appears, have caused a new shuffle. ..."
"... the killing of Soleimani revealed that the neocon military-intellectual complex is very much still intact, with the ability to spring back to life from a state of suspended animation in an instant. Its hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and in the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the influence and reach of the anti-war right remains nascent; even if this contingent has popular support, it doesn't enjoy much backing in Washington beyond the mood swings of the mercurial occupant of the Oval Office. ..."
"... The neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outré. ..."
"... But it was the neoconservatives, not the paleocons, who amassed influence in the 1990s and took over the GOP's foreign policy wing. Veteran neocons like Michael Ledeen were joined by a younger generation of journalists and policymakers that included Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol (who founded The Weekly Standard in 1994), Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith. The neocons consistently pushed for a hard line against Iraq and Iran. In his 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed, for example, Ledeen, an expert on Italian fascism, declared that the right, rather than the left, should adhere to the revolutionary tradition of toppling dictatorships. In his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen stated , "Creative destruction is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day." ..."
"... Still, a number of neocons, including David Frum, Max Boot, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, and Kristol himself, have continued to condemn Trump vociferously for his thuggish instincts at home and abroad. They are not seeking high-profile government careers in the Trump administration and so have been able to reinvent themselves as domestic regime-change advocates, something they have done quite skillfully. In fact, their writings are more pungent now that they have been liberated from the costive confines of the movement. ..."
"... And so, urged on by Mike Pompeo, a staunch evangelical Christian, and Iraq War–era figures like David Wurmser , Trump is apparently prepared to target Iran for destruction. In a tweet, he dismissed his national security adviser, the Bolton protégé Robert O'Brien, for declaring that the strike against Soleimani would force Iran to negotiate: "Actually, I couldn't care less if they negotiate," he said . "Will be totally up to them but, no nuclear weapons and 'don't kill your protesters.'" Neocons have been quick to recognize the new, more belligerent Trump -- and the potential maneuvering room he's now created for their movement. Jonathan S. Tobin, a former editor at Commentary and a contributor to National Review , rejoiced in Haaretz that "the neo-isolationist wing of the GOP, for which Carlson is a spokesperson, is losing the struggle for control of Trump's foreign policy." Tobin, however, added an important caveat: "When it comes to Iran, Trump needs no prodding from the likes of Bolton to act like a neoconservative. Just as important, the entire notion of anyone -- be it Carlson, former White House senior advisor Steve Bannon, or any cabinet official like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- being able to control Trump is a myth." ..."
"... One reason is institutional. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hudson Institute, and AEI have all been sounding the tocsin about Iran for decades. Once upon a time, the neocons were outliers. Now they're the new establishment, exerting a kind of gravitational pull on debate, pulling politicians and a variety of news organizations into their orbit. The Hudson Institute, for example, recently held an event with former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who exhorted Iran's Revolutionary Guard to "peel away" from the mullahs and endorsed the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Wolfowitz, also writing in the Times , has popped up to warn Trump against trying to leave Syria: "To paraphrase Trotsky's aphorism about war, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle East is interested in you." With the "both-sides" ethos that prevails in the mainstream media, neocon ideas are just as good as any others for National Public Radio or The Washington Post, whose editorial page, incidentally, championed the Iraq War and has been imbued with a neocon, or at least liberal-hawk, tinge ever since Fred Hiatt took it over in 2000. ..."
"... Above all, Trump hired Michael Flynn as his first national security adviser. Flynn was the co-author with Ledeen of a creepy tract called Field of Fight, in which they demanded a crusade against the Muslim world ..."
"... At a minimum, the traditional Republican hard-line foreign policy approach has now fused with neoconservatism so that the two are virtually indistinguishable. At a maximum, neoconservatism shapes the dominant foreign policy worldview in Washington, which is why Democrats were falling over themselves to assure voters that Soleimani -- a "bad guy" -- had it coming. Any objections that his killing might boomerang back on the U.S. are met with cries from the right that Democrats are siding with the enemy. This truly is a policy of "maximum pressure" at home and abroad. ..."
Jan 23, 2020 | newrepublic.com

There was a time not so long ago, before President Donald Trump's surprise decision early this year to liquidate the Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani, when it appeared that America's neoconservatives were floundering. The president was itching to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan. He was staging exuberant photo-ops with a beaming Kim Jong Un. He was reportedly willing to hold talks with the president of Iran, while clearly preferring trade wars to hot ones.

Indeed, this past summer, Trump's anti-interventionist supporters in the conservative media were riding high. When he refrained from attacking Iran in June after it shot down an American drone, Fox News host Tucker Carlson declared , "Donald Trump was elected president precisely to keep us out of disaster like war with Iran." Carlson went on to condemn the hawks in Trump's Cabinet and their allies, who he claimed were egging the president on -- familiar names to anyone who has followed the decades-long neoconservative project of aggressively using military force to topple unfriendly regimes and project American power over the globe. "So how did we get so close to starting [a war]?" he asked. "One of [the hawks'] key allies is the national security adviser of the United States. John Bolton is an old friend of Bill Kristol's. Together they helped plan the Iraq War."

By the time Trump met with Kim in late June, becoming the first sitting president to set foot on North Korean soil, Bolton was on the outs. Carlson was on the president's North Korean junket, while Trump's national security adviser was in Mongolia. "John Bolton is absolutely a hawk," Trump told NBC in June. "If it was up to him, he'd take on the whole world at one time, OK?" In September, Bolton was fired.

The standard-bearer of the Republican Party had made clear his distaste for the neocons' belligerent approach to global affairs, much to the neocons' own entitled chagrin. As recently as December, Bolton, now outside the tent pissing in, was hammering Trump for "bluffing" through an announcement that the administration wanted North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. "The idea that we are somehow exerting maximum pressure on North Korea is just unfortunately not true," Bolton told Axios . Then Trump ordered the drone strike on Soleimani, drastically escalating a simmering conflict between Iran and the United States. All of a sudden the roles were reversed, with Bolton praising the president and asserting that Soleimani's death was " the first step to regime change in Tehran ." A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's "decisive action." It was Carlson who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades," Carlson said . "They still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it."

Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani's killing -- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals in the region -- a central part of his 2020 reelection bid .

The anti-interventionist right is freaking out. Writing in American Greatness, Matthew Boose declared , "[T]he Trump movement, which was generated out of opposition to the foreign policy blob and its endless wars, was revealed this week to have been co-opted to a great extent by neoconservatives seeking regime change." James Antle, the editor of The American Conservative, a publication founded in 2002 to oppose the Iraq War, asked , "Did Trump betray the anti-war right?"

In the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation.

Their concerns are not unmerited. The neocons are starting to realize that Trump's presidency, at least when it comes to foreign policy, is no less vulnerable to hijacking than those of previous Republican presidents, including the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The leading hawks inside and outside the administration shaping its approach to Iran include Robert O'Brien, Bolton's disciple and successor as national security adviser; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook; Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; David Wurmser, a former adviser to Bolton; and Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. Perhaps no one better exemplifies the neocon ethos better than Cotton, a Kristol protégé who soaked up the teachings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss while studying at Harvard. Others who have been baying for conflict with Iran include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now Trump's personal lawyer and partner in Ukrainian crime. In June 2018, Giuliani went to Paris to address the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose parent organization is the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK. Giuliani, who has been on the payroll of the MeK for years, demanded -- what else? -- regime change.

The fresh charge into battle of what Sidney Blumenthal once aptly referred to as an ideological light brigade brings to mind Hobbes's observation in Leviathan : "All men that are ambitious of military command are inclined to continue the causes of war; and to stir up trouble and sedition; for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mend an ill game, as by causing a new shuffle." The neocons, it appears, have caused a new shuffle.

Donald Trump has not dragged us into war with Iran (yet). But the killing of Soleimani revealed that the neocon military-intellectual complex is very much still intact, with the ability to spring back to life from a state of suspended animation in an instant. Its hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and in the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the influence and reach of the anti-war right remains nascent; even if this contingent has popular support, it doesn't enjoy much backing in Washington beyond the mood swings of the mercurial occupant of the Oval Office.

But there was a time when the neoconservative coalition was not so entrenched -- and what has turned out to be its provisional state of exile lends some critical insight into how it managed to hang around respectable policymaking circles in recent years, and how it may continue to shape American foreign policy for the foreseeable future. When the neoconservatives came on the scene in the late 1960s, the Republican old guard viewed them as interlopers. The neocons, former Trotskyists turned liberals who broke with the Democratic Party over its perceived weakness on the Cold War, stormed the citadel of Republican ideology by emphasizing the relationship between ideas and political reality. Irving Kristol, one of the original neoconservatives, mused in 1985 that " what communists call the theoretical organs always end up through a filtering process influencing a lot of people who don't even know they're being influenced. In the end, ideas rule the world because even interests are defined by ideas."

At pivotal moments in modern American foreign policy, the neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outré. Jeane Kirkpatrick's seminal 1979 essay in Commentary, "Dictatorships and Double Standards," essentially set forth the lineaments of the Reagan doctrine. She assailed Jimmy Carter for attacking friendly authoritarian leaders such as the shah of Iran and Nicaragua's Anastasio Somoza. She contended that authoritarian regimes might molt into democracies, while totalitarian regimes would remain impregnable to outside influence, American or otherwise. Ronald Reagan read the essay and liked it. He named Kirkpatrick his ambassador to the United Nations, where she became the most influential neocon of the era for her denunciations of Arab regimes and defenses of Israel. Her tenure was also defined by the notion that it was perfectly acceptable for America to cozy up to noxious regimes, from apartheid South Africa to the shah's Iran, as part of the greater mission to oppose the red menace.

The neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outré.

There was always tension between Reagan's affinity for authoritarian regimes and his hard-line opposition to Communist ones. His sunny persona never quite gelled with Kirkpatrick's more gelid view that communism was an immutable force, and in 1982, in a major speech to the British Parliament at Westminster emphasizing the power of democracy and free speech, he declared his intent to end the Cold War on American terms. As Reagan's second term progressed and democracy and free speech actually took hold in the waning days of the Soviet Union, many hawks declared that it was all a sham. Indeed, not a few neocons were livid, claiming that Reagan was appeasing the Soviet Union. But after the USSR collapsed, they retroactively blessed him as the anti-Communist warrior par excellence and the model for the future. The right was now a font of happy talk about the dawn of a new age of liberty based on free-market economics and American firepower.

The fall of communism, in other words, set the stage for a new neoconservative paradigm. Francis Fukuyama's The End of History appeared a decade after Kirkpatrick's essay in Commentary and just before the Berlin Wall was breached on November 9, 1989. Here was a sharp break with the saturnine, realpolitik approach that Kirkpatrick had championed. Irving Kristol regarded it as hopelessly utopian -- "I don't believe a word of it," he wrote in a response to Fukuyama. But a younger generation of neocons, led by Irving's son, Bill Kristol, and Robert Kagan, embraced it. Fukuyama argued that Western, liberal democracy, far from being menaced, was now the destination point of the train of world history. With communism vanquished, the neocons, bearing the good word from Fukuyama, formulated a new goal: democracy promotion, by force if necessary, as a way to hasten history and secure the global order with the U.S. at its head. The first Gulf War in 1991, precipitated by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, tested the neocons' resolve and led to a break in the GOP -- one that would presage the rise of Donald Trump. For decades, Patrick Buchanan had been regularly inveighing against what he came to call the neocon " amen corner" in and around the Washington centers of power, including A.M. Rosenthal and Charles Krauthammer, both of whom endorsed the '91 Gulf War. The neocons were frustrated by the measured approach taken by George H.W. Bush. He refused to crow about the fall of the Berlin Wall and kicked the Iraqis out of Kuwait but declined to invade Iraq and "finish the job," as his hawkish critics would later put it. Buchanan then ran for the presidency in 1992 on an America First platform, reviving a paleoconservative tradition that would partly inform Trump's dark horse run in 2016.

But it was the neoconservatives, not the paleocons, who amassed influence in the 1990s and took over the GOP's foreign policy wing. Veteran neocons like Michael Ledeen were joined by a younger generation of journalists and policymakers that included Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol (who founded The Weekly Standard in 1994), Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith. The neocons consistently pushed for a hard line against Iraq and Iran. In his 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed, for example, Ledeen, an expert on Italian fascism, declared that the right, rather than the left, should adhere to the revolutionary tradition of toppling dictatorships. In his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen stated , "Creative destruction is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day."

We all know the painful consequences of the neocons' obsession with creative destruction. In his second inaugural address, three and a half years after 9/11, George W. Bush cemented neoconservative ideology into presidential doctrine: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." The neocons' hubris had already turned into nemesis in Iraq, paving the way for an anti-war candidate in Barack Obama.

But it was Trump -- by virtue of running as a Republican -- who appeared to sound neoconservatism's death knell. He announced his Buchananesque policy of "America First" in a speech at Washington's Mayflower Hotel in 2016, signaling that he would not adhere to the long-standing Reaganite principles that had animated the party establishment.

The pooh-bahs of the GOP openly declared their disdain and revulsion for Trump, leading directly to the rise of the Never Trump movement, which was dominated by neocons. The Never Trumpers ended up functioning as an informal blacklist for Trump once he became president. Elliott Abrams, for example, who was being touted for deputy secretary of state in February 2017, was rejected when Steve Bannon alerted Trump to his earlier heresies (though he later reemerged, in January 2019, as Trump's special envoy to Venezuela, where he has pushed for regime change). Not a few other members of the Republican foreign policy establishment suffered similar fates.

Kristol's The Weekly Standard, which had held the neoconservative line through the Bush years and beyond , folded in 2018. Even the office building that used to house the American Enterprise Institute and the Standard, on the corner of 17th and M streets in Washington, has been torn down, leaving an empty, boarded-up site whose symbolism speaks for itself.

Still, a number of neocons, including David Frum, Max Boot, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, and Kristol himself, have continued to condemn Trump vociferously for his thuggish instincts at home and abroad. They are not seeking high-profile government careers in the Trump administration and so have been able to reinvent themselves as domestic regime-change advocates, something they have done quite skillfully. In fact, their writings are more pungent now that they have been liberated from the costive confines of the movement.

It was Trump -- by virtue of running as a Republican -- who appeared to sound neoconservatism's death knell.

But other neocons -- the ones who want to wield positions of influence and might -- have, more often than not, been able to hold their noses. Stephen Wertheim, writing in The New York Review of Books, has perceptively dubbed this faction the anti-globalist neocons. Led by John Bolton, they believe Trump performed a godsend by elevating the term globalism "from a marginal slur to the central foil of American foreign policy and Republican politics," Wertheim argued . The U.S. need not bother with pesky multilateral institutions or international agreements or the entire postwar order, for that matter -- it's now America's way or the highway.

And so, urged on by Mike Pompeo, a staunch evangelical Christian, and Iraq War–era figures like David Wurmser , Trump is apparently prepared to target Iran for destruction. In a tweet, he dismissed his national security adviser, the Bolton protégé Robert O'Brien, for declaring that the strike against Soleimani would force Iran to negotiate: "Actually, I couldn't care less if they negotiate," he said . "Will be totally up to them but, no nuclear weapons and 'don't kill your protesters.'" Neocons have been quick to recognize the new, more belligerent Trump -- and the potential maneuvering room he's now created for their movement. Jonathan S. Tobin, a former editor at Commentary and a contributor to National Review , rejoiced in Haaretz that "the neo-isolationist wing of the GOP, for which Carlson is a spokesperson, is losing the struggle for control of Trump's foreign policy." Tobin, however, added an important caveat: "When it comes to Iran, Trump needs no prodding from the likes of Bolton to act like a neoconservative. Just as important, the entire notion of anyone -- be it Carlson, former White House senior advisor Steve Bannon, or any cabinet official like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- being able to control Trump is a myth."

In other words, whether the neocons themselves are occupying top positions in the Trump administration is almost irrelevant. The ideology itself has reemerged to a degree that even Trump himself seems hard pressed to resist it -- if he even wants to.

How were the neocons able to influence another Republican presidency, one that was ostensibly dedicated to curbing their sway?

One reason is institutional. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hudson Institute, and AEI have all been sounding the tocsin about Iran for decades. Once upon a time, the neocons were outliers. Now they're the new establishment, exerting a kind of gravitational pull on debate, pulling politicians and a variety of news organizations into their orbit. The Hudson Institute, for example, recently held an event with former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who exhorted Iran's Revolutionary Guard to "peel away" from the mullahs and endorsed the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign. The event was hosted by Michael Doran, a former senior director on George W. Bush's National Security Council and a senior fellow at the institute, who wrote in The New York Times on January 3, "The United States has no choice, if it seeks to stay in the Middle East, but to check Iran's military power on the ground." Then there's Jamie M. Fly, a former staffer to Senator Marco Rubio who was appointed this past August to head Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; he previously co-authored an essay in Foreign Affairs contending that it isn't enough to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities: "If the United States seriously considers military action, it would be better to plan an operation that not only strikes the nuclear program but aims to destabilize the regime, potentially resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis once and for all."

Meanwhile, Wolfowitz, also writing in the Times , has popped up to warn Trump against trying to leave Syria: "To paraphrase Trotsky's aphorism about war, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle East is interested in you." With the "both-sides" ethos that prevails in the mainstream media, neocon ideas are just as good as any others for National Public Radio or The Washington Post, whose editorial page, incidentally, championed the Iraq War and has been imbued with a neocon, or at least liberal-hawk, tinge ever since Fred Hiatt took it over in 2000.

But there are plenty of institutions in Washington, and neoconservatism's seemingly inescapable influence cannot be chalked up to the swamp alone. Some etiolated form of what might be called Ledeenism lingered on before taking on new life at the outset of the Trump administration. Trump's overt animus toward Muslims, for example, meant that figures such as Frank Gaffney, who opposed arms-control treaties with Moscow as a member of the Reagan administration and resigned in protest of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, achieved a new prominence. During the Obama administration, Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy, claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated the White House and National Security Agency.

Above all, Trump hired Michael Flynn as his first national security adviser. Flynn was the co-author with Ledeen of a creepy tract called Field of Fight, in which they demanded a crusade against the Muslim world: "We're in a world war against a messianic mass movement of evil people." It was one of many signs that Trump was susceptible to ideas of a civilizational battle against "Islamo-fascism," which Norman Podhoretz and other neocons argued, in the wake of 9/11, would lead to World War III. In their millenarian ardor and inflexible support for Israel, the neocons find themselves in a position precisely cognate to evangelical Christians -- both groups of true believers trying to enact their vision through an apostate. But perhaps the neoconservatives' greatest strength lies in the realm of ideas that Irving Kristol identified more than three decades ago. The neocons remain the winners of that battle, not because their policies have made the world or the U.S. more secure, but by default -- because there are so few genuinely alternative ideas that are championed with equal zeal. The foreign policy discussion surrounding Soleimani's killing -- which accelerated Iran's nuclear weapons program, diminished America's influence in the Middle East, and entrenched Iran's theocratic regime -- has largely occurred on a spectrum of the neocons' making. It is a discussion that accepts premises of the beneficence of American military might and hegemony -- Hobbes's "ill game" -- and naturally bends the universe toward more war.

At a minimum, the traditional Republican hard-line foreign policy approach has now fused with neoconservatism so that the two are virtually indistinguishable. At a maximum, neoconservatism shapes the dominant foreign policy worldview in Washington, which is why Democrats were falling over themselves to assure voters that Soleimani -- a "bad guy" -- had it coming. Any objections that his killing might boomerang back on the U.S. are met with cries from the right that Democrats are siding with the enemy. This truly is a policy of "maximum pressure" at home and abroad.

As Trump takes an extreme hard line against Iran, the neoconservatives may ultimately get their long-held wish of a war with the ayatollahs. When it ends in a fresh disaster, they can always argue that it only failed because it wasn't prosecuted vigorously enough -- and the shuffle will begin again.

Jacob Heilbrunn is the editor of The National Interest and the author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons. @ JacobHeilbrunn

Read More Politics , The Soapbox , Donald Trump , Islamic Republic of Iran , Qassem Soleimani , Bill Kristol , Irving Kristol , David Frum , John Bolton , Norman Podhoretz , Doug Feith , Paul Wolfowitz , George W. Bush , George H.W. Bush , Ronald Reagan , Pat Buchanan , Mike Pompeo , Tom Cotton , Lindsey Graham , Rudy Giuliani , Gulf War , Iraq War , Cold War , Francis Fukuyama , Jeane Kirkpatrick

[Jan 30, 2020] There is no shortage of great intellects in the Middle East to follow in his extraordinary footsteps

Notable quotes:
"... I think they were trying to start a war when they killed Soleimani, and the Iranians decided to use it against them instead. Which is smart. Neocons talk a lot but they are not smart. They are bullies and cowards. ..."
Jan 30, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

uncle tungsten , Jan 30 2020 22:27 utc | 117

Thanks b, that is a mighty good post:

This man had a mighty wish too

There is no shortage of great intellects in the Middle East to follow in his extraordinary footsteps.

Bemildred , Jan 30 2020 23:27 utc | 126

Posted by: Patroklos | Jan 30 2020 23:02 utc | 124

I think they were trying to start a war when they killed Soleimani, and the Iranians decided to use it against them instead. Which is smart. Neocons talk a lot but they are not smart. They are bullies and cowards.

At present what I notice is what you do, there is a lot going on, but you won't find it in the MSM. They are busy reducing their audience share with propaganda.

They kicked the jams out when they droned Soleiman. No more "deals".

But I expect Iran to do these things while this is going on:

1.) Annoy Trump and his minions and USG political class as much as possible, stay in their face.
2.) Watch, and help their "proxies" work on making life unbearable in the Middle East for us.

The Houthis seem to have just kicked the shit out of the Saudi coalition again. Quite a few damaged ships and down aircraft reports too, not just Afghanistan.


[Jan 30, 2020] Bush-era Iraq war authorization voted out by US House

Jan 30, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Likklemore , Jan 30 2020 21:45 utc | 108

Visions and intentions in reverse. For this news, with b's blessing, any thread is appropriate: Guess this goes with the impeaching-

Bush-era Iraq war authorization voted out by US House
The House of Representatives has voted along party lines to repeal a 2002 law authorizing the US to wage war on Iraq. The law was used by the Trump administration to justify the killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.

The House voted 236 to 166 to kill the 2002 Authorization for Military Force (AUMF) on Iraq. The law was drafted during the presidency of George W. Bush to authorize the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and has been used by subsequent administrations to continue military activity in the country – most recently to justify the US drone assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad earlier this month.[.]

The bill was one of two pieces of legislation passed by the House on Thursday aimed at curbing Trump's warmaking powers. Prior to its passage, a bill prohibiting Trump from using federal funds for "unauthorized military force against Iran" cleared the House floor, again along party lines, with a vote of 228-175.[.]

[Jan 29, 2020] Pompeo Iranian Proxy Mobilizing in America's Backyard

Notable quotes:
"... Yet the U.S. has little real insight into what happens in hostile regimes like Maduro's, and "Pompeo is probably the least reliable person in the world when it comes to information about Iran or its proxies," said Abrahms. "He has a terrible track record; he is an ideologue. He is the opposite of an impartial empiricist. I would never accept anything he says without corroborating sources." ..."
"... According to what we know, a Hezbollah agent conducted years of surveillance on potential targets , and alleged sleeper agents within U.S. cities have so far not been activated, even in the wake of Iranian Quds force General Soleimani's death and the series of crippling sanctions the Trump administration has put on Iran. ..."
Jan 28, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Why is Pompeo suddenly directing increasingly heated rhetoric towards Iran and its proxies in South America?

"Anti-Iran hawks like Pompeo like to emphasize that Iran is not a defensively-minded international actor, but rather that it is offensively-minded and poses a direct threat to the United States," said Max Abrahms, associate professor of political science at Northeastern and fellow of the Quincy Institute said in an interview with The American Conservative. "And so for obvious reasons, underscoring Hezbollah's international tentacles helps to sell their argument that Iran needs to be dealt with in a military way, and that the key to dealing with Iran is through confrontation and pressure."

Stories highlighting the role of Hezbollah in America's backyard "are almost always peddled by anti-Iran hawks," he said.

Like Clare Lopez, vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy, who aligns with the argument that Hezbollah has been populating South America since the days of the Islamic revolution.

"From at least the 1980s, many Lebanese fled to South America, and among that flow Hezbollah embedded themselves," she told The American Conservative in a recent interview. Their activity "really expanded throughout the continent" during the presidencies of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

During that time, Lopez added, "there was a really strong relationship that developed Iranians established diplomatic facilities, enormous embassies and consulates, embedded IRGC cover positions and MOIS (intelligence services) within commercial companies and mosques and Islamic centers. This took place in Brazil in particular but Venezuela also."

Iran and Hezbollah intensified their involvement throughout the region in technical services like tunneling, money laundering, and drug trafficking. Venezuela offered Iran an international banking work-around during the period of sanctions, said Lopez.

Obviously security analysts like Lopez and even Pompeo, have been following this for years. But the timing here, as the Senate impeachment inquiry heats up, looks suspicious.

Last week, just as it looks increasingly likely that former national security advisor John Bolton and Pompeo himself will be hauled before the Senate as witnesses about the foreign aid hold-up to Ukraine, Pompeo praised Colombia, Honduras, and Guatemala for designating "Iran-backed Hezbollah a terrorist organization," and slammed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro for embracing the terrorist group.

Hezbollah "has found a home in Venezuela under Maduro. This is unacceptable," Pompeo said when he met with Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido last week.

Asked by Bloomberg News how significant a role Hezbollah plays in the region, Pompeo responded, "too much."

From the interview:

Pompeo : " I mentioned it in Venezuela, but in the Tri-Border Area as well. This is again an area where Iranian influence – we talk about them as the world's largest state sponsor of terror. We do that intentionally. It's the world's largest; it's not just a Middle East phenomenon. So while – when folks think of Hezbollah, they typically think of Syria and Lebanon, but Hezbollah has now put down roots throughout the globe and in South America, and it's great to see now multiple countries now having designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. It means we can work together to stamp out the security threat in the region."

Question: "I'm struck by this, because even hearing you – what you're saying, right, now – I mean, to take a step back, an Iranian-backed terrorist organization has found a home in America's backyard."

Pompeo: "It's – it's something that we've been talking about for some time. When you see the scope and reach of what the Islamic Republic of Iran's regime has done, you can't forget they tried to kill someone in the United States of America. They've conducted assassination campaigns in Europe. This is a global phenomenon. When we say that Iran is the leading destabilizing force in the Middle East and throughout the world, it's because of this terror activity that they have now spread as a cancer all across the globe. "

Pompeo has also been publicly floating increasing sanctions on Venezuela. He called the behavior of Maduro's government "cartel-like" and "terror-like," intensifying the sense that there is a real security "threat" in our hemisphere.

Yet the U.S. has little real insight into what happens in hostile regimes like Maduro's, and "Pompeo is probably the least reliable person in the world when it comes to information about Iran or its proxies," said Abrahms. "He has a terrible track record; he is an ideologue. He is the opposite of an impartial empiricist. I would never accept anything he says without corroborating sources."

There's no question that Hezbollah has a presence in South America, said Abrahms, "but the nature of its presence has been politicized."

According to what we know, a Hezbollah agent conducted years of surveillance on potential targets , and alleged sleeper agents within U.S. cities have so far not been activated, even in the wake of Iranian Quds force General Soleimani's death and the series of crippling sanctions the Trump administration has put on Iran.

"What this underscores is that Iran could pull the trigger, it could bloody the U.S., including the U.S. homeland, but tends to avoid such violence. I think the question that needs to be asked isn't just, 'where in the world could Iran commit an attack?' but whether Iran is a rational actor that can be deterred," said Abrahms. "Interestingly, this administration as well as its hawkish supporters tend to emphasize their belief that Iran can in fact be deterred," since that is the logic behind "maximum pressure" against Iran, after all. "The main causal mechanism according to advocates of maximum pressure, is that it will force Iran as a rational actor to reconsider whether it wants to irritate the U.S By applying economic pressure through sanctions, [they hope to] succeed in coaxing Iran to restructure the nuclear deal and making additional concessions to the west and reigning in its activities in the Persian Gulf and the Levant. At least on a rhetorical level, the hawks say they believe Iran can be deterred," he said.

It would not be the first time that a president reacted to an intensifying impeachment inquiry by redirecting national focus to threats abroad. In December 1998, as the impeachment inquiry into then-President Bill Clinton heated up, Clinton launched airstrikes against Iraq. We should therefore apply some caution when we see decades-old threats amplified by administration officials.

Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington Examiner and for CNS News. She is the author of Patton Uncovered, a book about General George Patton in World War II, and her work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill, UK Spectator, and elsewhere. Boland is a graduate from Immaculata University in Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter

[Jan 29, 2020] Pompeo about Hezbollah threat

Jan 29, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

J Villain • 19 hours ago

It leaves me yearning for the integrity of the Nixon foreign policy team and they were a certified pack of sociopaths.

[Jan 29, 2020] One of the passengers killed on the the Ukrainian International Airlines Flight PS752 was a businesswoman who ran two companies involved in running illegal arms and parts for military drones to Libya.

Jan 29, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Jen January 25, 2020 at 8:36 pm

An unexpected bit of good news (if true) from the Ukrainian International Airlines Flight PS752 crash in Tehran: one of the passengers killed on the flight was a businesswoman who ran two companies involved in running illegal arms and parts for military drones to Libya.

"Ukrainian jet victim ran company suspected by UN of violating Libyan arms embargo"
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/24/europe/ukrainian-crash-victim-olena-malakhova-libya-iran-intl/index.html

Mark Chapman January 25, 2020 at 9:29 pm
Well, well; and the Ukrainian government backed her claims that there was no military cargo aboard the company plane that was blown up in Misrata. Makes you wonder how much jiggerypokery on the part of the Ukrainian government the USA is prepared to absorb, considering it was allegedly Solemani's plans to 'hurt Americans' that caused the USA to whack him. But here is a business associate of the Ukrainian government transferring military technology to tribal warlords in Libya.

Oh, I forgot – the USA needs to fight Russia in Ukraine so that it doesn't have to fight Russia in New York. So I guess that means they get a free pass.

Jen January 26, 2020 at 2:59 am
You have to wonder though, Malakhova was one of two Ukrainian passengers (I think) on a jet that was otherwise composed of diaspora Iranians. The plane was flying to Kiev and then presumably going straight to Toronto, to judge from the number of Iranian-background passengers with Canadian passports. What business did Malakhova have that she had been in Tehran to catch a UIA flight to go to Kiev? She must have had a reason to be there, if not to go sightseeing.
Jen January 26, 2020 at 3:21 am
Lo and behold! Able to answer my own query about the reason for Malakhova's presence in Tehran within a matter of minutes! She wasn't in Tehran just to admire the touristy sights.

It is now confirmed: Olena Malakhova, director of #SkyAviaTrans which played key role in illegal weapon smuggling from #Turkey to #Libya is among victims of Flight #PS752 shot-down! She was in #Iran to discuss about one of her businessjets in use as an Air Taxi in #Tehran . https://t.co/TYWk6DgwV7 pic.twitter.com/ztEu4ETwrT

-- Babak Taghvaee (@BabakTaghvaee) January 24, 2020

Air taxis would be very convenient for ferrying small quantities of goods on short trips within Iran or from Iran to somewhere else not far from the Iranian border – like Afghanistan on one side, Azerbaijan on another side or Kurdish-held northern Iraq and Turkey on yet another side.

Like Like

[Jan 28, 2020] Pompeo's Petty Despotism

Pompeo proved to be impulsive bully. Like Bolton, he is yet another "wise" Trump choice that disqualifies Trump for running in 2020 elections.
Jan 28, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Nomuka • 15 hours ago • edited
Well, it looks like I'll need to start contributing to NPR again. They are a little too woke for my tastes, but Pompeo is a liar, and frankly beyond the pale. A perfect representative of the current administration by the way. Kudos to NPR for standing up to him.
TomG • 10 hours ago
One correction--instead of "by acting as if he is a petty despot" it should read "evermore blatantly showing the world the petty despot he is."
bumbershoot • 10 hours ago
The Secretary of State has all of the vanity and arrogance of a diva, but none of the talent.

Hmm, that seems to remind me of someone else in this administration...

FL_Cottonmouth • 9 hours ago
Much like U.S. foreign policy, it seems that Mike Pompeo is going to ignore the facts and keep recklessly escalating the conflict. Surely he's aware that The Washington Post published the email correspondence between Ms. Kelley and press aide. This just makes him look like a coward.
ZizaNiam • 9 hours ago
From the Trump voter perspective, this journalist should feel lucky that she wasn't sent to Guantanamo Bay. All Trump voters think this way, there is no exception.
Taras77 • 6 hours ago
Absolutely no longer any surprises about this pathetic individual!

[Jan 28, 2020] the "American" interpreter's death that triggered the Soleimani assassination was a dual US/Iraqi citizen... doesn't the US often offer citizenship to useful locals in return for betraying their home country? Sometimes treason doesn't pay.

Jan 28, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

A P , Jan 27 2020 21:39 utc | 64

Unless the operatives on the US spy plane were carrying ID the Taliban can find, we'll never know who they really were. As if we could trust that either. (remember Colonel Flagg from MASH? New fake/cover ID every time he showed up) And funny how those "soldiers" with brain damage from the Iranian missile strikes have disappeared of the MSM news cycle... And the "American" interpreter's death that triggered the Soleimani assassination was a dual US/Iraqi citizen... doesn't the US often offer citizenship to useful locals in return for betraying their home country? Sometimes treason doesn't pay.

[Jan 28, 2020] US plane crashes in Ghazni, killing scores of officers

Jan 28, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

S , Jan 27 2020 16:43 utc | 7

One of the main Taliban Twitter accounts, @Zabehulah_M33 , has posted the following tweets (machine translated):
US invasion plane crashes in Ghazni, killing scores of officers

Following a raid today in Sadukhel district of Dehik district of Ghazni province, a US special aircraft carrier was flying over an intelligence mission in the area.

The aircraft was destroyed with all its crew and crew, including the major US intelligence officers (CIA).

It is noteworthy that recently, in the provinces of Helmand, Balkh and some other parts of the country, large numbers of enemy aircraft and helicopters have fallen and fallen.

( source )

# Important News:
A Ghazni helicopter crashed in the area near Sharana, the capital of Paktika province, this evening after the Ghazni incident.
The helicopter crew and the soldiers were all destroyed.

( source )

So Taliban has not taken responsibility for the E-11A crash (although many news outlets are reporting it, including Russian ones). Meanwhile, yet another helicopter crashed after the E-11A crash, so it's two crashes in one day.

c1ue , Jan 27 2020 16:17 utc | 4

If the $1.6 trillion cost of the US military being in Afghanistan is correct, then the loss of 4 helicopters and even the E11 won't significantly increase US overall spend there. $1.6 trillion over 18 years is a tad under $250 million per day
Piotr Berman , Jan 27 2020 17:15 utc | 13
When a colonial war goes wrong, one salient question was: who sold guns to the savages?

Among more recent examples, who explained technologically inept Iraqis how to make IEDs?

In the case of smaller weapons, the usual suspect is responsible. NYT By C. J. Chivers Aug. 24, 2016

... In all, Overton found, the Pentagon provided more than 1.45 million firearms to various security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, including more than 978,000 assault rifles, 266,000 pistols and almost 112,000 machine guns. These transfers formed a collage of firearms of mixed vintage and type: Kalashnikov assault rifles left over from the Cold War; recently manufactured NATO-standard M16s and M4s from American factories; machine guns of Russian and Western lineage; and sniper rifles, shotguns and pistols of varied provenance and caliber, including a large order of Glock semiautomatic pistols, a type of weapon also regularly offered for sale online in Iraq.

----

That said, one needs something more sophisticated against helicopters and planes. I suspect that even if Iran were inclined to provide them to Taliban, it would not give them their own products, and, for sure, they cannot purchase Western missiles on regular markets. However, as valiant freedom fighters in Syria are provided with such weapons while being woefully underpaid...

[Jan 27, 2020] Pompeo's Revealing Meltdown

Jan 26, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Daniel Larison We saw how Mike Pompeo made a fool of himself on Friday with his angry tirade against Mary Louise Kelly, a reporter for NPR. That outburst came after an interview that he cut short in which he was asked legitimate questions that he could not answer. His response to the report about this was to malign the reporter with bizarre lies in what could be the most unhinged statement ever sent out by an American Secretary of State:

Official response from Pompeo about his NPR interview. Haven't seen anything like this before with a State Department seal on it: pic.twitter.com/Hi1P18ZS0A

-- Robbie Gramer (@RobbieGramer) January 25, 2020

Pompeo's accusatory statement confirmed the substance of what Kelly had reported, and absolutely no one believes him when he says that she lied to him. All of the available evidence supports Kelly's account, and nothing supports Pompeo's:

On the program, Ms. Kelly said Katie Martin, an aide to Mr. Pompeo who has worked in press relations, never asked for that conversation to be kept off the record, nor would she have agreed to do that.

Mr. Pompeo's statement did not deny Ms. Kelly's account of obscenities and shouting. NPR said Saturday that Ms. Kelly "has always conducted herself with the utmost integrity, and we stand behind this report." On Sunday, The New York Times obtained emails between Ms. Kelly and Ms. Martin that showed Ms. Kelly explicitly said the day before the interview that she would start with Iran and then ask about Ukraine. "I never agree to take anything off the table," she wrote.

It is the new definition of chutzpah for Pompeo to accuse someone else of lying and lack of integrity, since he has been daily shredding his credibility by making things up about non-existent U.S. policy successes and telling easily refuted lies about North Korea , Iran , Yemen , and Saudi Arabia . We have good reason to believe that the recent claim that there was an "imminent attack" from Iran earlier this month was another one of those lies . For her part, Kelly has a reputation for solid and reliable reporting, and no one thinks that she would do the things he accuses her of doing. Pompeo's dig at the end is meant to imply that she misidentified Ukraine on the blank map that he had brought in to test her. No one believes that claim, either. This is another preposterous lie that tells us that his version of events can't be true. Pompeo has been waging a war on the truth for the last year and a half, and this is just the most recent assault. The Secretary's meltdown this weekend has been useful in making it impossible to ignore this any longer.

Literally nobody thinks Mike Pompeo is telling the truth about this, or anything. He works for Donald Trump, who also lies about everything, always. https://t.co/yTzZDZl5Gw

-- Marc Lynch (@abuaardvark) January 25, 2020

All of this is appalling, unprofessional behavior from any government official, and in a sane administration this conduct along with his other false and misleading statements would be grounds for resignation. When Pompeo publicly attacks a journalist for doing her job and impugns her integrity to cover up for the fact that he doesn't have any, he is attacking the press and undermining public accountability. He is also undermining the department's advocacy for freedom of the press when he tries to intimidate journalists with his obnoxious outbursts. Pompeo already alienated and disgusted people in his department with his failure to come to the defense of officials that were being publicly attacked and smeared, and this latest display has further embarrassed them. We need a Secretary of State who isn't a serial liar, and right now we don't have one.

Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter . email

[Jan 27, 2020] The end of Trump? Trump betrayed all major promises of his 2016 election campaign. Trump needs to go...

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years. ..."
"... besides much talk and showmastery, he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously change the course. ..."
"... So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his intentions. ..."
Jan 27, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

EveryoneIsBiased , 26 January 2020 at 04:40 PM

Thank you Colonel; I have been waiting for your take on this. And thank you for opening the comments again. If there is a problem with my post, please point them out to me.

And i agree. This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years.

Still, immigration is another important issue, but besides much talk and showmastery, he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously change the course.

So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his intentions.

And China? He may have changed some small to medium problems for the better, but nothing is changed in the overall trend of the US continuing to loose while China emerges as the next global superpower.

It may have been slowed for some years; It may even have been accelerated, now that China has been waken up to the extend of the threat posed by the US.

North Korea? They surely will never denuclearize. Even less after how Trump showed the world how he treats international law and even allies.

With Trump its all photo ops and showmanship. And while he senses what issues are important, it is worth a damn if he butchers the execution, or values photo ops more than substantial progress.

Not that i would see a democratic alternative. No. But at least now everyone who wants to know can see, that he is neither one.

4 years ago, democracy was corrupted, but at least there was someone who presented himself as an alternative to that rotten establishment.
Now, even that small ray of light is as dark as it gets.
And that is the saddest thing. What worth is democracy, when one does not even have a true alternative, besides Tulsi on endless wars, and Bernie for the socialist ;) ?

I just have watched again the Ken Burns documentary of the civil war. I know it is not perfect (Though i love Shelby Foote's parts), but the sense of the divided 2 Americas there, is still the same today. Today, America seems to break apart culturally, socially and economically on the fault lines that have sucked it into the civil war over 150 years ago.

And just like with seeing no real way out politically, i sadly can see no way to heal and unite this country, as it never was truly united after the civil war, if not ever before. As you Colonel said some weeks ago, the US were never a nation.

And looking at other countries, only a major national crisis may change this.
A most sad realization. But this hold true also for other western countries, including my own.

An even worse decade seems to be ahead.

[Jan 27, 2020] American Pravda Mossad Assassinations by Ron Unz

Jan 27, 2020 | www.unz.com

From the Peace of Westphalia to the Law of the Jungle

The January 2nd American assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani of Iran was an event of enormous moment.

Gen. Soleimani had been the highest-ranking military figure in his nation of 80 million, and with a storied career of 30 years, one of the most universally popular and highly regarded. Most analysts ranked him second in influence only to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's elderly Supreme Leader, and there were widespread reports that he was being urged to run for the presidency in the 2021 elections.

The circumstances of his peacetime death were also quite remarkable. His vehicle was incinerated by the missile of an American Reaper drone near Iraq's Baghdad international airport just after he had arrived there on a regular commercial flight for peace negotiations originally suggested by the American government.

Our major media hardly ignored the gravity of this sudden, unexpected killing of so high-ranking a political and military figure, and gave it enormous attention. A day or so later, the front page of my morning New York Times was almost entirely filled with coverage of the event and its implications, along with several inside pages devoted to the same topic. Later that same week, America's national newspaper of record allocated more than one-third of all the pages of its front section to the same shocking story.

But even such copious coverage by teams of veteran journalists failed to provide the incident with its proper context and implications. Last year, the Trump Administration had declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard "a terrorist organization," drawing widespread criticism and even ridicule from national security experts appalled at the notion of classifying a major branch of Iran's armed forces as "terrorists." Gen. Soleimani was a top commander in that body, and this apparently provided the legal figleaf for his assassination in broad daylight while on a diplomatic peace mission.

But consider that Congress has been considering legislation declaring Russia an official state sponsor of terrorism , and Stephen Cohen, the eminent Russia scholar, has argued that no foreign leader since the end of World War II has been so massively demonized by the American media as Russian President Vladimir Putin. For years, numerous agitated pundits have denounced Putin as "the new Hitler," and some prominent figures have even called for his overthrow or death. So we are now only a step or two removed from undertaking a public campaign to assassinate the leader of a country whose nuclear arsenal could quickly annihilate the bulk of the American population. Cohen has repeatedly warned that the current danger of global nuclear war may exceed that which we faced during the days of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and can we entirely dismiss such concerns?

Even if we focus solely upon Gen. Solemaini's killing and entirely disregard its dangerous implications, there seem few modern precedents for the official public assassination of a top-ranking political figure by the forces of another major country. In groping for past examples, the only ones that come to mind occurred almost three generations ago during World War II, when Czech agents assisted by the Allies assassinated Reinhard Heydrich in Prague in 1941 and the US military later shot down the plane of Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in 1943. But these events occurred in the heat of a brutal global war, and the Allied leadership hardly portrayed them as official government assassinations. Historian David Irving reveals that when one of Adolf Hitler's aides suggested that an attempt be made to assassinate Soviet leaders in that same conflict, the German Fuhrer immediately forbade such practices as obvious violations of the laws of war.

The 1914 terrorist assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, was certainly organized by fanatical elements of Serbian Intelligence, but the Serbian government fiercely denied its own complicity, and no major European power was ever directly implicated in the plot. The aftermath of the killing soon led to the outbreak of World War I, and although many millions died in the trenches over the next few years, it would have been completely unthinkable for one of the major belligerents to consider assassinating the leadership of another.

A century earlier, the Napoleonic Wars had raged across the entire continent of Europe for most of a generation, but I don't recall reading of any governmental assassination plots during that era, let alone in the quite gentlemanly wars of the preceding 18th century when Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa disputed ownership of the wealthy province of Silesia by military means. I am hardly a specialist in modern European history, but after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War and regularized the rules of warfare, no assassination as high-profile as that of Gen. Soleimani comes to mind.

The bloody Wars of Religion of previous centuries did see their share of assassination schemes. For example, I think that Philip II of Spain supposedly encouraged various plots to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I of England on grounds that she was a murderous heretic, and their repeated failure helped persuade him to launch the ill-fated Spanish Armada; but being a pious Catholic, he probably would have balked at using the ruse of peace-negotiations to lure Elizabeth to her doom. In any event, that was more than four centuries ago, so America has now placed itself in rather uncharted waters.

Different peoples possess different political traditions, and this may play a major role in influencing the behavior of the countries they establish. Bolivia and Paraguay were created in the early 18th century as shards from the decaying Spanish Empire, and according to Wikipedia they have experienced nearly three dozen successful coups in their history, the bulk of these prior to 1950, while Mexico has had a half-dozen. By contrast, the U.S. and Canada were founded as Anglo-Saxon settler colonies, and neither history records even a failed attempt.

During our Revolutionary War, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and our other Founding Fathers fully recognized that if their effort failed, they would all be hanged by the British as rebels. However, I have never heard that they feared falling to an assassin's blade, nor that King George III ever considered such an underhanded means of attack. During the first century and more of our nation's history, nearly all our presidents and other top political leaders traced their ancestry back to the British Isles, and political assassinations were exceptionally rare, with Abraham Lincoln's death being one of the very few that come to mind.

At the height of the Cold War, our CIA did involve itself in various secret assassination plots against Cuba's Communist dictator Fidel Castro and other foreign leaders considered hostile to US interests. But when these facts later came out in the 1970s, they evoked such enormous outrage from the public and the media, that three consecutive American presidents -- Gerald R. Ford , Jimmy Carter , and Ronald Reagan -- issued successive Executive Orders absolutely prohibiting assassinations by the CIA or any other agent of the US government.

Although some cynics might claim that these public declarations represented mere window-dressing, a March 2018 book review in the New York Times strongly suggests otherwise. Kenneth M. Pollack spent years as a CIA analyst and National Security Council staffer, then went on to publish a number of influential books on foreign policy and military strategy over the last two decades. He had originally joined the CIA in 1988, and opens his review by declaring:

One of the very first things I was taught when I joined the CIA was that we do not conduct assassinations. It was drilled into new recruits over and over again.

Yet Pollack notes with dismay that over the last quarter-century, these once solid prohibitions have been steadily eaten away, with the process rapidly accelerating after the 9/11 attacks of 2001. The laws on our books may not have changed, but

Today, it seems that all that is left of this policy is a euphemism.

We don't call them assassinations anymore. Now, they are "targeted killings," most often performed by drone strike, and they have become America's go-to weapon in the war on terror.

The Bush Administration had conducted 47 of these assassinations-by-another-name, while his successor Barack Obama, a constitutional scholar and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, had raised his own total to 542. Not without justification, Pollack wonders whether assassination has become "a very effective drug, but [one that] treats only the symptom and so offers no cure."

Thus over the last couple of decades American policy has followed a very disturbing trajectory in its use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy, first restricting its use to only the most extreme circumstances, next targeting small numbers of high-profile "terrorists" hiding in rough terrain, then escalating those same such killings to the many hundreds. And now under President Trump, the fateful step has been taken of America claiming the right to assassinate any world leader not to our liking whom we unilaterally declare worthy of death.

Pollack had made his career as a Clinton Democrat, and is best known for his 2002 book The Threatening Storm that strongly endorsed President Bush's proposed invasion of Iraq and was enormously influential in producing bipartisan support for that ill-fated policy. I have no doubt that he is a committed supporter of Israel, and he probably falls into a category that I would loosely describe as "Left Neocon."

But while reviewing a history of Israel's own long use of assassination as a mainstay of its national security policy, he seems deeply disturbed that America might be following along that same terrible path. Less than two years later, our sudden assassination of a top Iranian leader demonstrates that his fears may have been greatly understated.

"Rise and Kill First" ORDER IT NOW

The book being reviewed was Rise and Kill First by New York Times reporter Ronen Bergman, a weighty study of the Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence service, together with its sister agencies. The author devoted six years of research to the project, which was based upon a thousand personal interviews and access to some official documents previously unavailable. As suggested by the title, his primary focus was Israel's long history of assassinations, and across his 750 pages and thousand-odd source references he recounts the details of an enormous number of such incidents.

That sort of topic is obviously fraught with controversy, but Bergman's volume carries glowing cover-blurbs from Pulitzer Prize-winning authors on espionage matters, and the official cooperation he received is indicated by similar endorsements from both a former Mossad chief and Ehud Barak, a past Prime Minister of Israel who himself had once led assassination squads. Over the last couple of decades, former CIA officer Robert Baer has become one of our most prominent authors in this same field, and he praises the book as "hands down" the best he has ever read on intelligence, Israel, or the Middle East. The reviews across our elite media were equally laudatory.

Although I had seen some discussions of the book when it appeared, I only got around to reading it a few months ago. And while I was deeply impressed by the thorough and meticulous journalism, I found the pages rather grim and depressing reading, with their endless accounts of Israeli agents killing their real or perceived enemies, with the operations sometimes involving kidnappings and brutal torture, or resulting in considerable loss of life to innocent bystanders. Although the overwhelming majority of the attacks described took place in the various countries of the Middle East or the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza, others ranged across the world, including Europe. The narrative history began in the 1920s, decades before the actual creation of the Jewish Israel or its Mossad organization, and ranged up to the present day.

The sheer quantity of such foreign assassinations was really quite remarkable, with the knowledgeable reviewer in the New York Times suggesting that the Israeli total over the last half-century or so seemed far greater than that of any other country. I might even go farther: if we excluded domestic killings, I wouldn't be surprised if the body-count exceeded the combined total for that of all other major countries in the world. I think all the lurid revelations of lethal CIA or KGB Cold War assassination plots that I have seen discussed in newspaper stories might fit comfortably into just a chapter or two of Bergman's extremely long book.

[Jan 27, 2020] The ME may yet destroy Trump

Trump outlived his shelf life. Money quote: "This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years."
Notable quotes:
"... Some combination of the disasters that may emerge from these ME factors might well turn Trump's base against him and this result would be entirely of his own making ..."
"... This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years. ..."
"... besides much talk and showmastery, he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously change the course. ..."
"... So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his intentions. ..."
"... Trump stands no chance if things get hot with Iran. He didn't win by enough to sacrifice the antiwar vote. ..."
"... Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo have got themselves in a no-win situation. NATO cannot occupy both Syria and Iraq, illegally. There are way too few troops. The bases in these nations are sitting ducks for the next precision ballistic missile attack. Any buildup would be contested. Ground travel curtailed. A Peace Treaty and Withdrawal is the only safe way out. ..."
"... Donald Trump is blessed with his opponents. Democrats who restarted the Cold War with Russia in 2014 are now using it to justify his Impeachment. If leaders cannot see reality clearly, they will keep making incredibly stupid mistakes. If Joe Biden is his opponent, I can't vote for either. Both spread chaos. ..."
"... President Trump controls part of the White House -- definitely not the NSC ..."
"... His hold elsewhere in the DC bureaucracy may be 5 - 15%. When the President decided to pull US troops out of Syria, his NSC Director flew to Egypt and Turkey to countermand the order. Facing the opposition of a united DC SWAMP, the President caved, and thereby delayed his formal impeachment by a year. ..."
"... Going out on a limb, President Trump continues to play a very weak hand and may survive to fight another day. Fortunately for the US, his tax and regulatory policies, as well as his economic negotiations with China, Japan, Korea and Mexico seem to be on target and successful. ..."
Jan 26, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

President Trump will easily be acquitted in the senate trial. This may occur this week and there will probably be no witnesses called. That will be an additional victory for him and will add to the effect of his trade deal victories and the general state of the US economy. These factors should point to a solid victory in November for him and the GOP in Congress.

Ah! Not so fast the cognoscenti may cry out. Not so fast. The Middle East is a graveyard of dreams:

1. Iraq. Street demonstrations in Iraq against a US alliance are growing more intense. There may well have been a million people in Muqtada al-Sadr's extravaganza. Shia fury over the death of Soleimani is quite real. Trump's belief that in a contest of the will he will prevail over the Iraqi Shia is a delusion, a delusion born of his narcissistic personality and his unwillingness to listen to people who do not share his delusions. A hostile Iraqi government and street mobs would make life unbearable for US forces there.

2. Syria. The handful of American troops east and north of the Euphrates "guarding" Syrian oil from the Syrian government are in a precarious position with the Shia Iraqis at their backs across the border and a hostile array of SAA, Turks, jihadis and potentially Russians to their front and on their flanks.

3. Palestine. The "Deal of the Century" is approaching announcement. From what is known of its contours, the deal will kill any remaining prospects for Palestinian statehood and will relegate all Palestinians (both Israeli citizens and the merely occupied) to the status of helots forever . Look it up. In return the deal will offer the helotry substantial bribes in economic aid money. Trump evidently continues to believe that Palestinians are untermenschen . He believe they will sell their freedom. The Palestinian Authority has already rejected this deal. IMO their reaction to the imposition of this regime is likely to be another intifada.

Some combination of the disasters that may emerge from these ME factors might well turn Trump's base against him and this result would be entirely of his own making . pl

Elora Danan , 26 January 2020 at 11:24 AM

...and his unwillingness to listen to people who do not share his delusions...

That precisely is the problem, apart from explosive shouting Pompeo, it seems he has recruited this extravanza of woman as adviser into the WH...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w0kSkvusjI&feature=emb_title

Could it be true? If that is the case, it´s more scary than Elora thought when that of Soleimani happened....This starts to look as a frenopatic...isn´t it?

HK Leo Strauss , 26 January 2020 at 01:12 PM
With Iran and her allies holding the figurative Trump Card on escalation, will they ramp up the pressure to topple him? They could end up with a Dem who couldn't afford to "lose" Syria or Iraq.
JamesT , 26 January 2020 at 04:14 PM
I submit to you, Colonel, that the biggest threat to Trump is a Bernie/Tulsi ticket. Bernie is leading in the Iowa and NH polls, and the recent spat with Warren (in my opinion) leaves Bernie with no viable choice for VP other than Tulsi.
Barbara Ann said in reply to JamesT ... , 26 January 2020 at 05:32 PM
JamesT

Judging by what just happened at the embassy in Baghdad, the intentions of the Iraqi electorate would seem to be a more pressing concern.

EveryoneIsBiased , 26 January 2020 at 04:40 PM
Thank you Colonel; I have been waiting for your take on this. And thank you for opening the comments again. If there is a problem with my post, please point them out to me.

And i agree. This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years.

Still, immigration is another important issue, but besides much talk and showmastery, he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously change the course.

So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his intentions.

And China? He may have changed some small to medium problems for the better, but nothing is changed in the overall trend of the US continuing to loose while China emerges as the next global superpower.

It may have been slowed for some years; It may even have been accelerated, now that China has been waken up to the extend of the threat posed by the US.

North Korea? They surely will never denuclearize. Even less after how Trump showed the world how he treats international law and even allies.

With Trump its all photo ops and showmanship. And while he senses what issues are important, it is worth a damn if he butchers the execution, or values photo ops more than substantial progress.

Not that i would see a democratic alternative. No. But at least now everyone who wants to know can see, that he is neither one.

4 years ago, democracy was corrupted, but at least there was someone who presented himself as an alternative to that rotten establishment.
Now, even that small ray of light is as dark as it gets.
And that is the saddest thing. What worth is democracy, when one does not even have a true alternative, besides Tulsi on endless wars, and Bernie for the socialist ;) ?

I just have watched again the Ken Burns documentary of the civil war. I know it is not perfect (Though i love Shelby Foote's parts), but the sense of the divided 2 Americas there, is still the same today. Today, America seems to break apart culturally, socially and economically on the fault lines that have sucked it into the civil war over 150 years ago.

And just like with seeing no real way out politically, i sadly can see no way to heal and unite this country, as it never was truly united after the civil war, if not ever before. As you Colonel said some weeks ago, the US were never a nation.

And looking at other countries, only a major national crisis may change this.
A most sad realization. But this hold true also for other western countries, including my own.

An even worse decade seems to be ahead.

turcopolier , 26 January 2020 at 05:15 PM
everyoneisbiased

The economy is actually quite good and he is NOT "a dictator." Dictators are not put on trial by the legislature. He is extremely ignorant and suffers from a life in which only money mattered.

emboil , 26 January 2020 at 05:27 PM
Once Bernie wins the nomination, it's going to be escalation time. Trump stands no chance if things get hot with Iran. He didn't win by enough to sacrifice the antiwar vote.
walrus , 26 January 2020 at 06:14 PM
I'm starting to think that Trumps weakness is believing that everyone and everything has a monetary price. I think perhaps his dealings with China may reinforce his perception, as, also, his alleged success in bullying the Europeans over Iran -- with the threat of tariffs on European car imports. His almost weekly references to Iraqi and Syrian oil, allies "not paying their way", financial threats to the Iraq Government, all suggest a fixation on finance that has served him well in business.

The trouble is that one day President Trump is going to discover there is something money can't buy, to the detriment of America.

VietnamVet , 26 January 2020 at 07:28 PM
Colonel,

Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo have got themselves in a no-win situation. NATO cannot occupy both Syria and Iraq, illegally. There are way too few troops. The bases in these nations are sitting ducks for the next precision ballistic missile attack. Any buildup would be contested. Ground travel curtailed. A Peace Treaty and Withdrawal is the only safe way out.

Donald Trump is blessed with his opponents. Democrats who restarted the Cold War with Russia in 2014 are now using it to justify his Impeachment. If leaders cannot see reality clearly, they will keep making incredibly stupid mistakes. If Joe Biden is his opponent, I can't vote for either. Both spread chaos.

My subconscious is again acting out. The mini-WWIII with Iran could shut off Middle Eastern oil at any time. The Fed is back to injecting digital money into the market. China has quarantined 44 million people. Global trade is fragile. Today there are four cases of Wuhan Coronavirus in the USA.

If confirmed that the virus is contagious without symptoms and an infected person transmits the virus to 2 to 3 people and with a 3% mortality rate and a higher 15% rate for the infirmed, the resupply trip to Safeway this summer could be both futile and dangerous.

Haralambos , 26 January 2020 at 07:48 PM
Two Greek words: "hubris" and "nemesis" come to mind.
Patrick Armstrong , 26 January 2020 at 08:19 PM
It's an old story. Mr X is elected POTUS; going to do this and that; something happens in the MENA. That's all anyone remembers. Maybe time to kiss Israel goodbye, tell SA to sell in whatever currency it wants, and realise that oil producers have to sell the stuff -- it's no good to them in the ground...
Petrel , 26 January 2020 at 08:31 PM
President Trump controls part of the White House -- definitely not the NSC -- and much of the Department of Commerce & Treasury. His hold elsewhere in the DC bureaucracy may be 5 - 15%. When the President decided to pull US troops out of Syria, his NSC Director flew to Egypt and Turkey to countermand the order. Facing the opposition of a united DC SWAMP, the President caved, and thereby delayed his formal impeachment by a year.

Going out on a limb, President Trump continues to play a very weak hand and may survive to fight another day. Fortunately for the US, his tax and regulatory policies, as well as his economic negotiations with China, Japan, Korea and Mexico seem to be on target and successful.

Godfree Roberts , 26 January 2020 at 09:19 PM
As Richard Nixon told a young Donald Rumsfeld when he asked about specializing in Latin America, "Nobody gives a shit about Latin America."

Nobody gives a shit about the Middle East.

Johnb , 26 January 2020 at 11:27 PM
We may yet see John McCains Revenge in the Senate Colonel, it only requires 4 Republican votes to move into Witnesses.
EEngineer , 26 January 2020 at 11:27 PM
Carthage must be destroyed! I don't know if Trump is going to war with Iran willingly or with a Neocon gun to his head, but if he's impeached I expect Pence to go on a holy crusade.

[Jan 27, 2020] An excellent interview of Elijah Magnier on a broad range of issues related to Iran, Iraq and US policy.

Jan 27, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Nathan Mulcahy , Jan 26 2020 16:26 utc | 8

In case you have missed this. Here is an excellent interview of Elijah Magnier on a broad range of issues related to Iran, Iraq and US policy. This link was previously posted by another commenter but I am reposting it because it is so informative. I apologize for not I remembering the name of the original poster was.

What the US attacks on Iran and military occupation of Iraq mean for the Axis of Resistance | Moderate Rebels

[Jan 27, 2020] On Fragile Footing in Yemen after the Soleimani Strike - War on the Rocks

Jan 27, 2020 | warontherocks.com

U.N. Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths sounded relieved in a briefing to the Security Council this week, noting that even after the American airstrike that killed Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, "the immediate crisis seems to be over Yemen has been kept safe."

Griffiths may have spoken too soon.

Yemen has been an increasingly important and tragic theater in the confrontation between Iran, the United States, and their respective clients in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates at the head of an intervening coalition on one side and the Houthis backed by Iran on the other. What will happen in Yemen following the killing of Soleimani and the escalation in tensions between the United States and Iran? And how can Yemen's civil war be insulated from the regional fallout?

News emerged late last week that the United States also targeted Abdul Reza Shahlai, a senior Quds commander, in Yemen. Had the strike succeeded, the Houthis or other Iranian-aligned forces in Yemen would almost certainly have had to respond, threatening an unruly escalation spiral. Instead, the operation was unsuccessful, and Iran's measured reaction was limited to Iraq. Nevertheless, the airstrike is unlikely to have put Houthi leadership in a conciliatory mood.

Ismaeil Ghaani, who served as Soleimani's deputy for decades, was quickly named Soleimani's replacement as head of the Quds Force. Following decades of leadership of the Quds Force, Ghaani is unlikely to deviate from Iran's approach of using proxies to push against opponents in the retaliation for Soleimani's killing.

At the same time, there is reason to hope that Yemen can avoid Iranian-backed escalation. But avoiding another round of escalation in Yemen's civil war will require the active participation of the United States and regional actors.

Yemen's Fragile Status Quo

One year after representatives of the Houthis and of Yemen's internationally-recognized government agreed to a limited ceasefire as part of the Stockholm Agreement, little concrete progress to implement the agreement has been made: Hodeidah, the port area at the center of the agreement, is still the most dangerous place in the country for civilians. Likewise, the Riyadh Agreement, which sought to patch a split between the official government and southern separatists supported by the United Arab Emirates, is faltering and in danger of total collapse.

Nevertheless, just a few weeks ago there were reasons to be cautiously optimistic that, after years of failed negotiations, the Saudi-led coalition's intervention in Yemen may have been winding down. Soleimani's assassination threatens to undo this fragile and halting progress. While Iraq remains the most likely arena for Iranian retaliation against the United States and its partners, Iranian officials also see their relationship with the Houthis as a mechanism for dialing pressure on its opponents up or down while maintaining plausible deniability for any particular attack. Yemen may therefore be a site of Iranian escalation in the coming weeks and months. Indeed, the Houthis expressed support for Iran and promised to respond "promptly and swiftly" to the airstrike. Whatever its form, public retaliation risks upsetting the nascent negotiations over Yemen's forgotten war.

What Will Happen Now in Yemen?

Iran is well aware that it would be badly overmatched in a conventional conflict, and is therefore likely to avoid all-out war with the United States. Rather, Iran's leadership is likely to retaliate via the asymmetric resources that Tehran -- in an effort led by Soleimani and the Quds Force -- has successfully cultivated in the region.

The Houthis have assumed greater importance in Tehran's regional strategy in recent years. Their geographic proximity to Saudi Arabia (and decades-long history of antagonistic relations) provides Iran with a convenient way to antagonize a long-time rival on its southern border and to retaliate horizontally for attacks on its partners in Syria. The relationship confers what Austin Carson calls escalation control : By maintaining plausible deniability, Tehran can signal its displeasure at American policies while giving opponents a face-saving way to avoid further reprisals, thereby dampening the risk of further escalation. Indeed, the recent strike on Saudi Aramco facilities claimed by the Houthis (but likely perpetrated by Iran) is indicative of this dynamic. The attack allowed Tehran to push back against the Trump administration's "maximum pressure" campaign while affording both sides an off-ramp.

There are a few reasons to expect that Tehran could turn to Yemen as it formulates its response to Soleimani's assassination. While Iran's leadership signaled that its retaliation would end after the missile strikes on bases in Iraq, analysts note that Iran is likely to return to its " forward defense " strategy of working through proxies to push back against what its leadership sees as American aggression in the region.

Ramping up Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates would allow Iran to signal its displeasure with Washington while attempting to avoid escalation that could lead to a conventional war. This would be consistent with the forward defense strategy and Tehran's past behavior in the region. Additionally, by coalescing domestic support, the American strike may empower hardliners in the Iranian regime who favor regional escalation.

And although the Houthis certainly receive significant support from Iran in the form of material support, as well as advice and training from Hizballah operatives on the ground, they are not as strategically close to Iran as other proxies like Hizballah are thought to be. As a recent New America report notes, "there is little evidence of firm Iranian command and control. Iran's reported provision of missiles and drones shapes the conflict, but its roots are local and would not disappear were Iran to fully abandon the Houthis." Even U.S. officials have sought to draw a distinction between Iranian and Houthi leadership in recent months.

Yet there are cautious signs that Houthi leadership could be willing to play along by following Iran's lead in this instance: Just a few days before the assassination of Soleimani, Houthi officials cautioned that targets within Saudi and Emirati territory remain on their list of potential military targets, suggesting a willingness to escalate. And, after the strike, Houthi leadership called for reprisals against the United States.

But the region's reaction to the Aramco attack -- which saw the Emiratis pursuing quiet talks with Iran and Saudi Arabia negotiating with the Houthis -- also provides reason to hope that regional actors may work together to head off Iranian escalation in Yemen.

First, the Houthis' relative autonomy from Iranian command-and-control gives them some leeway to resist pressure to escalate, although the failed U.S. strike in Yemen may affect this calculus. Confronted with the choice of either retaliating on Tehran's behalf, at the risk of inciting Saudi re-entry into the war, or resisting the external pressure, thereby preserving the odds of a favorable settlement, the Houthi leadership may decide to bet on the latter.

Second, while Saudi commentators delighted in the blow to their regional opponent, the Kingdom has publicly cautioned against escalation and reportedly urged the Trump administration to exercise restraint. This signals that the Arab Gulf states may continue in the more cautiously de-escalatory approach that they have taken on Yemen over the past several months, as the United Arab Emirates and Sudan began to withdraw troops from Yemen, Saudi Arabia negotiated with the Houthis, and the tempo of Saudi airstrikes declined precipitously.

As much as they vehemently oppose Iranian influence in the region, both Saudi and Emirati leadership want to avoid a direct confrontation with Iran, especially after the Trump administration's erratic policies have made it clear that they may not get American backing in such a confrontation. In other words, the factors that contributed to the intervening coalition's de-escalatory tendencies a few months ago are still relevant, even after the escalation in tensions between the United States and Iran.

The United States is well-positioned to reinforce de-escalatory dynamics in Yemen and support the nascent peace process there. The recent de-escalation in Yemen has shown that pressure works: Although both the Obama and Trump administrations initially supported the Saudi-led intervention, Congressional threats to leverage arms sales and invoke the War Powers Act to end American material support for the intervention in 2019 subdued Abu Dhabi and Riyadh and opened a new juncture in the conflict. The U.S. military ended its provision of aerial refueling to the Saudi-led coalition following the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in late 2018, and Secretary of Defense James Mattis reportedly pressured Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to negotiate a political settlement to the war in the lead-up to the Stockholm Agreement. While some of this de-escalatory behavior is attributable to a gradual acknowledgement that this war cannot be won, much can be attributed to U.S. pressure as well. Washington therefore can -- and should -- continue to pressure its regional partners to reach a negotiated agreement. The recent House vote invoking the War Powers Act with regards to Iran -- and supportive statements from a cross-party range of senators -- indicates that Congress is willing to maintain pressure on the administration to avoid escalation in the region, even in the midst of ongoing presidential impeachment proceedings.

Players in the region will also continue to play a critical role in Yemen in the weeks and months ahead. Saudi and Emirati leaders are tired of the resource and reputational drain of a war that appears increasingly unwinnable, leading to their willingness to draw down the coalition's intervention. With international support, regional actors like Oman and even the Gulf Cooperation Council can act as mediators and guarantors to deter potential spoilers and help implement any agreement.

Omani Sultan Qaboos bin Said's untimely death this past weekend is another potentially complicating factor here. Under Qaboos, Oman has played an important behind-the-scenes role in the negotiations that led to the nuclear agreement, and brokered negotiations between the Saudi Arabia and the Houthis beginning this past fall. Qaboos cut a unique figure in the region, acting as a mediator who had both the stature and credibility to broker agreements between warring parties in the region. His death and the drama around succession created some doubt about whether anyone would be able to take his place. Yet the new sultan Haitham bin Tariq, who was quickly sworn in, has pledged to continue Qaboos' diplomatic path. Leaders from across the region traveled to Muscat to pay their condolences to the new sultan, cementing the peaceful transition. This continuity is a hopeful sign that Oman can continue to play a productive role as regional mediator.

Finally, policymakers shouldn't forget about Yemeni actors themselves. While most western analysis of the conflict in Yemen focuses on the third-party intervention, this perspective neglects the indigenous dynamics that led to the outbreak of the civil war in the first place. The focus on external intervention is not without good reason, since regional actors dramatically exacerbated the conflict and prevented an earlier resolution. Yet the civil war in Yemen began over local issues around governance and resource-sharing, and it will not end without solving these underlying issues, thus undercutting potential spoilers .

Additionally, years of fighting has created a patchwork of splintered militia groups and local governance institutions that will prove very difficult to knit back together into a coherent, functioning polity. A resumption of local fighting could act as an invitation for external actors to intervene again, leading to a resumption of conflict. It is therefore essential for mediation efforts to take these local issues into account.

Over the past century, Yemen has often been a site for actors in the region to play out their own conflicts. A relapse in fighting in Yemen could provide future grounds for intervention and will act as a driver of regional instability. By contrast, ending the war in Yemen will eliminate a critical source of Iranian leverage in the Gulf.

Become a Member

Dr. Alexandra Stark is a senior researcher at New America. She was previously a research fellow at the Middle East Initiative, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University and a USIP-Minerva Peace and Security Scholar.

Image: Wikicommons (Photo by Fahd Sadi)

[Jan 27, 2020] The Drone Beats of War The U.S. Vulnerability to Targeted Killings - War on the Rocks by David Barno and Nora Bensahel

Notable quotes:
"... But U.S. adversaries were watching closely. As advanced technologies inexorably became cheaper and more widely available, the U.S. monopoly on these capabilities started to erode. By 2016, for example, eight countries other than the United States had conducted armed drone attacks , including Iran, Pakistan, and Nigeria. By 2019, Russia and two other countries joined this exclusive club. And at least one non-state actor has already used an armed drone for a targeted killing. According to one estimate, 27 other countries currently possess armed drones while dozens of states and non-state actors have unarmed drones . These capabilities can now be used against specific individuals even in the absence of large intelligence networks, thanks to the constant streams of personal information flowing from personal phones , fitness trackers , and other devices. ..."
Jan 21, 2020 | warontherocks.com
The fiery explosions from the recent U.S. drone attack that killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani have sent shock waves reverberating across the Middle East. Those same shocks should now be rippling through the American national security establishment too. The strike against the man widely considered the second-most powerful leader of a long-standing U.S. adversary was unprecedented, and its ultimate effects remain unknown. But regardless of what happens next, one thing is certain: The United States has now made it even more likely that American military and civilian leaders will be targeted by future U.S. foes. As a result, the United States will have to dramatically improve the ways in which it protects those leaders and rethink how it commands its forces on the battlefield.

Over the last 20 years, the United States has been able to target and kill specific individuals almost anywhere around the world, by matching an increasingly advanced array of precision weapons with a strikingly effective intelligence system. It has employed this capability frequently , especially across the greater Middle East , as it has sought to eliminate senior leaders of the Taliban insurgency or highly placed terrorists directing jihadist cells. And it has been able to pursue this decapitation strategy with impunity, because it has held a monopoly on this bespoke use of force. Not even the most powerful states could attempt the types of complex targeted strikes that the U.S. military and CIA conducted so routinely.

But U.S. adversaries were watching closely. As advanced technologies inexorably became cheaper and more widely available, the U.S. monopoly on these capabilities started to erode. By 2016, for example, eight countries other than the United States had conducted armed drone attacks , including Iran, Pakistan, and Nigeria. By 2019, Russia and two other countries joined this exclusive club. And at least one non-state actor has already used an armed drone for a targeted killing. According to one estimate, 27 other countries currently possess armed drones while dozens of states and non-state actors have unarmed drones . These capabilities can now be used against specific individuals even in the absence of large intelligence networks, thanks to the constant streams of personal information flowing from personal phones , fitness trackers , and other devices.

The Soleimani strike has given potential U.S. adversaries every reason to accelerate their efforts to develop similar capabilities. Moreover, these same adversaries can now justify their own future targeted killings by invoking this U.S. precedent. Sooner or later -- and probably sooner -- senior U.S. civilian and military leaders will become vulnerable to the same types of decapitation strikes that the United States has inflicted on others. Enemies will almost certainly attempt to target and kill U.S. officials during any future major war, and such attacks will likely become a part of future irregular conflicts as well. Though such strikes would dangerously escalate any conflict, committed adversaries of the United States may still find that the advantages outweigh the costs, especially if they can plausibly deny responsibility or if the strength of their resolve makes them willing to accept any resulting consequences.

In the face of this growing threat, what does the United States need to do in order to protect its key military and civilian leaders from a potential decapitation strike? Here are some potential first steps.

  1. Improve personal protection for senior leaders. The president and the vice president are well protected against a myriad of threats by the Secret Service, but levels of protection quickly diminish for those who work beneath them. A number of senior officials, including cabinet officials and the chiefs of the military services, have their own security details, but those focus primarily on providing traditional physical security. They typically offer little if any protection against newly emerging threats such as a targeted missile attack or swarming suicide drones. Most senior military and civilian leaders have no security at all, and they and their family members (like most other Americans) are constantly emitting electronic signals that give away their location. Improving their protection will require rethinking nearly every aspect of their daily lives, especially their extensive vulnerabilities when traveling. For example, the obtrusive motorcades and conspicuous convoys of black SUVs currently favored by many senior U.S. officials may need to be replaced with lower visibility alternatives, to include employing decoys that travel along multiple routes in high risk situations.
  2. Harden key meeting locations, headquarters, and transition points. U.S. adversaries will be particularly interested in targeting locations where numbers of senior military and civilian leaders gather. Many such locations today in the United States and overseas are not sufficiently hardened against attack. The locations of most offices and meeting spaces are either publicly available or easily found, and few are protected from any sort of aerial attack. (At a minimum, senior officials should stop having their photos taken in front of their offices where the room number is clearly visible .) And even hardened command centers usually have key vulnerabilities at entrances and exits, and at exposed transition points between different modes of transportation (such as airfield aprons). Ironically, current U.S. military security measures can unintentionally make leaders more vulnerable in other ways. Shortly after the Soleimani strike, for example, many U.S. military bases imposed stricter security measures at their entry points, including extensive identification checks and reducing the number of open gates. These reflexive measures caused long traffic backups that spilled onto local roads and highways -- which made everyone entering the bases far more vulnerable as they sat in these traffic jams. Any senior leader stuck in those lines would have become a remarkably easy target with no clear avenues of escape.
  3. Exercise wartime succession in the U.S. military chain of command. Combatant commanders and other senior military officers often use high-level wargames to validate key war plans and operational concepts. Yet most exercises and simulations deliberately avoid removing senior commanders from the battlefield, which reinforces the flawed notion that they will always be in charge. This problem also extends to the tactical level, where commanders of brigades, divisions, and corps are rarely assessed as casualties. Exercises at all levels need to regularly include scenarios where one or more senior commanders are killed or incapacitated, to test succession plans and to ensure that subordinates gain valuable leadership experience.
  4. Further decentralize battlefield command and control. The military chain of command necessarily relies upon centralized control, with commanders directing the actions of their subordinates. The U.S. military does decentralize some authority through concepts like mission command , which empower subordinates to make independent decisions about the best ways to achieve the commander's overall intent. Yet as we've written extensively elsewhere , the military's growing culture of compliance and risk aversion already undermines this critical principle, and modern command and control systems make it far too easy for senior commanders to intervene in routine tactical operations. In an environment where senior commanders can be individually targeted and killed, truly decentralized authority becomes absolutely vital -- and even efforts to reinvigorate mission command may no longer be sufficient. One recent article, for example, called for an entirely new, bottom-up approach to command and control that would build resilience and speed by reducing the reliance on a small number of increasingly vulnerable senior leaders.

The U.S. government needs to acknowledge that its senior leaders are becoming more vulnerable to targeted attacks, and that the Soleimani attack will only accelerate the determination of U.S. adversaries to be able to conduct similar attacks themselves. Yet threats like this are too easily discounted or ignored until it is too late. The U.S. government must recognize the grave dangers of this threat before it occurs. It needs to protect its senior officials more effectively, and ensure that the military chain of command will continue to function effectively after one or more commanders are killed by a targeted strike.

Become a Member

Lt. Gen. David W. Barno, U.S. Army (ret.) and Dr. Nora Bensahel are visiting professors of strategic studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and senior fellows at the Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies. They are also contributing editors at War on the Rocks , where their column appears monthly. Sign up for Barno and Bensahel's Strategic Outpost newsletter to track their articles as well as their public events.

Editor's Note: Due to an internal error, we published the near-final version of this article rather than the final version. While the differences between the two drafts are minor, we apologize for the error and have fixed our mistake. The final version of this article is now published below.

I

[Jan 25, 2020] You Think Americans Really Give A Fk About Ukraine - Pompeo Flips Out On NPR Reporter

How tank maintenance mechanical engineer and military contractor who got into congress pretending to belong to tea party can became the Secretary of state? Only in America ;-)
Jan 25, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
"You Think Americans Really Give A F**k About Ukraine?" - Pompeo Flips Out On NPR Reporter by Tyler Durden Sat, 01/25/2020 - 15:05 0 SHARES

Democrats' impeachment proceedings were completely overshadowed this week by the panic over the Wuhan coronavirus. Still, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is clearly tired of having his character repeatedly impugned by the Dems and the press claiming he hung one of his ambassadors out to dry after she purportedly resisted the administration's attempts to pressure Ukraine.

That frustration came to a head this week when, during a moment of pique, Secretary Pompeo launched into a rant and swore at NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly after she wheedled him about whether he had taken concrete steps to protect former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

House Democrats last week released a trove of messages between Giuliani associate Lev Parnas and Connecticut Republican Congressional candidate Robert Hyde. The messages suggested that Yovanovitch might have been under surveillance before President Trump recalled her to Washington. One of the messages seems to reference a shadowy character able to "help" with Yovanovitch for "a price."

Kelly recounted the incident to her listeners (she is the host of "All Things Considered")

After Kelly asked Pompeo to specify exactly what he had done or said to defend Yovanovitch, whom Pompeo's boss President Trump fired last year, Pompeo simply insisted that he had "done what's right" with regard to Yovanovitch, while becoming visibly annoyed.

Once the interview was over, Pompeo glared at Kelly for a minute, then left the room, telling an aide to bring Kelly into another room at the State Department without her recorder, so they could have more privacy.

Once inside, Pompeo launched into what Kelly described as an "expletive-laden rant", repeatedly using the "f-word." Pompeo complained about the questions about Ukraine, arguing that the interview was supposed to be about Iran.

"Do you think Americans give a f--k about Ukraine?" Pompeo allegedly said.

The outburst was followed by a ridiculous stunt: one of Pompeo's staffers pulled out a blank map and asked the reporter to identify Ukraine, which she did.

"People will hear about this," Pompeo vaguely warned.

Ironically, Pompeo is planning to travel to Kiev this week.

The questions came after Michael McKinley, a former senior adviser to Pompeo, told Congress that he resigned after the secretary apparently ignored his pleas for the department to show some support for Yovanovitch.

Listen to the interview here. A transcript can be found here .

NPR's Mary Louise Kelly says the following happened after the interview in which she asked some tough questions to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. pic.twitter.com/cRTb71fZvX

-- Daniel Dale (@ddale8) January 24, 2020

Last we checked, the team at NPR is waiting on Pompeo to apologize

Mike Pompeo Does in fact owe Yovanovitch an apology https://t.co/imazFrG3Q6

-- Molly Jong-Fast (@MollyJongFast) January 25, 2020

We suspect they might be waiting a while...

CarteroAtómico , 5 minutes ago link

He's right. American don't give a **** about Ukraine. But why did Clinton and Obama and now Trump and Pompeo? Why are they spending our money there instead of either taking care of problems here or paying off the national debt?

MOLONAABE , 8 minutes ago link

The best thing that could happen to the Ukraine is for Russia to take it back.. they would clean up that train wreck of a country... they've proven themselves as to being the scumbags they are gypsies and grifters...

Goodsport 1945 , 11 minutes ago link

The Bidens do, so there must be $omething very attractive over there.

carman , 13 minutes ago link

He's right. Nobody cares about Ukraine. NPR= National Propaganda Radio.

CarteroAtómico , 1 minute ago link

But why are Trump and Pompeo continuing the policy of Obama and Clinton there? Remember Trump said he would pay off the national debt in 8 years? How about stop spending our money on the War Party's foreign interventions for a starter.

kindasketchy , 17 minutes ago link

I wish the same level of questioning was directed at Pompeo regarding Syria and Iran. You may like his response because of the particular topic, but it doesn't change the fact that he's a psycho neo-con fucktard who should be shot for treason.

Collectivism Killz , 21 minutes ago link

Truth. Most Americans know nothing about Ukraine, some just know orange man bad and orange man bad for Ukr

roach clipper , 21 minutes ago link

I despise fkn traitor Pompus from USMA (traitor training school) but in this case he doesn't owe yovanobitch anything.

morefunthanrum , 27 minutes ago link

People care about a secretary of state who supports his diplomats...about a president whose not a lying conniving spoiled piece of ****

roach clipper , 22 minutes ago link

There are NO diplomats in the Dept. of State, otherwise we wouldn't have been at war all century.

[Jan 25, 2020] Pompeo Crumbles Under Pressure

Jan 25, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

U.S. Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo participates in a press conference with U.S. President Donald J. Trump during the NATO Foreign Ministerial in Brussels on July 12, 2018. (State Department photo/ Public Domain)

January 24, 2020

|

9:21 pm

Daniel Larison Mike Pompeo has proven to be a blowhard and a bully in his role as Secretary of State, and nothing seems to bother him more than challenging questions from professional journalists. All of those flaws and more were on display during and after his interview with NPR's Mary Louise Kelly today. After abruptly ending the interview when pressed on his failure to defend members of the Foreign Service, Pompeo then threw a fit and berated the reporter who asked him the questions:

Immediately after the questions on Ukraine, the interview concluded. Pompeo stood, leaned in and silently glared at Kelly for several seconds before leaving the room.

A few moments later, an aide asked Kelly to follow her into Pompeo's private living room at the State Department without a recorder. The aide did not say the ensuing exchange would be off the record.

Inside the room, Pompeo shouted his displeasure at being questioned about Ukraine. He used repeated expletives, according to Kelly, and asked, "Do you think Americans care about Ukraine?" He then said, "People will hear about this."

People are certainly hearing about it, and their unanimous judgment is that it confirms Pompeo's reputation as an obnoxious, thin-skinned excuse for a Secretary of State. Kelly's questions were all reasonable and fair, but Pompeo is not used to being pressed so hard to give real answers. We have seen his short temper and condescension before when other journalists have asked him tough questions, and he seems particularly annoyed when the journalists calling him out are women. Pompeo probably has the worst working relationship with the press of any Secretary of State in decades, and this episode will make it worse.

When Pompeo realized he wouldn't be able to get away with his standard set of vacuous talking points and lies, he ended the conversation. The entire interview is worth reading to appreciate how poorly Pompeo performs when he is forced to explain how failing administration policies are "working." When pressed on his untrue claims that "maximum pressure" on Iran is "working," all that he could do was repeat himself robotically:

QUESTION: My question, again: How do you stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

SECRETARY POMPEO: We'll stop them.

QUESTION: How?

SECRETARY POMPEO: We'll stop them.

QUESTION: Sanctions?

SECRETARY POMPEO: We'll stop them.

Kelly refused to accept pat, meaningless responses, and she kept insisting that Pompeo provide something, anything, to back up his assertions. This is how administration officials should always be interviewed, and it is no surprise that the Secretary of State couldn't handle being challenged to back up his claims. The questions wouldn't have been that hard to answer if Pompeo were willing to be honest or the least bit humble, but that isn't how he operates. He sees every interview as an opportunity to snow the interviewer under with nonsense and to score points with the president, and giving honest answers would get in the way of both.

The section at the end concerned Pompeo's failure to stand up for State Department officials, especially Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine. Since Pompeo's support for these officials has been abysmal, there was nothing substantive that he could say about it and tried to filibuster his way out of it. To her credit, Kelly was persistent in trying to pin him down and make him address the issue. He had every chance to explain himself, but instead he fell back on defensive denials that persuade no one:

QUESTION: Sir, respectfully, where have you defended Marie Yovanovitch?

SECRETARY POMPEO: I've defended every single person on this team. I've done what's right for every single person on this team.

QUESTION: Can you point me toward your remarks where you have defended Marie Yovanovitch?

SECRETARY POMPEO: I've said all I'm going to say today. Thank you. Thanks for the repeated opportunity to do so; I appreciate that.

Pompeo could have defended Yovanovitch and other officials that have come under attack, but to do that would be to risk Trump's ire and it would require him to show the slightest bit of courage. In the end, his "swagger" is all talk and his rhetoric about supporting his "team" at State is meaningless. Pompeo made a fool of himself in this interview, and it is perfectly in keeping with his angry, brittle personality that he took out his frustrations by yelling at the reporter who exposed him as the vacuous blowhard that he is.

about the author Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter . email

Clyde Schechter • 17 hours ago
Wow! She did a great interview there. Really a model for what all reporters should be doing.

Thanks for bringing this to light, Mr. Larison.

SFBay1949 • 16 hours ago • edited
I don't suppose you'll be interviewing Pompeo any time soon Daniel. I very much appreciate your being so honest about what you see and hear.
K squared • 14 hours ago
Left out was the part when pompeo had one of his minions bring out a blank world map and challenged her to find the Ukraine which she immediately did - i wonder if trump could find it
FL_Cottonmouth K squared • 7 hours ago
That's hilarious.
John Mann K squared • 2 hours ago
Apparently, Pompeo has suggested Kelly had pointed to Bangladesh, not Ukraine, on the map, and commented "It is worth noting that Bangladesh is NOT Ukraine."

I don't suppose we are ever likely to see conclusive evidence that will establish for certain where she pointed.

It's probably just a matter of looking at their respective records of lying, cheating, and stealing, and making a guess based on that.

stephen pickard • 5 hours ago
My God, can he get any worse. I suppose so since his boss always falls to a lower level. There is no bottom. Just admit that everyday brings a new low. Only thing surprising is that we get surprised at their despicable behavior.
Jeff Dickey stephen pickard • 3 hours ago
That's the problem with Trump henchmen: they can always get worse. There is no bottom, for to have a limit below which the henchmen will not go would embarrass the Capo di Tutti Capi for blowing through it on the way down. Henchmen have bills to pay, too, you know, just like people.
stephen pickard Jeff Dickey • an hour ago
As I said awhile back, lies are debts that must be repaid.
FL_Cottonmouth • 4 hours ago
Looming over her and leering down at her? What a creep!
Jonah • 3 hours ago
I'm sorry, is the "conservative" in the name of this blog some kind of parody? You all sure sound like liberal democrats. Never been here before, won't be coming back.

Oh, and you forgot about the part where Pompeo came ready to discuss one topic, which was agreed to beforehand, and the interviewer transitioned to a new topic. And the way she did so was to ask Pompeo if he owed Marie Yanokovich an apology. Yes, riveting journalism devoid of partisan bias. Lol! But it was Pompeo. Right.

Jonah Jonah • 3 hours ago
To the person who down voted me, I don't care. Honestly I'm glad you butthurt whiners have a place to share your hurt feelings. Maybe if you're lucky Joe Biden will be President soon and you can all rejoice that "decency" is back, or something.
SFBay1949 Jonah • 3 hours ago
Apparently Pompeo can only keep so many talking points in his head. One topic only. Are we to believe the Secretary of State can't expound on more than a single subject? It must be true, otherwise he wouldn't go around insisting he will only talk about one subject during an interview. I expect he won't be getting many invites for interviews outside of FOX. Just as well, he's a bag of hot air anyway.
Sandra Jonah • 2 hours ago
I think there are many conservatives writing and commenting on this site. But perhaps you are confusing "conservative" with "republican". There is little conservatism left in the republican party.
Awake and Uttering a Song Jonah • an hour ago
"...Pompeo came ready to discuss one topic, which was agreed to beforehand, and the interviewer transitioned to a new topic."

Oh, the humanity!

Secretary Pompous couldn't just give a little chuckle and say something like "Now, now. You know we agreed to talk only on one topic, so let's get together on another day to discuss other topics". ?

Just another guy in power who is too full of himself.

sglover Jonah • 20 minutes ago
It's terrible when the citizenry goes off-script, isn't it?
ChrisD • 2 hours ago
Pompeo just tweeted this statement about the NPR interview::

Personan0ngrata • an hour ago
QUESTION: My question, again: How do you stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

Italicized/bold text was excerpted from the website www.dni.gov within a US National Intelligence Estimate published in Nov2007 titled:

Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities

ANSWER: Key Judgements

A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran's announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work.

https://www.dni.gov/files/d...

Italicized/bold text was excerpted from the website fas.org a report published (updated 20Dec2019) by the Congressional Research Service titled:

Page 53, 2nd paragraph -

Iran's Nuclear Program: Status

Director of National Intelligence Coats reiterated the last sentence in May 2017 testimony.330He testified in January 2019 that the U.S. intelligence community "continue[s] to assess that Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear device." Subsequent statements from U.S. officials indicate that Iran has not resumed its nuclear weapons program. According to an August 2019 State Department report, the "U.S. Intelligence Community assesses that Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons development activities judged necessary to produce a nuclear device." Any decision to produce nuclear weapons "will be made by the Supreme Leader," Clapper stated in April 2013.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuk...

[Jan 25, 2020] Aftermath: The Iran War After the Soleimani Assassination by Jim Kavanagh

Notable quotes:
"... It always goes to Iran ..."
"... But even I was flabbergasted by what Trump did. Absolutely gobsmacked. Killing Qassem Soleimani, Iranian general, leader of the Quds forces, and the most respected military leader in the Middle East? And ..."
"... The first thing, the thing that is so sad and so infuriating and so centrally symptomatic of everything wrong with American political culture, is that, with painfully few exceptions, Americans have no idea of what their government has done. They have no idea who Qassem Soleimani was, what he has accomplished, the web of relationships, action, and respect he has built, what his assassination means and will bring. The last person who has any clue about this, of course, is Donald Trump, who called Soleimani " a total monster ." His act of killing Soleimani is the apotheosis of the abysmal, arrogant ignorance of U.S. political culture. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Whatever their elected governments say, we'll will keep our army in Syria to "take the oil," and in Iraq to well, to do whatever the hell we want. ..."
"... Sure, we make the rules and you follow our orders. ..."
"... with nobody even noticing ..."
"... Christian Science Monitor ..."
"... under Trump's leadership ..."
Jan 24, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org

"Praise be to God, who made our enemies fools."

– Ayatollah Khamenei

The Killing

I've been writing and speaking for months about the looming danger of war with Iran, often to considerable skepticism.

In June, in an essay entitled " Eve of Destruction: Iran Strikes Back ," after the U.S. initiated its "maximum pressure" blockade of Iranian oil exports, I pointed out that "Iran considers that it is already at war," and that the downing of the U.S. drone was a sign that "Iran is calling the U.S. bluff on escalation dominance."

In an October essay , I pointed out that Trump's last-minute calling off of the U.S. attack on Iran in June, his demurral again after the Houthi attack on Saudi oil facilities, and his announced withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria were seen as "catastrophic" and "a big win for Iran" by the Iran hawks in Israel and America whose efforts New York Times (NYT) detailed in an important article, " The Secret History of the Push to Strike Iran ." I said, with emphasis, " It always goes to Iran ," and underlined that Trump's restraint was particularly galling to hard-line zionist Republican Senators, and might have opened a path to impeachment. I cited the reported statement of a "veteran political consultant" that "The price of [Lindsey] Graham's support would be an eventual military strike on Iran."

And in the middle of December, I went way out on a limb, in an essay suggesting a possible relation between preparations for war in Iran and the impeachment process. I pointed out that the strategic balance of forces between Israel and Iran had reached the point where Israel thinks it's "necessary to take Iran down now ," in "the next six months," before the Iranian-supported Axis of Resistance accrues even more power. I speculated that the need to have a more reliable and internationally-respected U.S. President fronting a conflict with Iran might be the unseen reason -- behind the flimsy Articles of Impeachment -- that explains why Pelosi and Schumer "find it so urgent to replace Trump before the election and why they think they can succeed in doing that."

So, I was the guy chicken-littling about impending war with Iran.

But even I was flabbergasted by what Trump did. Absolutely gobsmacked. Killing Qassem Soleimani, Iranian general, leader of the Quds forces, and the most respected military leader in the Middle East? And Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, Iraqi commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) unit, Kataib Hezbollah? Did not see that coming. Rage. Fear. Sadness. Anxiety. A few days just to register that it really happened. To see the millions of people bearing witness to it. Yes, that happened.

Then there was the anxious anticipation about the Iranian response, which came surprisingly quickly, and with admirable military and political precision, avoiding a large-scale war in the region, for the moment.

That was the week that was.

But, as the man said: "It ain't over 'til it's over." And it ain't over. Recognizing the radical uncertainty of the world we now live in, and recognizing that its future will be determined by actors and actions far away from the American leftist commentariat, here's what I need to say about the war we are now in.

The first thing, the thing that is so sad and so infuriating and so centrally symptomatic of everything wrong with American political culture, is that, with painfully few exceptions, Americans have no idea of what their government has done. They have no idea who Qassem Soleimani was, what he has accomplished, the web of relationships, action, and respect he has built, what his assassination means and will bring. The last person who has any clue about this, of course, is Donald Trump, who called Soleimani " a total monster ." His act of killing Soleimani is the apotheosis of the abysmal, arrogant ignorance of U.S. political culture.

It's virtually impossible to explain to Americans because there is no one of comparable stature in the U.S. or in the West today. As Iran cleric Shahab Mohadi said , when talking about what a "proportional response" might be: "[W]ho should we consider to take out in the context of America? 'Think about it. Are we supposed to take out Spider-Man and SpongeBob? 'All of their heroes are cartoon characters -- they're all fictional." Trump? Lebanese Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah said what many throughout the world familiar with both of them would agree with: "the shoe of Qassem Soleimani is worth the head of Trump and all American leaders."

To understand the respect Soleimani has earned, not only in Iran (where his popularity was around 80% ) but throughout the region and across political and sectarian lines, you have to know how he led and organized the forces that helped save Christians , Kurds , Yazidis and others from being slaughtered by ISIS, while Barack Obama and John Kerry were still " watching " ISIS advance and using it as a tool to "manage" their war against Assad.

In an informative interview with Aaron Maté, Former Marine Intelligence Officer and weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, explains how Soleimani is honored in Iraq for organizing the resistance that saved Baghdad from being overrun by ISIS -- and the same could be said of Syria, Damascus, or Ebril:

He's a legend in Iran, in Iraq, and in Syria. And anywhere where, frankly speaking, he's operated, the people he's worked with view him as one of the greatest leaders, thinkers, most humane men of all time. I know in America we demonize him as a terrorist but the fact is he wasn't, and neither is Mr. Mohandes.

When ISIS [was] driving down on the city of Baghdad, the U.S. armed and trained Iraqi Army had literally thrown down their weapons and ran away, and there was nothing standing between ISIS and Baghdad

[Soleimani] came in from Iran and led the creation of the PMF [Popular Mobilization Forces] as a viable fighting force and then motivated them to confront Isis in ferocious hand-to-hand combat in villages and towns outside of Baghdad, driving Isis back and stabilizing the situation that allowed the United States to come in and get involved in the Isis fight. But if it weren't for Qassem Soleimani and Mohandes and Kataib Hezbollah, Baghdad might have had the black flag of ISIS flying over it. So the Iraqi people haven't forgotten who stood up and defended Baghdad from the scourge of ISIS.

So, to understand Soleimani in Western terms, you'd have to evoke someone like World War II Eisenhower (or Marshall Zhukov, but that gets another blank stare from Americans.) Think I'm exaggerating? Take it from the family of the Shah :

Beyond his leadership of the fight against ISIS, you also have to understand Soleimani's strategic acumen in building the Axis of Resistance -- the network of armed local groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as the PMF in Iraq, that Soleimani helped organize and provide with growing military capability. Soleimani meant standing up; he helped people throughout the region stand up to the shit the Americans, Israelis, and Saudis were constantly dumping on them

More apt than Eisenhower and De Gaulle, in world-historical terms, try something like Saladin meets Che. What a tragedy, and travesty, it is that legend-in-his-own-mind Donald Trump killed this man.

Dressed to Kill

But it is not just Trump, and not just the assassination of Soleimani, that we should focus on. These are actors and events within an ongoing conflict with Iran, which was ratcheted up when the U.S. renounced the nuclear deal (JCPOA – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) and instituted a "maximum pressure" campaign of economic and financial sanctions on Iran and third countries, designed to drive Iran's oil exports to zero.

The purpose of this blockade is to create enough social misery to force Iran into compliance, or provoke Iran into military action that would elicit a "justifiable" full-scale, regime-change -- actually state-destroying -- military attack on the country.

From its inception, Iran has correctly understood this blockade as an act of war, and has rightfully expressed its determination to fight back. Though it does not want a wider war, and has so far carefully calibrated its actions to avoid making it necessary, Iran will fight back however it deems necessary.

The powers-that-be in Iran and the U.S. know they are at war, and that the Soleimani assassination ratcheted that state of war up another significant notch; only Panglossian American pundits think the "w" state is yet to be avoided. Sorry, but the United States drone-bombed an Iranian state official accompanied by an Iraqi state official, in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi Prime Minister, on a conflict-resolution mission requested by Donald Trump himself. In anybody's book, that is an act of war -- and extraordinary treachery, even in wartime, the equivalent of shooting someone who came to parley under a white flag.

Indeed, we now know that the assassination of Soleimani was only one of two known assassination attempts against senior Iranian officers that day. There was also an unsuccessful strike targeting Abdul Reza Shahlai, another key commander in Iran's Quds Force who has been active in Yemen. According to the Washington Post , this marked a "departure for the Pentagon's mission in Yemen, which has sought to avoid direct involvement" or make "any publicly acknowledged attacks on Houthi or Iranian leaders in Yemen."

Of course, because it's known as "the world's worst humanitarian crisis," the Pentagon wants to avoid "publicly" bloodying its hands in the Saudi war in Yemen. Through two presidential administrations, it has been trying to minimize attention to its indispensable support of, and presence in, Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen with drone strikes , special forces operations , refueling of aircraft, and intelligence and targeting. It's such a nasty business that even the U.S. Congress passed a bipartisan resolution to end U.S. military involvement in that war, which was vetoed by Trump.

According to the ethic and logic of American exceptionalism, Iran is forbidden from helping the Houthis, but the U.S. is allowed to assassinate their advisors and help the Saudis bomb the crap out of them.

So, the Trump administration is clearly engaged in an organized campaign to take out senior Iranian leaders, part of what it considers a war against Iran. In this war, the Trump administration no longer pretends to give a damn about any fig leaf of law or ethics. Nobody takes seriously the phony "imminence" excuse for killing Soleimani, which even Trump say s "doesn't matter," or the "bloody hands" justification, which could apply to any military commander. And let's not forget: Soleimani was " talking about bad stuff ."

The U.S. is demonstrating outright contempt for any framework of respectful international relations, let alone international law. National sovereignty? Democracy? Whatever their elected governments say, we'll will keep our army in Syria to "take the oil," and in Iraq to well, to do whatever the hell we want. "Rules-based international order"? Sure, we make the rules and you follow our orders.

The U.S.'s determination to stay in Iraq, in defiance of the explicit, unequivocal demand of the friendly democratic government that the U.S. itself supposedly invaded the country to install, is particularly significant. It draws the circle nicely. It demonstrates that the Iraq war isn't over. Because it, and the wars in Libya and Syria, and the war that's ratcheting up against Iran are all the same war that the U.S. has been waging in the Middle East since 2003. In the end is the beginning, and all that.

We're now in the endgame of the serial offensive that Wesley Clark described in 2007, starting with Iraq and "finishing off" with Iran. Since the U.S. has attacked, weakened, divided, or destroyed every other un-coopted polity in the region (Iraq, Syria, Libya) that could pose any serious resistance to the predations of U.S. imperialism and Israel colonialism, it has fallen to Iran to be the last and best source of material and military support which allows that resistance to persist.

And Iran has taken up the task, through the work of the Quds Force under leaders like Soleimani and Shahlai, the work of building a new Axis of Resistance with the capacity to resist the dictates of Israel and the U.S. throughout the region. It's work that is part of a war and will result in casualties among U.S. and U.S.-allied forces and damage to their "interests."

What the U.S. (and its wards, Israel and Saudi Arabia) fears most is precisely the kind of material, technical, and combat support and training that allows the Houthis to beat back the Saudis and Americans in Yemen, and retaliate with stunningly accurate blows on crucial oil facilities in Saudi Arabia itself. The same kind of help that Soleimani gave to the armed forces of Syria and the PMF in Iraq to prevent those countries from being overrun and torn apart by the U.S. army and its sponsored jihadis, and to Hezbollah in Lebanon to deter Israel from demolishing and dividing that country at will.

It's that one big "endless" war that's been waged by every president since 2003, which American politicians and pundits have been scratching their heads and squeezing their brains to figure out how to explain, justify (if it's their party's President in charge), denounce (if it's the other party's POTUS), or just bemoan as "senseless." But to the neocons who are driving it and their victims -- it makes perfect sense and is understood to have been largely a success. Only the befuddled U.S. media and the deliberately-deceived U.S. public think it's "senseless," and remain enmired in the cock-up theory of U.S. foreign policy, which is a blindfold we had better shed before being led to the next very big slaughter.

The one big war makes perfect sense when one understands that the United States has thoroughly internalized Israel's interests as its own. That this conflation has been successfully driven by a particular neocon faction, and that it is excessive, unnecessary and perhaps disruptive to other effective U.S. imperial possibilities, is demonstrated precisely by the constant plaint from non-neocon, including imperialist, quarters that it's all so "senseless."

The result is that the primary object of U.S. policy (its internalized zionist imperative) in this war is to enforce that Israel must be able, without any threat of serious retaliation, to carry out any military attack on any country in the region at any time, to seize any territory and resources (especially water) it needs, and, of course, to impose any level of colonial violence against Palestinians -- from home demolitions, to siege and sniper killings (Gaza), to de jure as well as de facto apartheid and eventual further mass expulsions, if deems necessary.

That has required, above all, removing -- by co-option, regime change, or chaotogenic sectarian warfare and state destruction -- any strong central governments that have provided political, diplomatic, financial, material, and military support for the Palestinian resistance to Israeli colonialism. Iran is the last of those, has been growing in strength and influence, and is therefore the next mandatory target.

For all the talk of "Iranian proxies," I'd say, if anything, that the U.S., with its internalized zionist imperative, is effectively acting as Israel's proxy.

It's also important, I think, to clarify the role of Saudi Arabia (KSA) in this policy. KSA is absolutely a very important player in this project, which has been consistent with its interests. But its (and its oil's) influence on the U.S. is subsidiary to Israel's, and depends entirely on KSA's complicity with the Israeli agenda. The U.S. political establishment is not overwhelmingly committed to Saudi/Wahhabi policy imperatives -- as a matter, they think, of virtue -- as they are to Israeli/Zionist ones. It is inconceivable that a U.S. Vice-President would declare "I am a Wahhabi," or a U.S. President say "I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die" for Saudi Arabia -- with nobody even noticing . The U.S. will turn on a dime against KSA if Israel wants it; the reverse would never happen. We have to confront the primary driver of this policy if we are to defeat it, and too many otherwise superb analysts, like Craig Murray, are mistaken and diversionary, I think, in saying things like the assassination of Soleimani and the drive for war on Iran represent the U.S. " doubling down on its Saudi allegiance ." So, sure, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Batman and Robin.

Iran has quite clearly seen and understood what's unfolding, and has prepared itself for the finale that is coming its way.

The final offensive against Iran was supposed to follow the definitive destruction of the Syrian Baathist state, but that project was interrupted (though not yet abandoned) by the intervention of Syria's allies, Russia and Iran -- the latter precisely via the work of Soleimani and the Quds Force.

Current radical actions like the two assassination strikes against Iranian Quds Force commanders signal the Trump administration jumping right to the endgame, as that neocon hawks have been " agitating for ." The idea -- borrowed, perhaps from Israel's campaign of assassinating Iranian scientists -- is that killing off the key leaders who have supplied and trained the Iranian-allied networks of resistance throughout the region will hobble any strike from those networks if/when the direct attack on Iran comes.

Per Patrick Lawrence , the Soleimani assassination "was neither defensive nor retaliatory: It reflected the planning of the administration's Iran hawks, who were merely awaiting the right occasion to take their next, most daring step toward dragging the U.S. into war with Iran." It means that war is on and it will get worse fast.

It is crucial to understand that Iran is not going to passively submit to any such bullying. It will not be scared off by some "bloody nose" strike, followed by chest-thumping from Trump, Netanyahu, or Hillary about how they will " obliterate " Iran. Iran knows all that. It also knows, as I've said before , how little damage -- especially in terms of casualties -- Israel and the U.S. can take. It will strike back. In ways that will be calibrated as much as possible to avoid a larger war, but it will strike back.

Iran's strike on Ain al-Asad base in Iraq was a case in point. It was preceded by a warning through Iraq that did not specify the target but allowed U.S. personnel in the country to hunker down. It also demonstrated deadly precision and determination, hitting specific buildings where U.S. troops work, and, we now know, causing at least eleven acknowledged casualties.

Those casualties were minor, but you can bet they would have been the excuse for a large-scale attack, if the U.S. had been entirely unafraid of the response. In fact, Trump did launch that attack over the downing of a single unmanned drone -- and Pompeo and the neocon crew, including Republican Senators, were " stunned " that he called it off in literally the last ten minutes . It's to the eternal shame of what's called the "left" in this country that we may have Tucker Carlson to thank for Trump's bouts of restraint.

There Will Be Blood

But this is going to get worse, Pompeo is now threatening Iran's leaders that "any attacks by them, or their proxies of any identity, that harm Americans, our allies, or our interests will be answered with a decisive U.S. response." Since Iran has ties of some kind with most armed groups in the region and the U.S. decides what "proxy" and "interests" means, that means that any act of resistance to the U.S., Israel, or other "ally" by anybody -- including, for example, the Iraqi PMF forces who are likely to retaliate against the U.S. for killing their leader -- will be an excuse for attacking Iran. Any anything. Call it an omnibus threat.

The groundwork for a final aggressive push against Iran began back in June, 2017, when, under then-Director Pompeo, the CIA set up a stand-alone Iran Mission Center . That Center replaced a group of "Iran specialists who had no special focus on regime change in Iran," because "Trump's people wanted a much more focused and belligerent group." The purpose of this -- as of any -- Mission Center was to "elevate" the country as a target and "bring to bear the range of the agency's capabilities, including covert action" against Iran. This one is especially concerned with Iran's "increased capacity to deliver missile systems" to Hezbollah or the Houthis that could be used against Israel or Saudi Arabia, and Iran's increased strength among the Shia militia forces in Iraq. The Mission Center is headed by Michael D'Andrea, who is perceived as having an "aggressive stance toward Iran." D'Andrea, known as "the undertaker" and " Ayatollah Mike ," is himself a convert to Islam, and notorious for his "central role in the agency's torture and targeted killing programs."

This was followed in December, 2017, by the signing of a pact with Israel "to take on Iran," which took place, according to Israeli television, at a "secret" meeting at the White House. This pact was designed to coordinate "steps on the ground" against "Tehran and its proxies." The biggest threats: "Iran's ballistic missile program and its efforts to build accurate missile systems in Syria and Lebanon," and its activity in Syria and support for Hezbollah. The Israelis considered that these secret "dramatic understandings" would have "far greater impact" on Israel than Trump's more public and notorious recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli's capital.

The Iran Mission Center is a war room. The pact with Israel is a war pact.

The U.S. and Israeli governments are out to "take on" Iran. Their major concerns, repeated everywhere, are Iran's growing military power, which underlies its growing political influence -- specifically its precision ballistic missile and drone capabilities, which it is sharing with its allies throughout the region, and its organization of those armed resistance allies, which is labelled "Iranian aggression."

These developments must be stopped because they provide Iran and other actors the ability to inflict serious damage on Israel. They create the unacceptable situation where Israel cannot attack anything it wants without fear of retaliation. For some time, Israel has been reluctant to take on Hezbollah in Lebanon, having already been driven back by them once because the Israelis couldn't take the casualties in the field. Now Israel has to worry about an even more battle-hardened Hezbollah, other well-trained and supplied armed groups, and those damn precision missiles . One cannot overstress how important those are, and how adamant the U.S. and Israel are that Iran get rid of them. As another Revolutionary Guard commander says : "Iran has encircled Israel from all four sides if only one missile hits the occupied lands, Israeli airports will be filled with people trying to run away from the country."

This campaign is overseen in the U.S. by the likes of " praying for war with Iran " Christian Zionists Mike Pompeo and Mike Pence, who together " urged " Trump to approve the killing of Soleimani. Pence, whom the Democrats are trying to make President, is associated with Christians United For Israel (CUFI), which paid for his and his wife's pilgrimage to Israel in 2014, and is run by lunatic televangelist John Hagee, whom even John McCain couldn't stomach. Pompeo, characterized as the "brainchild" of the assassination, thinks Trump was sent by God to save Israel from Iran. (Patrick Lawrence argues the not-implausible case that Pompeo and Defense Secretary Esper ordered the assassination and stuck Trump with it.) No Zionists are more fanatical than Christian Zionists. These guys are not going to stop.

And Iran is not going to surrender. Iran is no longer afraid of the escalation dominance game. Do not be fooled by peace-loving illusions -- propagated mainly now by mealy-mouthed European and Democratic politicians -- that Iran will return to what's described as "unconditional" negotiations, which really means negotiating under the absolutely unacceptable condition of economic blockade, until the U.S. gets what it wants. Not gonna happen. Iran's absolutely correct condition for any negotiation with the U.S. is that the U.S. return to the JCPOA and lift all sanctions.

Also not gonna happen, though any real peace-loving Democratic candidate would specifically and unequivocally commit to doing just that if elected. The phony peace-loving poodles of Britain, France, and Germany (the EU3) have already cast their lot with the aggressive American policy, triggering a dispute mechanism that will almost certainly result in a " snapback " of full UN sanctions on Iran within 65 days, and destroy the JCPOA once and for all. Because, they, too, know Iran's nuclear weapons program is a fake issue and have "always searched for ways to put more restrictions on Iran, especially on its ballistic missile program." Israel can have all the nuclear weapons it wants, but Iran must give up those conventional ballistic missiles. Cannot overstate their importance.

Iran is not going to submit to any of this. The only way Iran is going to part with its ballistic missiles is by using them. The EU3 maneuver will not only end the JCPOA, it may drive Iran out of the Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As Moon of Alabama says, the EU3 gambit is "not designed to reach an agreement but to lead to a deeper conflict" and ratchet the war up yet another notch. The Trump administration and its European allies are -- as FDR did to Japan -- imposing a complete economic blockade that Iran will have to find a way to break out of. It's deliberately provocative, and makes the outbreak of a regional/world war more likely. Which is its purpose.

This certainly marks the Trump administration as having crossed a war threshold the Obama administration avoided. Credit due to Obama for forging ahead with the JCPOA in the face of fierce resistance from Netanyahu and his Republican and Democratic acolytes, like Chuck Schumer. But that deal itself was built upon false premises and extraordinary conditions and procedures that -- as the current actions of the EU3 demonstrate -- made it a trap for Iran.

With his Iran policy, as with Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, what Trump is doing -- and can easily demonstrate -- is taking to its logical and deadly conclusion the entire imperialist-zionist conception of the Middle East, which all major U.S. politicians and media have embraced and promulgated over decades, and cannot abandon.

With the Soleimani assassination, Trump both allayed some of the fears of Iran war hawks in Israel and the U.S. about his "reluctance to flex U.S. military muscle" and re-stoked all their fears about his impulsiveness, unreliability, ignorance, and crassness. As the the Christian Science Monitor reports, Israel leaders are both "quick to praise" his action and "having a crisis of confidence" over Trump's ability to "manage" a conflict with Iran -- an ambivalence echoed in every U.S. politician's "Soleimani was a terrorist, but " statement.

Trump does exactly what the narrative they all promote demands, but he makes it look and sound all thuggish and scary. They want someone whose rhetorical finesse will talk us into war on Iran as a humanitarian and liberating project. But we should be scared and repelled by it. The problem isn't the discrepancy in Trump between actions and attitudes, but the duplicity in the fundamental imperialist-zionist narrative. There is no "good" -- non-thuggish, non-repellent way -- way to do the catastrophic violence it demands. Too many people discover that only after it's done.

Trump, in other words, has just started a war that the U.S. political elite constantly brought us to the brink of, and some now seem desperate to avoid, under Trump's leadership . But not a one will abandon the zionist and American-exceptionalist premises that make it inevitable -- about, you know, dictating what weapons which countries can "never" have. Hoisted on their own petard. As are we all.

To be clear: Iran will try its best to avoid all-out war. The U.S. will not. This is the war that, as the NYT reports , "Hawks in Israel and America have spent more than a decade agitating for." It will start, upon some pretext, with a full-scale U.S. air attack on Iran, followed by Iranian and allied attacks on U.S. forces and allies in the region, including Israel, and then an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran -- which they think will end it. It is an incomprehensible disaster. And it's becoming almost impossible to avoid.

The best prospect for stopping it would be for Iran and Russia to enter into a mutual defense treaty right now. But that's not going to happen. Neither Russia nor China is going to fight for Iran. Why would they? They will sit back and watch the war destroy Iran, Israel, and the United States.

Happy New Year.

[Jan 25, 2020] It's Time to Get Out of Iraq by Daniel Larison

Jan 24, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
There are massive street demonstrations in Baghdad today calling for the exit of U.S. troops from the country. The demonstrations are in response to call for protests from Muqtada al-Sadr. Estimates of the crowd size vary, but it is a huge turnout of Iraqis that wants us gone:

100's of thousands protest in Baghdad, calling for all US troops to leave Iraq, close all bases & embassies, if they don't they will be considered an occupying force. pic.twitter.com/C3CqBqpxyD

-- Ali Arouzi (@aliarouzi) January 24, 2020

Some more photos of the march by Sadrists today in Baghdad, the turnout is huge by any measure, perhaps the largest in #Baghdad so far, and perhaps the most noticeable aspect is the lack of violence and troubles despite the scale of it #IraqProtests #Iraq #US pic.twitter.com/2xXGk2dSVY

-- Farhad Alaaldin (@farhad965) January 24, 2020

Baghdad today. pic.twitter.com/RlVU5K1RnP

-- мυнαммα∂ αℓ-ωαєℓι 🇮🇶 (@muhammadalwaeli) January 24, 2020

The Trump administration has violated Iraqi sovereignty earlier this month by taking military action inside Iraq against both Iraqis militias and the Iranian government without Baghdad's consent, and their government wants our forces out of the country. Sadr has considerable influence in Iraqi politics, and he has wanted U.S. forces out for a long time. When opponents of our military presence can organize such huge popular demonstrations, it is time for us to go. The U.S. should have withdrawn from Iraq years ago, and it would have been better to leave on our own terms. Now the U.S. cannot stay without provoking armed opposition from Iraqis to our continued presence.

So far the administration position has been to threaten Iraq with punishment for upholding its own sovereignty. That's a disgraceful and imperialist position to take, and it is also an untenable one. There have been enough American wars in Iraq. Trump should yield to the Iraqi government's wishes and bring these troops home before any more Americans are injured or killed as a result of his destructive Iran policy.

Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter . email

ZizaNiam • a day ago

AP tried to downplay the protests, reporting only 'hundreds. There must be close to a million people out there (as reported by the Baghdad Chief of Police) and the fact that Sadr and the other Iraqi Shia militias can organize this massive demonstrations proves that the assassination of Soleimani, the protector of Syria and Iraq's Christians, did absolutely nothing to drive a wedge between the various Iraqi Shia militia groups, the vast majority of which are not Iranian sponsored but true Iraqi national patriots.
Barlaam of Weimerica • a day ago
There is never a bad time to leave a country that we never should have invaded and occupied. Not that I expect wisdom, common sense,or basic morality from a foreign policy establishment that formulated a strategy for the Middle East, saw that it would entail the genocide of Christians, Yezidis, and other minorities, and decided, "That's a price worth paying."

[Jan 24, 2020] It's amazing all the money in the State Department and other intelligence agencies should be attracting the best minds. Yet a bunch of us sitting here watching this from our boring office jobs realize how genuinely stupid US foreign policy has been.

Jan 24, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Danny , Jan 24 2020 15:11 utc | 25

It's amazing all the money in the State Department and other intelligence agencies should be attracting the best minds. Yet a bunch of us sitting here watching this from our boring office jobs realize how genuinely stupid US foreign policy has been.

A separate Sunni state in West Iraq would be doomed. We need to leave these people alone, we've made enough foolish mistakes and this will get a lot of people killed. That's along with US troops being put in harms way for ridiculous reasons like stealing Syrian oil and now occupying Iraq against their parliaments wishes.

Back in the day you told someone you were American and they wanted to shake your hand and ask you about this place or that. Now they want to spit in our faces

[Jan 24, 2020] How Are Iran and the "Axis of the Resistance" Affected by the US Assassination of Soleimani by Elijah J. Magnier

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The US President Donald Trump assassinated the commander of the "Axis of the Resistance", the (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) IRGC – Quds Brigade Major General Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport with little consideration of the consequences of this targeted killing. It is not to be excluded that the US administration considered the assassination would reflect positively on its Middle Eastern policy. Or perhaps the US officials believed the killing of Sardar Soleimani would weaken the "Axis of the Resistance": once deprived of their leader, Iran's partners' capabilities in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen would be reduced. Is this assessment accurate? ..."
Jan 22, 2020 | www.globalresearch.ca

The US President Donald Trump assassinated the commander of the "Axis of the Resistance", the (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) IRGC – Quds Brigade Major General Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport with little consideration of the consequences of this targeted killing. It is not to be excluded that the US administration considered the assassination would reflect positively on its Middle Eastern policy. Or perhaps the US officials believed the killing of Sardar Soleimani would weaken the "Axis of the Resistance": once deprived of their leader, Iran's partners' capabilities in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen would be reduced. Is this assessment accurate?

A high-ranking source within this "Axis of the Resistance" said " Sardar Soleimani was the direct and fast track link between the partners of Iran and the Leader of the Revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei. However, the command on the ground belonged to the national leaders in every single separate country. These leaders have their leadership and practices, but common strategic objectives to fight against the US hegemony, stand up to the oppressors and to resist illegitimate foreign intervention in their affairs. These objectives have been in place for many years and will remain, with or without Sardar Soleimani".

"In Lebanon, Hezbollah's Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah leads Lebanon and is the one with a direct link to the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He supports Gaza, Syria, Iraq and Yemen and has a heavy involvement in these fronts. However, he leads a large number of advisors and officers in charge of running all military, social and relationship affairs domestically and regionally. Many Iranian IRGC officers are also present on many of these fronts to support the needs of the "Axis of the Resistance" members in logistics, training and finance," said the source.

In Syria, IRGC officers coordinate with Russia, the Syrian Army, the Syrian political leadership and all Iran's allies fighting for the liberation of the country and for the defeat of the jihadists who flocked to Syria from all continents via Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. These officers have worked side by side with Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian and other nationals who are part of the "Axis of the Resistance". They have offered the Syrian government the needed support to defeat the "Islamic State" (ISIS/IS/ISIL) and al-Qaeda and other jihadists or those of similar ideologies in most of the country – with the exception of north-east Syria, which is under US occupation forces. These IRGC officers have their objectives and the means to achieve a target already agreed and in place for years. The absence of Sardar Soleimani will hardly affect these forces and their plans.

In Iraq, over 100 Iranian IRGC officers have been operating in the country at the official request of the Iraqi government, to defeat ISIS. They served jointly with the Iraqi forces and were involved in supplying the country with weapons, intelligence and training after the fall of a third of Iraq into the hands of ISIS in mid-2014. It was striking and shocking to see the Iraqi Army, armed and trained by US forces for over ten years, abandoning its positions and fleeing the northern Iraqi cities. Iranian support with its robust ideology (with one of its allies, motivating them to fight ISIS) was efficient in Syria; thus, it was necessary to transmit this to the Iraqis so they could stand, fight, and defeat ISIS.

The Lebanese Hezbollah is present in Syria and Yemen, and also in Iraq. The Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki asked Sayyed Nasrallah to provide his country with officers to stand against ISIS. Dozens of Hezbollah officers operate in Iraq and will be ready to support the Iraqis if the US forces refuse to leave the country. They will abide by and enforce the decision of the Parliament that the US must leave by end January 2021. Hezbollah's long warfare experience has resulted in painful experiences with the US forces in Lebanon and Iraq throughout several decades and has not been forgotten.

Sayyed Nasrallah, in his latest speech, revealed the presence in mid-2014 of Hezbollah officials in Kurdistan to support the Iraqi Kurds against ISIS. This was when the same Kurdish Leader Masoud Barzani announced that it was due to Iran that the Kurds received weapons to defend themselves when the US refused to help Iraq for many months after ISIS expanded its control in northern Iraq.

The Hezbollah leaders did not disclose the continuous visits of Kurdish representatives to Lebanon to meet Hezbollah officials. In fact, Iraqi Sunni and Shia officials, ministers and political leaders regularly visit Lebanon to meet Hezbollah officials and its leader. Hezbollah, like Iran, plays an essential role in easing the dialogue between Iraqis when these find it difficult to overcome their differences together.

The reason why Sayyed Nasrallah revealed the presence of his officers in Kurdistan when meeting Masoud Barzani is a clear message to the world that the "Axis of the Resistance" doesn't depend on one single person. Indeed, Sayyed Nasrallah is showing the unity which reigns among this front, with or without Sardar Soleimani. Barzani is part of Iraq, and Kurdistan expressed its readiness to abide by the decision of the Iraqi Parliament to seek the US forces' departure from the country because the Kurds are not detached from the central government but part of it.

Prior to his assassination, Sardar Soleimani prepared the ground to be followed (if killed on the battlefield, for example) and asked Iranian officials to nominate General Ismail Qaani as his replacement. The Leader of the revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei ordered Soleimani's wish to be fulfilled and to keep the plans and objectives already in place as they were. Sayyed Khamenei, according to the source, ordered an "increase in support for the Palestinians and, in particular, to all allies where US forces are present."

Sardar Soleimani was looking for his death by his enemies and got what he wished for. He was aware that the "Axis of the Resistance" is highly aware of its objectives. Those among the "Axis of the Resistance" who have a robust internal front are well-established and on track. The problem was mainly in Iraq. But it seems the actions of the US have managed to bring Iraqi factions together- by assassinating the two commanders. Sardar Soleimani could have never expected a rapid achievement of this kind. Anti-US Iraqis are preparing this coming Friday to express their rejection of the US forces present in their country.

Sayyed Ali Khamenei , in his Friday prayers last week, the first for eight years, set up a road map for the "Axis of the Resistance": push the US forces out of the Middle East and support Palestine.

All Palestinian groups, including Hamas, were present at Sardar Soleimani's funeral in Iran and met with General Qaani who promised, "not only to continue support but to increase it according to Sayyed Khamenei's request," said the source. Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas Leader, said from Tehran: "Soleimani is the martyr of Jerusalem".

Many Iraqi commanders were present at the meeting with General Qaani. Most of these have a long record of hostility towards US forces in Iraq during the occupation period (2003-2011). Their commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes, was assassinated with Sardar Soleimani and they are seeking revenge. Those leaders have enough motivation to attack the US forces, who have violated the Iraq-US training, cultural and armament agreement. At no time was the US administration given a license to kill in Iraq by the government of Baghdad.

The Iraqi Parliament has spoken: and the assassination of Sardar Soleimani has indeed fallen within the ultimate objectives of the "Axis of the Resistance". The Iraqi caretaker Prime Minister has officially informed all members of the Coalition Forces in Iraq that "their presence, including that of NATO, is now no longer required in Iraq". They have one year to leave. But that absolutely does not exclude the Iraqi need to avenge their commanders.

Palestine constitutes the second objective, as quoted by Sayyed Khamenei. We cannot exclude a considerable boost of support for the Palestinians, much more than the actually existing one. Iran is determined to support the Sunni Palestinians in their objective to have a state of their own in Palestine. The man – Soleimani – is gone and is replaceable like any other man: but the level of commitment to goals has increased. It is hard to imagine the "Axis of the Resistance" remaining idle without engaging themselves somehow in the US Presidential campaign. So, the remainder of 2020 is expected to be hot.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

[Jan 24, 2020] Trump Envoy Issues Death Threat to Soleimani Successor, Head of Iran's Quds Force

Jan 24, 2020 | ronpaulinstitute.org

21st Century Wire Thursday January 23, 2020
undefined

Just when you thought that Washington could not sink any lower in the international diplomacy game, the Trump White House compounds its previous misdeed by issuing a public death threat against the successor of assassinated Quds Force General Qasem Soleimani.

Presidential US Special Envoy to Iran, Brian Hook, gave a statement to the Arabic language newspaper, Asharq al-Awsat , where he warned new General of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Esmail Ghaani, that he will end up like Soleimani should he be accused of killing any Americans, remarking that, "follows the same path of killing Americans then he will meet the same fate."

Soleimani was killed by a US drone strike on January 3 , along with senior Iraqi PMU commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

Hook continued saying,"We will hold the regime and its agents responsible for any attack on Americans or American interests in the region."

Hook also went on to boast that Washington's state-sponsored assassination of Soleimani has made the Middle East a safer place because it has "create a vacuum that the Regime will not be able to fill," inferring that Ghaani will not be able to marshal "Iran's agents in the region".

Hook also repeated the common talking point that Soleimani was the 'world's most dangerous terrorist' – a label which hardly corresponds with facts which clearly demonstrate that the Iranian military leader was leading the fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria.

In the interview, Hook also used the opportunity to reinforce another State Department narrative which still claims that Iran somehow launched the September attack on Saudi Arabia's Aramco oil facilities – even though the likely culprit, Yemen's Houthi rebel forces, had already taken credit for the attack.

Reprinted with permission from 21st Century Wire .

[Jan 24, 2020] Trump adopts Biden's Iraq plan.

Jan 24, 2020 | caucus99percent.com

US seeking to carve out Sunni state as its influence in Iraq wanes

Backed into a corner and influence waning, the United States has in recent weeks been promoting a plan to create an autonomous Sunni region in western Iraq, officials from both countries told Middle East Eye.

The US efforts, the officials say, come in response to Shia Iraqi parties' attempts to expel American troops from their country.

Iraq represents a strategic land bridge between Iran and its allies in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

Establishing a US-controlled Sunni buffer zone in western Iraq would deprive Iran of using land routes into Syria and prevent it from reaching the eastern shores of the Mediterranean.

For Washington, the idea of carving out a Sunni region dates back to a 2007 proposition by Joe Biden, who is now vying to be the Democratic Party's presidential candidate.

Biden's plan was actually an attempt to ethnically cleanse Iraq into three distinct enclaves (because an integrated, multicultural Iraq is anathema to the US colonial divide and conquer strategy).

Across racial and religious boundaries, Iraqi politicians on Saturday bemoaned Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama's choice of running mate, known in Iraq as the author of a 2006 plan to divide the country into ethnic and sectarian enclaves.

"This choice of Biden is disappointing, because he is the creator of the idea of dividing Iraq," Salih al-Mutlaq, head of National Dialogue, one of the main Sunni Arab blocs in parliament, told Reuters.

"We rejected his proposal when he announced it, and we still reject it. Dividing the communities and land in such a way would only lead to new fighting between people over resources and borders. Iraq cannot survive unless it is unified, and dividing it would keep the problems alive for a long time."

For all his brazen denials about his Iraq involvement, one wonders whether, if Joe Biden hadn't been selected Obama's Vice President, he might have eventually been named Iraq Viceroy.

Now Trump is adopting Biden's plan.

Same as it ever was.... up 12 users have voted. --

Tom Steyer is my favorite billionaire. Let's eat him last.

OzoneTom on Fri, 01/24/2020 - 1:51pm

All of Iraq was a Sunni buffer zone before the invasion /nt

@Not Henry Kissinger

From the link in b's post.

US seeking to carve out Sunni state as its influence in Iraq wanes

Backed into a corner and influence waning, the United States has in recent weeks been promoting a plan to create an autonomous Sunni region in western Iraq, officials from both countries told Middle East Eye.

The US efforts, the officials say, come in response to Shia Iraqi parties' attempts to expel American troops from their country.

Iraq represents a strategic land bridge between Iran and its allies in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

Establishing a US-controlled Sunni buffer zone in western Iraq would deprive Iran of using land routes into Syria and prevent it from reaching the eastern shores of the Mediterranean.

For Washington, the idea of carving out a Sunni region dates back to a 2007 proposition by Joe Biden, who is now vying to be the Democratic Party's presidential candidate.

Biden's plan was actually an attempt to ethnically cleanse Iraq into three distinct enclaves (because an integrated, multicultural Iraq is anathema to the US colonial divide and conquer strategy).

Across racial and religious boundaries, Iraqi politicians on Saturday bemoaned Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama's choice of running mate, known in Iraq as the author of a 2006 plan to divide the country into ethnic and sectarian enclaves.

"This choice of Biden is disappointing, because he is the creator of the idea of dividing Iraq," Salih al-Mutlaq, head of National Dialogue, one of the main Sunni Arab blocs in parliament, told Reuters.

"We rejected his proposal when he announced it, and we still reject it. Dividing the communities and land in such a way would only lead to new fighting between people over resources and borders. Iraq cannot survive unless it is unified, and dividing it would keep the problems alive for a long time."

For all his brazen denials about his Iraq involvement, one wonders whether, if Joe Biden hadn't been selected Obama's Vice President, he might have eventually been named Iraq Viceroy.

Now Trump is adopting Biden's plan.

Same as it ever was....

[Jan 24, 2020] Trump doesn't want to be the president that lost Iraq

Jan 24, 2020 | caucus99percent.com

Trump needs to claim victory over ISIS and get the hell out. Those one million peaceful protesters will turn into something really ugly, probably joined by parts or all of the Iraqi military. That will be far worse for him, with scenes of US diplomats being airlifted out of the embassy by helicopter. up 10 users have voted. --

Capitalism has always been the rule by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.

[Jan 24, 2020] Dissociated Press Sees "Hundreds" Where Pictures Show Millions. Iraqis are ready to fight and die to evict the US troups.

Jan 24, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Hoarsewhisperer , Jan 24 2020 13:32 utc | 11

Dissociated Press Sees "Hundreds" Where Pictures Show Millions

mpn , Jan 24 2020 13:44 utc | 15

B - AP isn't the only outlet falsely reporting the protest. Please get screen shots from the other "reports" (like Bloomberg) and add them to this post to document the media manipulation.

Thanks for all your effort.

b , Jan 24 2020 15:32 utc | 29
Cultural competence (not) by the Washington Post

Iraqi demonstrators demand withdrawal of U.S. troops

Around Baghdad's Hurriyah Square, the streets were a sea of black, white and red, as protesters clutched Iraqi flags and wore shrouds around their shoulders to evoke the country's dead.

White shrouds around their shoulders do not "evoke the country's dead" but a a sign of willingness for martyrdom. Those guys ( vid ) are ready to fight and die for their aim.

Laguerre , Jan 24 2020 15:38 utc | 30
It's a Shi'te motif, b, wearing a shroud. Ready for martyrdom, like the Shi'a Imams. They have a big thing about death.
Peter AU1 , Jan 24 2020 15:45 utc | 32
Cultural competence...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-iraq/soleimani-killing-adds-dangerous-new-dimension-to-iraq-unrest-idUSKBN1ZL28K
"It is likely to end up at the gates of the U.S. Embassy, the seat of U.S. power in Iraq..."

A more recent article had the same wording "USembassy, seat of US power in Iraq" but it was changed a few hours ago. The article does however end with this "Outside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, a sign read "Warning. Do not cross this barrier, we will use pre-emptive measures against any attempt to cross"."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-sadr/no-no-america-iraq-protesters-demand-expulsion-of-u-s-troops-idUSKBN1ZN0RI

Virgile , Jan 24 2020 18:28 utc | 51
A separate Sunni state in West Iraq will be an ISIS haven financed by Saudi Arabia, the US and Israel.
Iran will never let this to happen..
Laguerre , Jan 24 2020 18:33 utc | 52
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 24 2020 18:14 utc | 50

Yes, I was thinking about something along those lines, and was about to write a comment. There are conservative tribal leaders, who were at one point relatively favourable to the US, and who might be susceptible to this manoeuvre, and to Saudi persuasion. I was thinking in particular of Abu Risheh. However, unfortunately, their peoples along the Euphrates got flattened by the fighting during the Surge (after the period you're citing), so I don't know how enthusiastic they're going to be. It's a conventional problem, if the US makes a deal with a chief, indeed MbS is an example, they presume that they've got the whole people. They haven't.

psychohistorian , Jan 24 2020 18:55 utc | 53
Below is a BBC link with an embedded Reuters picture that shows not all of Western media is misrepresenting the march in Iraq.

Huge rally as Iraqis demand US troops pull out

div> please, do not try to search for US policy sense in the whole ME. all the moves there are done by the Israel firsters: destroy first then invent "senses". even the first Gulf War was lacking any policy consideration. I hope one day before she dies, to listen to what US Ambassador at that time, April Gillepsie, has to say about "her" entrapment of Saddam Hussein, a sort of McNamara hour of acknowledging.

Posted by: nietzsche1510 , Jan 24 2020 18:59 utc | 54

please, do not try to search for US policy sense in the whole ME. all the moves there are done by the Israel firsters: destroy first then invent "senses". even the first Gulf War was lacking any policy consideration. I hope one day before she dies, to listen to what US Ambassador at that time, April Gillepsie, has to say about "her" entrapment of Saddam Hussein, a sort of McNamara hour of acknowledging.

Posted by: nietzsche1510 | Jan 24 2020 18:59 utc | 54

Likklemore , Jan 24 2020 19:01 utc | 55
in the next 2 years, the U.S. will be leaving Iraq. It will not be safe to keep U.S. personnel on Iraqi soil.


First, it was "No injuries" resulting from Iran's retaliation
Then, it was only 11 "suffering headaches"

Now the Pentagon Says 34 Personnel Diagnosed With Concussions After Iran Strikes on Bases in Iraq


WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - Thirty-four US service members have been diagnosed with concussions and traumatic brain injuries after Iran conducted ballistic missile strikes on two bases in Iraq with half of them still undergoing medical treatment, Department of Defence spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a press briefing on 24 January.

"With regard to the number of recent injuries here is the latest update 34 total members have diagnosed with concussions and TBI [traumatic brain injury]", Hoffman told reporters.

Concussions or Headaches.? When it's serious we have to lie -

Paging Dr. Donald J. Trump

Paging any available Dr. or resident at Mayo Clinic

Laguerre , Jan 24 2020 19:06 utc | 56
I wouldn't deny the US is capable of creating an Iraqi al-Tanf. The US is always capable of air-supporting isolated bases, as long as there is the determination to do so. It's been shown many times, from Vietnam to Afghanistan. More, I don't see. The Sunnis have seen the way the Syrian Kurds were abandoned, so nobody's going to be enthused. And the surge has not been forgotten.
Kooshy , Jan 24 2020 19:15 utc | 57
"The Shi'a can certainly get their people out - which by the way is why they have such effective militias. The Sunnis don't have similarly effective militias (though such would probably also be politically difficult)."

Wondering why ? Because the don't want to live as minorities any more, specially where they are the majority. There is need for a collective security across the Shia community throughout the Western Asia and has nothing to do with US. Because US and UK, historically and continually have supported and inspired Sunni clients against Shia uprisings
For equal rights, US and UK and their clients have become a common threat to Shia resistance. This resistance and sense of common security within Shia communities is so strong and imbedded that killing one leader here one commander there will not change the outcome. As an example Abbas Mussavie was assassinated by IDF in 1992 who replaced him that became more dangerous and kicked Israel out of Lebanon, one Hassan Nassrollah
US will end up leaving like in VM No matter what she does

Peter AU1 , Jan 24 2020 19:18 utc | 58
Laguerre

I was thinking along the lines of Saudi intermediaries doing deals with tribes as Mcgurk pulled off in the Raqqa meeting when he brought in a Saudi intermediary or envoy to do a deal with the tribes of Deir Ezzor. I see the tribe break down into clans, so suppose it would or may be the heads of clans that deals would have to be done with.

What strikes me about this though is that US are looking at retreating into the area ISIS have retreated to and where they arose - the Iraq Syria border regions.

nietzsche1510 , Jan 24 2020 19:19 utc | 59
the battle for the Green Zone will start the liberation of Iraq, that´s why the US embassy there has a lot of rooftops.
Willy2 , Jan 24 2020 15:47 utc | 33

- Muqtada Al Sadr is an iraqi nationalist. As long as he can get help from Iran he will take it. But when that help is no longer needed then he will try to reduce the "influence" of the iranians as much as possible. Prehaps the words "boot them out" is a bit "over the top".
- But the relationship will Always remain friendly. But he is "his own man".
- In this regard this a re-run of what happened in the year 2003 & 2004. Back then the US wanted to pick their own sock puppet but the shiites out-witted the US.

Yonatan , Jan 24 2020 19:32 utc | 61
A photo essay of the Iraqi protests - plenty of images showing the scale and also close up images.

https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/https/colonelcassad.livejournal.com/5590284.html

jayc , Jan 24 2020 19:33 utc | 62

Interesting that the number of US troops suffering concussive injuries from the Iran retaliatory strikes has been quietly reassessed to 44 persons. That seems significant in light of the extensive threats beforehand that any injury to a US person would ignite thunderous reprisal. It seems, then, the Americans have no plan, the Soleimaini hit was not thought through, and they are not in any way prepared for a necessary readjustment of their position in the region. Trump at Davos dismissed the protests and again threatened sanctions on Iraq - the fulcrum of US power has now visibly shifted from the military to the dominance of the reserve currency in the form of economic reprisals (sanctions). Reduced to imposing or threatening economic blockades on adversary populations is not a winning long-term strategy.

Sasha , Jan 24 2020 19:36 utc | 63

It is not only the MSM coordinated blackout on the important events developing in Iraq, notice also the scarce half hundred comments here in this thread on the same events by the usual and otherwise prolific regulars, who preferred to comment on so used Boeing or whatever old topic instead...

Meanwhile, those of us who wished to comment got banned, as they seemed to be some other who wanted to comment by other media, like Pepe Escobar in Facebook...

Elijah Magnier says,

Someone should write an article on how Main Stream Media and most reputable agencies either ignored what happened in #Baghdad #Iraq today or deliberately downplayed it because it calls for the #US to leave.

News is strikingly manipulated s since the war in #Syria 2011.

https://twitter.com/ejmalrai/status/1220758301266321408

[Jan 24, 2020] Apparently this is the new US policy in Iraq: US seeking to carve out Sunni state as its influence in Iraq wanes

Jan 24, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Laguerre , Jan 24 2020 11:44 utc | 1

This seems more relevant here than on the open thread:

Apparently this is the new US policy in Iraq.

US seeking to carve out Sunni state as its influence in Iraq wanes

Incredible, isn't it? A policy of parcellisation which has already failed twice, in Iraq and then again in Syria. And now Trump is going to do it again, according to reports which could well be right. They're sufficiently stupid. They're actually expecting the poor suffering Fallujans, who suffered through more than a month of being tortured by US troops, are going to stand up and fight for the US.

It's a complete misappreciation of the situation, not unusual in the US. It is of course true that the Sunnis suffer from the unthinking policies of the Shi'a, and are treated like an occupied country. But that doesn't mean that the Sunnis think they can stand up an independent state. They don't, particularly if the US only stations a handful of troops there.

The US could of course militarily occupy the area, but that's not Trump's plan, as it would be too politically intrusive back home.

By the way I hear we're about to receive Trump's overall peace plan for the Middle East. Given that the first rollouts fell totally flat, I wouldn't be too optimistic about its new reception in the Middle East.

Willy2 , Jan 24 2020 12:03 utc | 4

- Carving out a state in North-Western Iraq is part of "The Biden plan" of 2006 (/2007 ?). The Biden plan was to divide Iraq into 3 parts: Kurdistan, "Sumnnistan" and "Shia-stan".
- Was this the reason why the US "created" ISIS (in 2014) ??
Laguerre , Jan 24 2020 12:28 utc | 5
The Shi'a can certainly get their people out - which by the way is why they have such effective militias. The Sunnis don't have similarly effective militias (though such would probably also be politically difficult).

The US certainly doesn't have much idea how to tackle such a movement. The renewal of the plan for parcellisation just shows up the bankruptcy of US policy, nothing spoke to me so strongly of the failure of US thinking. For all the number of Washington think-tanks concentrating on the ME, they can't come up with workable ideas.

Laguerre , Jan 24 2020 12:56 utc | 7
Posted by: Ernesto Che | Jan 24 2020 12:32 utc | 6

Al-Sadr is indeed an Iraqi nationalist, and not particularly pro-Iranian, others are more. He more profited from Iran's safe haven, than became pro-Iranian.

On the other hand, he's unlikely to become Prime Minister, as too extreme. The US, if it gets a say in the choice of the next PM, will veto. And he's a sort who is in permanent opposition to everything, rather than in government, much like Corbyn in Britain.

somebody , Jan 24 2020 13:17 utc | 9
Posted by: Laguerre | Jan 24 2020 11:44 utc | 1

Surely, this has become obsolete with Saudi needing an agreement with Iran?

I just checked. On January 22 this happened in Yemen :

On January 18, Houthi rebels targeted the al Estiqbal military training camp, used by the Saudi-led coalition and forces loyal to Yemen's UN-recognised government. The strikes resulted in at least 116 deaths and dozens (if not hundreds) of injuries. Those struck had reportedly just finished praying at the base's mosque. According to Saudi media, the Houthis used a combination of ballistic missiles and drones.
Sasha , Jan 24 2020 13:23 utc | 10
The fake media are trying to trasvesticize these protests as antigovernment protests in the eyes of the Waestern and American population, fortunately, the images are worth thousands words:

https://twitter.com/passenger_to/status/1220620900166520833

Love these arabs´humor when they protest...

bevin , Jan 24 2020 13:48 utc | 16
During the first of the various criminal attacks on Fallujah, Sadr famously promised to deploy the Mahdi Army there to defend the largely sunni community.
The US fears nothing more than nationalism in the middle east- all its policies are aimed at atomising communities and fostering sectarian division. It is a tactic that has worked well in the United States for centuries- preserving the absolute power of the capitalist oligarchy by setting black against white, catholic against protestant, settler against indigenous, migrant against native.
It is difficult to conceive of a more evil policy than that of encouraging shi'ites to bully sunnis and vice versa, while dissecting society into shreds of ethnic and sectarian entities , which are then armed and trained to fight and kill one another.
This was the basis of the surge under Petraus. Of course the British had established the practice themselves. Among other things they employed christian Assyrians as police.
bevin , Jan 24 2020 13:52 utc | 17
An interesting view.
https://journal-neo.org/2020/01/24/is-iraq-between-the-hammer-and-the-anvil/
Sasha , Jan 24 2020 14:16 utc | 18
Al Mayadeen is reporting testimonies from all confesional sides on that this is an united clamor coming from the whole Iraqi society, who sees a clear link between occupation and corruption, in spite of their internal political differences, seeing no future while the US remains in the country corrupting and compromising Iraqi reconstruction and progress.

They are saying that the numbers seen demonstrating today in Iraq, in the anniversary of the other historical 1920 anticolonial demonstration, equates a popular referendum on the US illegal and forced presence in the country.

The representatives of the protesters are stating that there are being stablished diplomatic means for the US to go out, but, in case it refuses doing it by these means, the resistance will come into action. Thus a way of no return for the US is being delineated here...

Crowd demonstration against US military presence in Iraq


CarlD , Jan 24 2020 14:22 utc | 19
Slightly? off subject

Since the assassination drones cannot fly all the way from US territory to their intended targets,
any country that harbors the drones is actually complicit to the crimes of the US of A.

They must be made to understand that these assassinations will cost them eventually as accessories
to these crimes.

BM , Jan 24 2020 14:27 utc | 20
Possibly the most potent leverage Iraq can have on the US is for the Iraqi parliament to decree that all legal previously agreed immunity for US military guilty of crimes in Iraq is null and void. All US war criminals immediately liable to be tried in Iraq under Iraq law, unless the US commit to a prompt and orderly withdrawal. Right to prosecute still reserved in case of US non-compliance with any such commitment.

Whether or to what extent this could be made retrospective to the beginning of the current agreement (on the grounds that the agreement has been violated) I don't know. Maybe it might be possible to apply retrospectively at least to the first verifiable breech of the agreement by the US, I have no idea. Or maybe the agreement can only be deemed void with effect from a statement by the parliament, I have no idea. In any case, the US is now there illegally: any US soldier can legally be arrested and imprisoned at any time; and any US soldier from now on killing or injuring any person in Iraq is automatically a war criminal.

If it can so some extent legally be made retrospective, the US would automatically face a terrifying situation.

(Any prisons containing US prisoners in Iraq need full military protection though - I recall previously the US destroyed a prison with a tank where some soldiers were arrested).

Sasha , Jan 24 2020 14:28 utc | 21
@Posted by: Sasha | Jan 24 2020 14:16 utc | 18

The link from Al Mayadeen includes live stream with commentary in Arabic of the crowds gathering who seem in the sizes of Arbaeen pilgrimage...or more.....since multiconfessional...

Sasha , Jan 24 2020 14:37 utc | 22
Lesson to be learnt...on the future of the destroyers...
(CARTOON) The "Pax americana", in an image

"They made a desert and called it peace"
Tacit, in reference to "Pax Romana" after the destruction of Carthage.

https://twitter.com/Amor_y_Rabia/status/1219921555775467520

[Jan 24, 2020] This shows how the steady stream of propaganda impacts.....

Jan 24, 2020 | caucus99percent.com

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/479795-poll-41-approve-of-trump-airst...

A new poll shows a plurality of Americans approve of President Trump's decision to order the drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Forty-one percent of Americans agreed with the decision, according to the Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released Friday. Thirty percent disapproved and the remaining 30 percent were indifferent.

On Jan. 3 the U.S. killed Soleimani at the Baghdad airport. The move raised tensions in the Middle East and fears of a new war. Iran launched rocket attacks on two bases with U.S. personnel in Iraq days later.

[Jan 24, 2020] Lawrence Wilkerson Lambasts 'the Beast of the National Security State' by Adam Dick

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Wilkerson provided a harsh critique of US foreign policy over the last two decades. Wilkerson states: ..."
"... America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is. ..."
"... We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as [US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] is doing right now, as [President Donald Trump] is doing right now, as [Secretary of Defense Mark Esper] is doing right now, as [Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)] is doing right now, as [Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)] is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party -- the Republicans -- are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it, and that's the agony of it. ..."
"... That base voted for Donald Trump because he promised to end these endless wars, he promised to drain the swamp. Well, as I said, an alligator from that swamp jumped out and bit him. And, when he ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, he was a member of the national security state in good standing, and all that state knows how to do is make war. ..."
Jan 13, 2020 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Lawrence Wilkerson, a College of William & Mary professor who was chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powel in the George W. Bush administration, powerfully summed up the vile nature of the US national security state in a recent interview with host Amy Goodman at Democracy Now.

Asked by Goodman about the escalation of US conflict with Iran and how it compares with the prior run-up to the Iraq War, Wilkerson provided a harsh critique of US foreign policy over the last two decades. Wilkerson states:

Ever since 9/11, the beast of the national security state, the beast of endless wars, the beast of the alligator that came out of the swamp, for example, and bit Donald Trump just a few days ago, is alive and well.

America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is.

We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as [US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] is doing right now, as [President Donald Trump] is doing right now, as [Secretary of Defense Mark Esper] is doing right now, as [Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)] is doing right now, as [Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)] is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party -- the Republicans -- are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it, and that's the agony of it.

What we saw President Trump do was not in President Trump's character, really. Those boys and girls who were getting on those planes at Fort Bragg to augment forces in Iraq, if you looked at their faces, and, even more importantly, if you looked at the faces of the families assembled along the line that they were traversing to get onto the airplanes, you saw a lot of Donald Trump's base. That base voted for Donald Trump because he promised to end these endless wars, he promised to drain the swamp. Well, as I said, an alligator from that swamp jumped out and bit him. And, when he ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, he was a member of the national security state in good standing, and all that state knows how to do is make war.

Wilkerson, over the remainder of the two-part interview provides many more insightful comments regarding US foreign policy, including recent developments concerning Iran. Watch Wilkerson's interview here:

Wilkerson is an Academic Board member for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Copyright © 2020 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute Related

[Jan 23, 2020] Incredible level of naivety of people who still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?

Elections now serve mainly the legitimizing of the deep state rule function; election of a partuclar induvudual can change little, althouth there is some space of change due to the power of executive branch.
Jan 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Trailer Trash , Jan 23 2020 18:30 utc | 44

For example, Trump managed to speed up the process od destruction of the USA-centered neoliberal empire considerably. Especially by lauching the trade war with China. He also managed to discredit the USA foreign policy as no other president before him. Even Bush II.

>This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
> Posted by: Circe | Jan 23 2020 17:46 utc | 36

Hmmm, I've been hearing the same siren song every four years for the past fifty. How is it that people still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?

Bureaucracies are reactionary and conservative by nature, so any new and more repressive policy Trumpy wants is readily adapted, as shown by the continuing barbarity of ICE and the growth of prisons and refugee concentration camps. Policies that go against the grain are easily shrugged off and ignored using time-tested passive-aggressive tactics.

One of Trump's insurmountable problems is that he has no loyal organization behind him whose members he can appoint throughout the massive Federal bureaucracy. Any Dummycrat whose name is not "Biden" has the same problem. Without a real mass-movement political party to pressure reluctant bureaucrats, no politician of any name or stripe will ever substantially change the direction of US policy.

But the last thing Dummycrats want is a real mass movement, because they might not be able to control it. Instead Uncle Sam will keep heading towards the cliff, which may be coming into view...

[Jan 23, 2020] In a day like yesterday....US merits to remain in Iraq getting 50% oil revenues while contributing zero to rebuilt the country they previosuly destroyed and funding and spreading chaos, unrest and terrorism...

Jan 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sasha , Jan 23 2020 23:09 utc | 116

In a day like yesterday....US merits to remain in Iraq getting 50% oil revenues while contributing zero to rebuilt the country they previosuly destroyed and funding and spreading chaos, unrest and terrorism...
On this day in 1991, the US bombed an infant formula production plant in Iraq as part of Operation Desert Storm. The US lied, calling it a biological weapons facility, but in actuality, "it was the only source of infant formula food for children one year and younger in Iraq."

https://twitter.com/Americas_Crimes/status/1219824455712694272


Lurker in the Dark , Jan 23 2020 23:29 utc | 119

This is already a hot war the US is prosecuting against Iran.

[Jan 23, 2020] If the U.S. can do it or rather, have been assassinating other countries Officials, so can others and eventually, they will retaliate.

Jan 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Beibdnn , Jan 23 2020 15:44 utc | 5

@Likklemore No 1.

If the U.S. can do it or rather, have been assassinating other countries Officials, so can others and eventually, they will retaliate. No U.S. official will be safe, even in the mainland U.S. An old saying applies here. You sew the wind and reap the whirlwind.
The world is rapidly tiring of the classless thuggery of the U.S.A.

xLemming , Jan 23 2020 16:25 utc | 15

Posted by: Beibdnn | Jan 23 2020 15:44 utc | 5

Excellent point... and furthermore, if Russia & others are capable of clandestine hits (as per the accusations against them, i.e. Skripal, MH17, Litvinenko) then why on earth would US invite such operations against themselves?

I'm sure if they (Russia/Iran/others) really wanted to, unfortunate mishaps, like traceless, self-inflected, nail-gun accidents are easily possible

Just when you think ZATO couldn't get any stupider...

[Jan 23, 2020] The Iraqi Shia, 66% of the 40 million Iraqi population, are expressing their hatred towards US forces in particular and all foreign forces in general.

Jan 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Bruce , Jan 23 2020 18:02 utc | 38

"The Iraqi Shia, 66% of the 40 million Iraqi population, are expressing their hatred towards US forces in particular and all foreign forces in general. Iraq would like to see these forces depart for good, putting an end to US influence in Mesopotamia and West Asia. A massive protest has been organised for this Friday 24th January, led by Sayyed Moqtada al-Sadr, who is warning the US of the consequences of ignoring this Parliamentary decision. It is expected to be the most massive protest in the history of Iraq. But this protest is only the beginning."
https://ejmagnier.com/2020/01/22/immediate-us-withdrawal-due-to-its-violation-of-the-agreement-and-iraq-sovereignty/

Likklemore , Jan 23 2020 15:29 utc | 1

The murder of Soleimani was not a one-off: it will be the policy to take out leaders and US vassals dare not speak up: Murder and Sanctions (aka "Financial Warfare" ) is what they do.


US Warns New Quds Force Commander Could 'Meet Same Fate' as Slain Predecessor.

[.]

The US will assassinate Quds Force Commander Brig. Gen. Esmail Ghaani if he targets Americans, US special representative for Iran Brian Hook has warned.

"If Ghaani follows the same path of killing Americans then he will meet the same fate," Hook said, speaking to Asharq al-Awsat, a London-based Arabic newspaper, in an interview published Thursday.

According to the US diplomat, President Trump has made it very "clear that any attack on Americans or American interests will be met with a decisive response, which the president demonstrated on January 2".

Hook also said he believed that "the Iranian regime" now "understands that they cannot attack America and get away with it".

Yes and soon.

Europe needs new instruments to be able to defend itself from licentious extraterritorial sanctions.

The World Looks to Abandon the Dollar as US Sanctions Tighten Their Grip

Jackrabbit , Jan 23 2020 18:36 utc | 46

Likklemore @1

Red line / Green light

USA has just but a bulls-eye on every American in Iraq and Syria.

Every anti-Iranian ideologue (starting with Netanyahu) will now start planning false-flag attacks.

Just another dog whistle like Obama's "red-line" farce.

PS Did any media confirm the death of the US translator that caused USA to bomb the Iraqi PMU? His name wasn't even released for a couple of week AFTER he was killed and AFAIK no one really knows who killed him.

<> <> <> <> <> <>

Probably little happens until UN sanctions "snap-back". That will light the fuse and the fireworks start a number of weeks later but certainly before July (somebody wrote about Russia's being able to sell arms to Iran on the 5th-year anniversary of the JCPOA on July 14th).

Sadly, the false-flag needed to energize the masses with "war fever" (like after 9-11) is likely to require that many Americans are killed. And possibly not just military but civilians.

Aside: The cover of the 2015 Economist comes to mind. Two arrows on the lower right contain the numbers "11.5" and "11.3". The sand behind the arrows might represent the middle east. Do the two arrows represent a date range (European-like dates) of March 11th to May 11th? FYI: Persian New Year is March 21st, UN sanctions are likely to "snap-back" by mid-March.

The eleventh of the month has gained significance due to 9-11 and 7-11 (in England). Thus, 3-11, 4-11, and 5-11 would have symbolic value as for a "terrorist" incident.

How could the Economist have predicted such a date range? I've said many times that I thought that the JCPOA was a delaying tactic that was needed simply because Syrian regime change was taking longer than expected. From such a point of view, it's reasonable to assume that steps are taken to end the agreement and/or prompt strikes (symbolized by the arrows on the Economist's cover) prior to the end of the agreement or important anniversary milestones (like Ruissia's being able to sell arms after 5 years).

While some might say that such musings are irrational "conspiracy theory", I bring it up because neocons and other bad actors engage in long-term planning to achieve their goals. We are not suppose to notice such planning and then when things happen (like 9-11 and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis) it is quickly claimed that "no one could've foreseen" such things - which becomes an excuse for the bad actors to go unpunished.

!!

Jackrabbit , Jan 23 2020 18:36 utc | 46

3.11.2004 Madrid Atocha train station attacks happened...allegedly AQ autorship...

1.7.2015 Charlie Hebdo attack...IS/AQ autorship...allegedly...

1.7.2020 Soleimani´s muder...US autorship....confirmed....

Already exposed that IS/AQ is a byproduct of US

@

[Jan 23, 2020] The USA threatens with more extrajudicial killing of Iran officials

Jan 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Likklemore , Jan 23 2020 15:29 utc | 1

The murder of Soleimani was not a one-off: it will be the policy to take out leaders and US vassals dare not speak up: Murder and Sanctions (aka "Financial Warfare" ) is what they do.


US Warns New Quds Force Commander Could 'Meet Same Fate' as Slain Predecessor.

[.]

The US will assassinate Quds Force Commander Brig. Gen. Esmail Ghaani if he targets Americans, US special representative for Iran Brian Hook has warned.

"If Ghaani follows the same path of killing Americans then he will meet the same fate," Hook said, speaking to Asharq al-Awsat, a London-based Arabic newspaper, in an interview published Thursday.

According to the US diplomat, President Trump has made it very "clear that any attack on Americans or American interests will be met with a decisive response, which the president demonstrated on January 2".

Hook also said he believed that "the Iranian regime" now "understands that they cannot attack America and get away with it".

Yes and soon.

Europe needs new instruments to be able to defend itself from licentious extraterritorial sanctions.

The World Looks to Abandon the Dollar as US Sanctions Tighten Their Grip

[Jan 23, 2020] Trump's Katyusha Conundrum

Jan 23, 2020 | original.antiwar.com

by William Walter Kay Posted on January 23, 2020 January 22, 2020 Katyushas are short-range, unguided artillery rockets typically fired in salvos from truck-mounted launch-tubes. Iraq's insurgents deploy three types.

The smallest is 107 millimeters in diameter and 1 meter long. Its 19 kilogram weight includes an 8 kg high-explosive, shrapnel-bearing warhead. The 107mm is often fired from a 12-tube launcher, however, infantry-portable single-tube tripods are common. An experienced crew with a standardized weapon can hit a 400 X 400 meter target from 8 kilometers away. During the Vietnam War the US Army considered the 107mm to be their adversaries' most formidable weapon.

The 122mm 'Grad' Katyusha is 3 meters long and weighs 75 kg. Its warhead spans a third of its length and weighs 18 kg. It has a 20-kilometer range and a 30-meter lethal radius.

220mm Katyushas hurl 100 kg warheads 30 kilometers.

Katyushas have advantages over mortars. They deliver the same payload twice the distance and they fire multiple ordnance more rapidly. The globally ubiquitous BM-21 Grad fires forty 122mm rockets in three minutes. Reloading takes 10 minutes. Thus, Katyushas excel at "shoot-and-scoot" operations. As well, Katyushas' flat trajectories permit line-of-sight attacks and their 700 meter-per-second velocities provide unique anti-building potential.

After helping suppress the ISIS-led insurgency (2014-17) US forces defaulted to their previous occupation plan. Central to this program are segregated compounds situated inside Iraqi Armed Forces bases. These installations, always near airstrips, contain mere hundreds (not thousands) of US and Coalition troops who ride herd over the Iraqi Army whilst grooming and directing Iraq's 15,000-strong Special Forces.

Embassies and consulates are integral to the occupation. The sprawling US Embassy compound dominates Baghdad's fortified "Green Zone" which also houses Coalition partners' embassies, and the headquarters of the many NGOs insinuated throughout Iraqi society.

The occupation facilitates local activities of American and European businesses. These require office blocks, oil-field infrastructure; and, gated communities for imported talent.

Pre-2011 Americans relied on bases containing thousands of troops. These were remotely located and allocated substantial resources to thwart indirect (mortar and rocket) attacks through: counter-artillery, drone surveillance, and fighting patrols. Despite this, indirect fire inflicted 3,000 casualties (including 211 fatalities) on American forces; many occurring inside 'secure' bases.

The US-led Coalition's current archipelago of military, diplomatic, intelligence, business and NGO installations are ill-equipped to defend themselves against indirect fire. Proximity to cities makes them sitting ducks.

In September 2018 persons unknown began targeting US installations with Katyushas. This list chronicles these attacks. * (A dozen mortar attacks are not listed; Katyushas being the weapon of choice.)

  1. September 8, 2018 – four rockets (three 107mms and one 122mm) fall near the Green Zone.
  2. September 8, 2018 – two salvos of 107mms land near the US Consulate beside Basra Airport.
  3. September 28, 2018 – three 107mms are fired at the Basra Consulate; two land on site.
  4. December 27, 2018 – two 107mms are fired at Al-Asad Airbase (160 kilometers west of Baghdad) during Trump's visit.
  5. February 2, 2019 – an attack on Al-Asad Airbase is aborted. Three ready-to-launch 122mms are captured.
  6. February 12, 2019 – three 107mms hit Q-West Airfield (an off-the-books base south of Mosul).
  7. May 1, 2019 – two 107mms hit Camp Al-Taji: a 'training' institute, 40 kilometers north of Baghdad.
  8. May 19, 2019 – two rockets land near the US Embassy.
  9. June 10, 2019 – rocket attack on Camp Al-Taji.
  10. June 12, 2019 – rocket attack on a "northern air base" starts a fire.
  11. June 13, 2019 – rocket attack on Nineveh Command Headquarters (Mosul Presidential Palace).
  12. June 14, 2019 – a rocket lands near the US Embassy.
  13. June 17, 2019 – three rockets hit Camp Al-Taji.
  14. June 18, 2019 – Nineveh HQ is attacked by two 122mms; one hits, one misses.
  15. June 19, 2019 – rockets strike a gated community outside Basra (home to Exxon staff).
  16. September 23, 2019 – two rockets hit the Green Zone; one lands near the US Embassy.
  17. October 30, 2019 – two rockets hit the Green Zone, killing an Iraqi soldier.
  18. November 8, 2019 – seventeen rockets target Q-West Airfield.
  19. November 17, 2019 – rockets hit the Green Zone.
  20. November 29, 2019 – a rocket hits the Green Zone.
  21. December 3, 2019 – Al-Asad Airbase is "rocked" by five 122mms.
  22. December 5, 2019 – five 107mms hit Balad Airbase (80 kilometers north of Baghdad).
  23. December 6, 2019 – a 240mm rocket lands near Baghdad Airport (then housing a US base).
  24. December 9, 2019 – four 240mms strike Baghdad Airport killing 2, and wounding 5, Iraqi soldiers.
  25. December 11, 2019 – two 240mms land outside Baghdad Airport.
  26. December 27, 2019 – thirty-six 107mms hammer K1 Base (15 kilometers northwest of Kirkuk); killing an American translator and wounding several US troops.
  27. December 29, 2019 – four rockets hit Camp Al-Taji.
  28. December 29, 2019 – five rockets hit Al-Asad Airbase.
  29. January 4, 2020 – two rockets hit Balad Airbase.
  30. January 4, 2020 – several rockets hit the Green Zone. One lands near the US Embassy; another closes a major street.
  31. January 5, 2020 – six rockets are fired at the Green Zone; three hit the target.
  32. January 8, 2020 – two rockets hit the Green Zone.
  33. January 12, 2020 – eight rockets hit Balad Airbase, wounding several Iraqi soldiers.
  34. January 14, 2020 – a five-rocket attack on Camp Al-Taji.
  35. January 20, 2020 – three rockets hit Green Zone. They were fired from Al Zafraniya (15 kilometers away).

Attacks are becoming more frequent and are trending toward bigger rockets and higher volume salvos.

The insurgents' strategy is working. Katyusha attacks shuttered the US Basra Consulate in September 2018. Attacks in May and June 2019 forced Exxon to evacuate much of its foreign staff. Throughout 2019 the US State Department extracted personnel and the Defense Department consolidated bases into more secure facilities. By late 2019 US authorities were begging Iraqis for help whilst threatening retaliation.

The last straw came December 27 when the barrage onto K1 Base killed an American translator. The US responded with airstrikes on five Kata'ib Hezbollah bases (90 casualties) and with the January 3 assassination of Iranian General Soleimani. (The decision to assassinate Soleimani – in the event of an American fatality – was made June 24, 2019 following a week of near daily Katyusha attacks.)

While Iran and Iran's Iraqi allies are blamed for these attacks; this is dubious. Reportage following attacks invariably drops the phrase " no one claimed responsibility " – which is notable because perpetrators often boast of such achievements. Ten years ago, when Kata'ib Hezbollah targeted US facilities with "lob bombs" (improvised rockets), they posted videos of their handiwork. They deny involvement in these recent attacks as do other Iranian-linked militias.

The reportage often describes the attacks as " mysterious " or as a " whodunit. " Authors relay US intelligence theories of Iranian involvement without evidence.

On several occasions insurgents abandoned launchers and/or launch vehicles after the attack, often with fail-to-launch rockets inside. Investigators also possess fragments of successfully fired rockets. Tellingly, US officials, renowned for straining at gnats for evidence of Iranian complicity, do not utilize this material to incriminate Tehran.

The launchers themselves are obviously manufactured by local artisans. Moreover, an article from Kurdistan – 24 describes the rockets as " locally made ." Even globalist-militarist instrumentalities like the Washington Institute, Long War Journal, and Center for Strategic and International Studies concede some Katyushas are manufactured in Iraq.

Iraq has a burgeoning steel industry and, due to the calamities of the past 20 years, an enormous scrap metal industry. Katyushas' cardinal virtue is their simplicity.

Circa 2014 twelve countries hosted non-state armed groups that deployed Katyushas. (Post-2014 Yemen's Houthis joined this list, then outdid the pack in innovation and output.)

During the 2003-11 era Iraqi insurgents looted Katyushas from local arsenals. Other Katyushas came from Iran (officially or via the black market) and possibly from any of 32 other countries manufacturing them. Experts bemoan the difficulty of determining a rocket's origin.

Circa 2008 Iraqi artisans manufactured a variety of launchers. A 2009 raid in Maysan Governorate discovered 107mm, 122mm and 220mm rail launchers; and 1,700 carjacks. (Jacks were affixed to the bottoms of stationary tripods to permit changes in launch angle.) Insurgents developed creative mobile launch platforms i.e. inside ice cream trucks or towed behind motorcycles etc. They debuted remote control triggers and GPS reconnaissance.

Circa 2011 poor quality of locally acquired rockets compelled insurgents to continue to rely on imports. The insurgents were, however, manufacturing "lob bomb" rockets and anti-armor mines; although Iran stood accused of being their sole supplier.

Post-2011 insurgents honed their craft. Remember: Hamas, operating inside Gaza with a tiny fraction of the resources of Iraq's insurgents, manufactures crude Katyushas.

Prime suspects in the Katyusha campaign are not pro-Iranian militias; but rather the milieu around Mahdi Army successor, the Promise Day Brigades (PDB). This political tendency, nominally led by Moqtada al-Sadr, is concentrated in Iraq's densely populated central and southern regions, but boasts a militant contingent in Mosul. This milieu overlaps the Saairun Alliance which includes Iraq's far left; who carry their own legacy of armed struggle.

The insurgency's Von Braun might be Jawad al-Tulaybani. An Iran-Iraq War veteran, al-Tulaybani possesses 40 years of combat rocketry experience. A war wound left him partially disabled. He appeared on US radar in 2008 after masterminding a barrage that wounded 15 US soldiers.

The org-chart of the Saairun/PDB/al-Sadr movement remains obscured. Notably, on January 8, 2020 al-Sadr counseled refrain from military actions. Four Katyusha attacks happened since.

What is clear is that this general political tendency is not particularly beholden to Iran. They appear nonsectarian, if not secularist, and they advance a left-nationalist agenda. Prior to the 2018 election (wherein Saairun emerged as the most popular bloc) Iran's Foreign Minister warned Iran would never tolerate an Iraq run by " liberals and communists " – meaning Saairun.

Then again, Trump's thrill kill of Soleimani (and Iraq's Popular Mobilization Units' Deputy Commander) completely reshuffled the deck, creating unprecedented unity amongst hitherto rivals.

As Katyushas veto pacification efforts, US forces return to square one. They must retreat to sprawling, remotely situated camps equipped to suppress indirect fire. This, however, means surrendering Iraq's political theater to adversaries who will marshal Iraqi Government resources against them.

Katyushas are driving the Trump Administration's Iraq policy. Prisoners of groupthink they react by doubling-down on the Big Lie that Iraq's national liberation movement consists only of "Iranian terrorists." In reality, their most effective opponents are as indigenous and legitimate as the French Resistance.

*Note on Sources

Data came from scanning 1,000 articles then parsing several dozen of them. Preference went to state media: i.e. Voice of America, Al Jazeera, Xinhua et al; although Military Times and Kurdistan-24 proved germane. Rogue Rocketeers: Artillery Rockets and Armed Groups (Small Arms Survey, Geneva Switzerland, 2014) is a must-read. Data on the first 7 Katyusha attacks was lifted without corroboration from Michael Knights' Responding to Iranian Harassment of U.S. Facilities in Iraq (Washington Institute, May 21, 2019). As Knights is the only analyst to grasp the seriousness of the Katyusha attacks. His reports are a trove. Being intimately connected to US and Israeli intelligence, he slavishly relays the anti-Iran party line.

Major attacks generate scores of reports. Lesser attacks are mentioned only in passing. Some articles tally the attacks but the numbers do not jibe. Certain attacks go unreported. Probably, 50+ mortar and Katyusha attacks hit US facilities between September 8, 2018 and January 14, 2020.

William Walter Kay is a researcher and writer from Canada. His most recent book is From Malthus to Mifepristone: A Primer on the Population Control Movement.

[Jan 23, 2020] Iraq's paramilitary force Hashd Shaabi said on Thursday that it opened fire at an unidentified drone flying over its bases near the border with Syria in the western province of Anbar

Jan 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Qparticle , Jan 24 2020 0:32 utc | 133

Xinhua repoted:

BAGHDAD, Jan. 23 (Xinhua) -- Iraq's paramilitary force Hashd Shaabi said on Thursday that it opened fire at an unidentified drone flying over its bases near the border with Syria in the western province of Anbar.

On Dec. 29, the Hashd Shaabi's 45th and 46th brigades belonging to Kata'ib Hezbollah in Iraq were attacked by U.S. airstrikes, leaving more than 25 Hashd Shaabi members killed and 51 others injured.

... ... ...

[Jan 23, 2020] Who Created the Persian Gulf Tinderbox

Jan 23, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org

Joe Biden's statement that "President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox" by assassinating Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani was not inaccurate. But it skirts an all-important question: who created the tinderbox in the first place?

The answer, of course, is the United States.

In the long history of imperial folly and recklessness, nothing compares to U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf. Yes, the British shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan in 1838, and, yes, JFK shouldn't have backed the overthrow of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in November 1963. If they had thought things through more carefully, one wouldn't have lost an entire army in the retreat from Kabul while the other wouldn't have stumbled into a dozen-year-long quagmire that would leave the U.S. military depleted and demoralized – not to mention killing more than a million or more Vietnamese.

But those were momentary miscalculations compared to the slow-motion disaster in the gulf. For nearly half a century, every U.S. president – liberal, conservative, or whatever – has pumped up a regional arms race that has set the stage for ever more destructive wars. The death and destruction have been incalculable. Yet not once throughout the long sorry saga have Americans paused for even a moment to consider where it was all going.

The process began in 1973 when Arab oil exporters quadrupled prices after Richard Nixon provided Israel with $2.2 billion in emergency aid in the midst of the nineteen-day Yom Kippur War. America considered seizing Saudi oil fields in retaliation. But once passions cooled, it opted for a pragmatic policy of mutual accommodation in which Arab oil producers and western consumers would accept Israeli victory and higher energy prices alike as faits accomplis and forge a workable settlement out of the rubble.

The result from a U.S. point of view was a win-win situation if ever there was one. At a stroke, it acquired a powerful military ally in the Jewish state, a valuable export market in the gulf, and a much-needed conservative Muslim ally at a time when secular Arab radicalism was shooting through the roof. The big payoff came in 1989 when a US-backed Saudi-organized jihad drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, causing the entire Soviet bloc to unravel just two years later.

Washington was dizzy with success. "What is more important in world history," exulted Zbigniew Brzezinski, the architect of the Afghanistan plan, in 1998. "The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?" A top CIA strategist named Graham Fuller added a year later:

"The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia."

What could go wrong? Plenty, as it turned out: the emergence of jihad as a global phenomenon, the birth of hyper-sectarian Sunni terrorists like Al Qaeda and ISIS, and a cycle of violence that has since proved unstoppable. Since Carter declared unilateral U.S. military jurisdiction over the Persian Gulf in January 1980, the region has seen no fewer than seven major wars:

  • The Afghan jihad (1979-89).
  • The Iran-Iraq war (1980-88).
  • The gulf war (1990-91).
  • The U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (2001-03).
  • The US-Saudi assault on Syria (starting in late 2011).
  • And the US-backed Saudi war on Yemen (beginning in March 2015 and still ongoing).

Toss in such "minor" incidents as the Saudi-UAE invasion of Bahrain in order to crush democratic protests in March 2011 or the Saudi economic blockade of Qatar in June 2017, and the list grows to nine, surely a record for American "peacekeepers."

Yet the United States, the world's leading military exporter, has piled up the tinder ever higher by accelerating military exports to absolutist states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar that, as even Hillary Clinton has admitted , "are providing clandestine financial and logical support to ISIL [i.e. Islamic State] and other radical Sunni groups in the region."

Never has imperialism been more nihilistic. Yet Donald Trump has dialed up the craziness even more by abrogating the 2015 Iran nuclear accord and imposing a trade embargo that has brought the Iranian economy to its knees. Not content with economic warfare, he's now advancing to physical warfare by "droning" Soleimani and threatening massive retaliation against both military and cultural targets if Iran dares raise a hand in response.

The effect is to propel himself into the front ranks of international war criminals. But Trump could never have done it on his own if a long line of American militarists hadn't paved the way. Daniel Lazare January 8, 2020 | Security Who Created the Persian Gulf Tinderbox? Joe Biden's statement that "President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox" by assassinating Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani was not inaccurate. But it skirts an all-important question: who created the tinderbox in the first place?

The answer, of course, is the United States.

In the long history of imperial folly and recklessness, nothing compares to U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf. Yes, the British shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan in 1838, and, yes, JFK shouldn't have backed the overthrow of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in November 1963. If they had thought things through more carefully, one wouldn't have lost an entire army in the retreat from Kabul while the other wouldn't have stumbled into a dozen-year-long quagmire that would leave the U.S. military depleted and demoralized – not to mention killing more than a million or more Vietnamese.

But those were momentary miscalculations compared to the slow-motion disaster in the gulf. For nearly half a century, every U.S. president – liberal, conservative, or whatever – has pumped up a regional arms race that has set the stage for ever more destructive wars. The death and destruction have been incalculable. Yet not once throughout the long sorry saga have Americans paused for even a moment to consider where it was all going.

The process began in 1973 when Arab oil exporters quadrupled prices after Richard Nixon provided Israel with $2.2 billion in emergency aid in the midst of the nineteen-day Yom Kippur War. America considered seizing Saudi oil fields in retaliation. But once passions cooled, it opted for a pragmatic policy of mutual accommodation in which Arab oil producers and western consumers would accept Israeli victory and higher energy prices alike as faits accomplis and forge a workable settlement out of the rubble.

The result from a U.S. point of view was a win-win situation if ever there was one. At a stroke, it acquired a powerful military ally in the Jewish state, a valuable export market in the gulf, and a much-needed conservative Muslim ally at a time when secular Arab radicalism was shooting through the roof. The big payoff came in 1989 when a US-backed Saudi-organized jihad drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, causing the entire Soviet bloc to unravel just two years later.

Washington was dizzy with success. "What is more important in world history," exulted Zbigniew Brzezinski, the architect of the Afghanistan plan, in 1998. "The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?" A top CIA strategist named Graham Fuller added a year later:

"The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia."

What could go wrong? Plenty, as it turned out: the emergence of jihad as a global phenomenon, the birth of hyper-sectarian Sunni terrorists like Al Qaeda and ISIS, and a cycle of violence that has since proved unstoppable. Since Carter declared unilateral U.S. military jurisdiction over the Persian Gulf in January 1980, the region has seen no fewer than seven major wars:

  • The Afghan jihad (1979-89).
  • The Iran-Iraq war (1980-88).
  • The gulf war (1990-91).
  • The U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (2001-03).
  • The US-Saudi assault on Syria (starting in late 2011).
  • And the US-backed Saudi war on Yemen (beginning in March 2015 and still ongoing).

Toss in such "minor" incidents as the Saudi-UAE invasion of Bahrain in order to crush democratic protests in March 2011 or the Saudi economic blockade of Qatar in June 2017, and the list grows to nine, surely a record for American "peacekeepers."

Yet the United States, the world's leading military exporter, has piled up the tinder ever higher by accelerating military exports to absolutist states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar that, as even Hillary Clinton has admitted , "are providing clandestine financial and logical support to ISIL [i.e. Islamic State] and other radical Sunni groups in the region."

Never has imperialism been more nihilistic. Yet Donald Trump has dialed up the craziness even more by abrogating the 2015 Iran nuclear accord and imposing a trade embargo that has brought the Iranian economy to its knees. Not content with economic warfare, he's now advancing to physical warfare by "droning" Soleimani and threatening massive retaliation against both military and cultural targets if Iran dares raise a hand in response.

The effect is to propel himself into the front ranks of international war criminals. But Trump could never have done it on his own if a long line of American militarists hadn't paved the way.

© 2010 - 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org . The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Joe Biden's statement that "President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox" by assassinating Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani was not inaccurate. But it skirts an all-important question: who created the tinderbox in the first place?

The answer, of course, is the United States.

In the long history of imperial folly and recklessness, nothing compares to U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf. Yes, the British shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan in 1838, and, yes, JFK shouldn't have backed the overthrow of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in November 1963. If they had thought things through more carefully, one wouldn't have lost an entire army in the retreat from Kabul while the other wouldn't have stumbled into a dozen-year-long quagmire that would leave the U.S. military depleted and demoralized – not to mention killing more than a million or more Vietnamese.

But those were momentary miscalculations compared to the slow-motion disaster in the gulf. For nearly half a century, every U.S. president – liberal, conservative, or whatever – has pumped up a regional arms race that has set the stage for ever more destructive wars. The death and destruction have been incalculable. Yet not once throughout the long sorry saga have Americans paused for even a moment to consider where it was all going.

The process began in 1973 when Arab oil exporters quadrupled prices after Richard Nixon provided Israel with $2.2 billion in emergency aid in the midst of the nineteen-day Yom Kippur War. America considered seizing Saudi oil fields in retaliation. But once passions cooled, it opted for a pragmatic policy of mutual accommodation in which Arab oil producers and western consumers would accept Israeli victory and higher energy prices alike as faits accomplis and forge a workable settlement out of the rubble.

The result from a U.S. point of view was a win-win situation if ever there was one. At a stroke, it acquired a powerful military ally in the Jewish state, a valuable export market in the gulf, and a much-needed conservative Muslim ally at a time when secular Arab radicalism was shooting through the roof. The big payoff came in 1989 when a US-backed Saudi-organized jihad drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, causing the entire Soviet bloc to unravel just two years later.

Washington was dizzy with success. "What is more important in world history," exulted Zbigniew Brzezinski, the architect of the Afghanistan plan, in 1998. "The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?" A top CIA strategist named Graham Fuller added a year later:

"The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia."

What could go wrong? Plenty, as it turned out: the emergence of jihad as a global phenomenon, the birth of hyper-sectarian Sunni terrorists like Al Qaeda and ISIS, and a cycle of violence that has since proved unstoppable. Since Carter declared unilateral U.S. military jurisdiction over the Persian Gulf in January 1980, the region has seen no fewer than seven major wars:

  • The Afghan jihad (1979-89).
  • The Iran-Iraq war (1980-88).
  • The gulf war (1990-91).
  • The U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (2001-03).
  • The US-Saudi assault on Syria (starting in late 2011).
  • And the US-backed Saudi war on Yemen (beginning in March 2015 and still ongoing).

Toss in such "minor" incidents as the Saudi-UAE invasion of Bahrain in order to crush democratic protests in March 2011 or the Saudi economic blockade of Qatar in June 2017, and the list grows to nine, surely a record for American "peacekeepers."

Yet the United States, the world's leading military exporter, has piled up the tinder ever higher by accelerating military exports to absolutist states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar that, as even Hillary Clinton has admitted , "are providing clandestine financial and logical support to ISIL [i.e. Islamic State] and other radical Sunni groups in the region."

Never has imperialism been more nihilistic. Yet Donald Trump has dialed up the craziness even more by abrogating the 2015 Iran nuclear accord and imposing a trade embargo that has brought the Iranian economy to its knees. Not content with economic warfare, he's now advancing to physical warfare by "droning" Soleimani and threatening massive retaliation against both military and cultural targets if Iran dares raise a hand in response.

The effect is to propel himself into the front ranks of international war criminals. But Trump could never have done it on his own if a long line of American militarists hadn't paved the way. The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags: Afghanistan Iran Islam Middle East Terrorism United States War Print this article See also January 7, 2020 How Iran Can Checkmate Trump January 6, 2020 A Terrorist Attack Against Eurasian Integration December 13, 2019 Disconnect Over Afghanistan War Shows Dysfunction of US Politics January 9, 2018 Protecting the Belt and Road Initiative From US-Led Terrorism: Will China Send Troops to Syria? January 22, 2020 The United States: a Record-Holder in Political Assassinations January 21, 2020 Drone Strikes Leave Innocent Widows and Orphans December 19, 2019 The Afghanistan Fiasco and the Decline and Fall of the American Military January 23, 2020 An Army for Hire: Trump Wants to Make Money by Renting Out American Soldiers January 20, 2020 The End of U.S. Military Dominance: Unintended Consequences Forge a Multipolar World Order January 18, 2020 Soleimani's Only Public Interview January 16, 2020 Interview: How the Libyan Landscape Is Changing As New Players Get Boots on the Ground January 14, 2020 ISIS Applauds Trump's Killing Soleimani January 21, 2020 How Michael Bloomberg's 'Journalists' Propagandize for More U.S. Aggressions January 20, 2020 The Many Matryoska Dolls to America's Way of Imagining Iran January 19, 2020 Why Iran Should Ditch the Hopeless Nuclear Deal January 17, 2020 Trump, Iran Coordinated De-escalation for Now January 16, 2020 What's the Point of NATO If You Are Not Prepared to Use It Against Iran? January 15, 2020 Trump Steps Back From the Edge. Neocons Rage Accordingly January 15, 2020 Reading Sun Tzu in Tehran January 11, 2020 General Soleimani's Network of Revenge January 9, 2020 America the Repugnant. Assassinating Foreign Leaders Is an Act of War December 31, 2019 Washington's Iraq Catastrophe December 17, 2019 Never Trust a Failing Empire December 6, 2019 NATO Splits Reveal Alliance is Redundant January 16, 2020 Did Soleimani Kill 600 Americans? -- Questions For Corbett January 23, 2020 Things are Getting Harder for the US's Global Military December 26, 2019 The Afghanistan Papers Are Establishment Whitewash BS December 17, 2019 Endless Wars and Endless Lies Also by this author Daniel Lazare Daniel Lazare is an American freelance journalist, publicist and blogger. Bernie Sanders Walks Straight Into the Russiagate Trap Impeachment: Does Anyone Even Care? American Collapse One and a Half Cheers for Tulsi Gabbard You Can't Fool All the People All the Time Sign up for the Strategic Culture Foundation Newsletter Subscribe See also

[Jan 21, 2020] Maybe we should put sanctions on Pompeo

Jan 21, 2020 | www.unz.com

Old and grumpy , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 3:48 pm GMT

Maybe we should put sanctions on Pompeo. He could use the diet. Maybe raiding his pantry would feed Iraqi for a couple months. He is truly perfect spokesman American empire. Sadistic, bloated, and corrupt.
Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 4:20 pm GMT
@Old and grumpy Trump also needs to have food sanctions placed on him. His body is being oppressed and is crying out for (diet) regime change.

[Jan 21, 2020] Trump Tries Real Hard to Start a War for Israel. He Should be Impeached Because He is a War Criminal by Kurt Nimmo

Notable quotes:
"... In my last post, I said it was time to close down this blog, mostly due to its ineffectiveness, short reach, and choir preaching. I wrote that I might as well pound sand for all the good it did. ..."
"... The US began targeting Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This included "freezing" -- polite-speak for theft -- around $12 billion in Iranian assets, including gold, property, and bank holdings. After Obama agreed to return this filched property and money as part of the nuke deal (minus any real nukes), neocons said he gave away US taxpayer money to international terrorists. This warped lie became part of the narrative, yet another state-orchestrated fake news "alternative fact." ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.globalresearch.ca

In my last post, I said it was time to close down this blog, mostly due to its ineffectiveness, short reach, and choir preaching. I wrote that I might as well pound sand for all the good it did.

A few days later, Trump killed a high level Iranian military leader and I have decided a post is in order, never mind that a round of tiddlywinks will have about the same influence as a post here. The wars just keep on coming, no matter what we do.

Let's turn to social media where dimwits, neocon partisans, and clueless Democrats are running wild after corporate Mafia boss and numero uno Israeli cheerleader Donald Trump ordered a hit on Gen. Qasem Soleimani and others near Baghdad's international airport on Thursday.

Let's begin with this teleprompter reader and "presenter" from Al Jazeera:

"This is what happens when you put a narcissistic, megalomaniacal, former reality TV star with a thin skin and a very large temper in charge of the world's most powerful military You know who else attacks cultural sites? ISIS. The Taliban." – me on Trump/Iran on MSNBC today: pic.twitter.com/YCRARB2anv

-- Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) January 5, 2020

It is interesting how the memory of such people only goes back to the election of Donald Trump.

The US began targeting Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This included "freezing" -- polite-speak for theft -- around $12 billion in Iranian assets, including gold, property, and bank holdings. After Obama agreed to return this filched property and money as part of the nuke deal (minus any real nukes), neocons said he gave away US taxpayer money to international terrorists. This warped lie became part of the narrative, yet another state-orchestrated fake news "alternative fact."

Here's another idiot. He was the boss of the DNC for a while and unsuccessfully ran for president.

Nice job trump and Pompeo you dimwits. You've completed the neocon move to have Iraq become a satellite of Iran. You have to be the dumbest people ever to run the US government. You can add that to being the most corrupt. Get these guys out of here. https://t.co/gQHhHSeiJQ

-- Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) January 5, 2020

Once again, history is lost in a tangle of lies and omission. Centuries before John Dean thought it might be a good idea to run for president, Persians and Shias in what is now Iraq and Iran were crossing the border -- later drawn up by invading Brits and French -- in pilgrimages to the shrines of Imam Husayn and Abbas in Karbala. We can't expect an arrogant sociopath like Mr. Dean to know about Ashura, Shia pilgrimages, the Remembrance of Muharram, and events dating back to 680 AD.

Shias from Iran pilgrimage to other Iraqi cities as well, including An-Najaf, Samarra, Mashhad, and Baghdad (although the latter is more important to Sunnis).

Corporate fake news teleprompter reader Stephanopoulos said the Geneva Conventions (including United Nations Security Council Resolution 2347) outlaw the targeting of cultural sites, which Trump said he will bomb.

Trump said there are 52 different sites; the number is not arbitrary, it is based on the 52 hostages, many of them CIA officers, taken hostage during Iran's revolution against the US-installed Shah and his brutal secret police sadists.

Pompeo said Trump won't destroy Iran's cultural and heritage sites. Pompeo, as a dedicated Zionist operative, knows damn well the US will destroy EVERYTHING of value in Iran, same as it did in Iraq and later Libya and Syria. This includes not only cultural sites, but civilian infrastructure -- hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, and mosques.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The Geneva Conventions outlaws attacks on cultural objects & places of worship. Why is Trump threatening Iran w/ war crimes?

POMPEO: We'll behave lawfully

S: So to be clear, Trump's threat wasn't accurate?

P: Every target that we strike will be a lawful target pic.twitter.com/zOGTpfYmba

Invoking the United Nations' Historic "Uniting for Peace" Resolution 377 Before Trump Embroils Us in War with Iran

-- Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 5, 2020

Although I believe Jill Stein is living in a Marxian fantasy world, I agree with her tweet in regard to the Zionist hit on Soleimani:

Now THIS is grounds for #impeachment – treachery unleashing the unthinkable for Americans & people the world over: Trump asked Iraqi prime minister to mediate with #Iran then assassinated Soleimani – on a mediation mission. https://t.co/f0F9FEMALD

-- Dr. Jill Stein 🌻 (@DrJillStein) January 5, 2020

Trump should be impeached -- tried and imprisoned -- not in response to some dreamed-up and ludicrous Russian plot or even concern about the opportunist Hunter Biden using his father's position to make millions in uber-corrupt Ukraine, but because he is a war criminal responsible for killing women and children.

As for the planned forever military occupation of Iraq, USA Today reports:

Iraq's Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi told lawmakers that a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops, including U.S. ones, was required "for the sake of our national sovereignty." About 5,000 American troops are in various parts of Iraq.

The latest:
-- Iraqi lawmakers voted to oust U.S. troops
-- U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS has paused operations
-- Hundreds of thousands mourned General Suleimani in Iran
-- President Trump said the U.S. has 52 possible targets in Iran in case of retaliation https://t.co/pmUuAQdKlc

-- The New York Times (@nytimes) January 5, 2020

No way in hell will Sec. State Pompeo and his Zionist neocon handlers allow this to happen without a fight. However, it shouldn't be too difficult for the Iraqis to expel 5,000 brainwashed American soldiers from the country, bombed to smithereens almost twenty years ago by Bush the Neocon Idiot Savant.

Never mind Schumer's pretend concern about another war. This friend of Israel from New York didn't go on national television and excoriate Obama and his cutthroat Sec. of State Hillary Clinton for killing 30,000 Libyans.

I'm concerned President Trump's impulsive foreign policy is dragging America into another endless war in the Middle East that will make us less safe.

Congress must assert itself.

President Trump does not have authority for war with Iran. pic.twitter.com/tra71uY9Ao

-- Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) January 5, 2020

Meanwhile, it looks like social media is burning the midnight oil in order to prevent their platforms being used to argue against Trump's latest Zionist-directed insanity.

It is absolutely crazy that Twitter is auto-locking the accounts of anyone who posts this "No war on Iran" image, and forcing them to delete the anti-war tweet in order to unlock their account.

Will @TwitterSupport say what's going on? Very screwed up https://t.co/zGTvVfNNqt

-- Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 5, 2020

More lies from The Washington Post, the CIA's crown jewel of propaganda:

Trump faces Iran crisis with fewer experienced advisers and strained relations with traditional allies https://t.co/Xi3vKw9Bw9

-- Steven Ginsberg (@stevenjay) January 5, 2020

This is complete and utter bullshit, but I'm sure the American people will gobble it down without question. Trump's advisers are neocons and they are seriously experienced in the art of promoting and engineering assassination, cyber-attacks, invasions, and mass murder.

Newsmax scribbler John Cardillo thinks he has it all figure out.

"In mid-October Soleimani instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the country using sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran "

That's why we hit him https://t.co/56XKm9Kqwe

-- John Cardillo (@johncardillo) January 5, 2020

Imagine this, however improbable and ludicrous: Iran invades America and assassinates General Hyten or General McConville, both top members of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Now imagine the response by the "exceptional nation."

We can't leave out the Christian Zionist from Indiana, Mike Pence. Mike wants you to believe Iran was responsible for 9/11, thus stirring up the appropriate animosity and consensus for mass murder.

Neither Iran nor Soleimani were linked to the terror attack in the "9/11 Commission Report." Pence didn't even get the number of hijackers right. https://t.co/QtQZm2Yyh9

-- HuffPost Politics (@HuffPostPol) January 5, 2020

Finally, here is the crown jewel of propaganda -- in part responsible for the death of well over a million Iraqis -- The New York Times showing off its rampant hypocrisy.

In Opinion

The editorial board writes, "It is crucial that influential Republican senators like Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell remind President Trump of his promise to keep America out of foreign quagmires" https://t.co/2swusvBWbg

-- The New York Times (@nytimes) January 5, 2020

Never mind Judith Miller, the Queen of NYT pro-war propaganda back in the day, spreading neocon fabricated lies about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. America -- or rather the United States (the government) -- is addicted to quagmires and never-ending war. This is simply more anti-Trump bullshit by the NYT editorial board. The newspaper loves war waged in the name of Israel, but only if jumpstarted by Democrats.

Trump the fool, the fact-free reality TV president will eventually unleash the dogs of war against Iran, much to the satisfaction of Israel, its racist Zionists, Israel-first neocons in America, and the chattering pro-war class of "journalists," and "foreign policy experts" (most former Pentagon employees).

Expect more nonsense like that dispensed by the robot Mike Pence, the former tank commander now serving as Sec. of State, and any number of neocon fellow travelers, many with coveted blue checkmarks on Twitter while the truth-tellers are expelled from the conversation and exiled to the political wilderness.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

[Jan 21, 2020] The first term of the Trump administration has revealed that the US war empire is run by the military-intelligence apparatus, not by President administration. Trump is simply a puppet.

Notable quotes:
"... Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda? ..."
"... Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media ..."
Jan 21, 2020 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Originally from: Opinion - The Angry Arab US Violated Unspoken Rule of Engagement with Iran

As'ad AbuKhalil analyzes the Trump administration's decision

to escalate hostilities with Iran and its regional allies.

By As`ad AbuKhalil

January 21, 2020 " Information Clearing House " - S omething big and unprecedented has happened in the Middle East after the assassination of one of Iran's top commanders, Qasim Suleimani.

The U.S. has long assumed that assassinations of major figures in the Iranian "resistance-axis" in the Middle East would bring risk to the U.S. military-intelligence presence in the Middle East. Western and Arab media reported that the U.S. had prevented Israel in the past from killing Suleimani. But with the top commander's death, the Trump administration seems to think a key barrier to U.S. military operations in the Middle East has been removed.

The U.S. and Israel had noticed that Hizbullah and Iran did not retaliate against previous assassinations by Israel (or the U.S.) that took place in Syria (of Imad Mughniyyah, Jihad Mughniyyah, Samir Quntar); or for other attacks on Palestinian and Lebanese commanders in Syria.

The U.S. thus assumed that this assassination would not bring repercussions or harm to U.S. interests. Iranian reluctance to retaliate has only increased the willingness of Israel and the U.S. to violate the unspoken rules of engagement with Iran in the Arab East.

For many years Israel did perpetrate various assassinations against Iranian scientists and officers in Syria during the on-going war. But Israel and the U.S. avoided targeting leaders or commanders of Iran. During the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the U.S. and Iran collided directly and indirectly, but avoided engaging in assassinations for fear that this would unleash a series of tit-for-tat.

But the Trump administration has become known for not playing by the book, and for operating often according to the whims and impulses of President Donald Trump.

Different Level of Escalation

The decision to strike at Baghdad airport, however, was a different level of escalation. In addition to killing Suleimani it also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a key leader of Hashd forces in Iraq. Like Suleimani, al-Muhandis was known for waging the long fight against ISIS. (Despite this, the U.S. media only give credit to the U.S. and its clients who barely lifted a finger in the fight against ISIS.)

On the surface of it, the strike was uncharacteristic of Trump. Here is a man who pledged to pull the U.S. out of the Middle East turmoil -- turmoil for which the U.S and Israel bear the primary responsibility. And yet he seems willing to order a strike that will guarantee intensification of the conflict in the region, and even the deployment of more U.S. forces.

Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?

Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media

The first term of the Trump administration has revealed the extent to which the U.S. war empire is run by the military-intelligence apparatus. There is not much a president -- even a popular president like Barack Obama in his second term -- can do to change the course of empire. It is not that Obama wanted to end U.S. wars in the region, but Trump has tried to retreat from Middle East conflicts and yet he has been unable due to pressures not only from the military-intelligence apparatus but also from their war advocates in the U.S. Congress and Western media, D.C. think tanks and the human-rights industry. The pressures to preserve the war agenda is too powerful on a U.S. president for it to cease in the foreseeable future. But Trump has managed to start fewer new wars than his predecessors -- until this strike.

Trump's Obama Obsession

Trump in his foreign policy is obsessed with the legacy and image of Obama. He decided to violate the Iran nuclear agreement (which carried the weight of international law after its adoption by the UN Security Council) largely because he wanted to prove that he is tougher than Obama, and also because he wanted an international agreement that carries his imprint. Just as Trump relishes putting his name on buildings, hotels, and casinos he wants to put his name on international agreements. His decision, to strike at a convoy carrying perhaps the second most important person in Iran was presumably attached to an intelligence assessment that calculated that Iran is too weakened and too fatigued to strike back directly at the U.S.

Iran faced difficult choices in response to the assassination of Suleimani. On the one hand, Iran would appear weak and vulnerable if it did not retaliate and that would only invite more direct U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iranian targets.

On the other hand, the decision to respond in a large-scale attack on U.S. military or diplomatic targets in the Middle East would invite an immediate massive U.S. strike inside Iran. Such an attack has been on the books; the U.S military (and Israel, of course) have been waiting for the right moment for the U.S. to destroy key strategic sites inside Iran.

Furthermore, there is no question that the cruel U.S.-imposed sanctions on Iran have made life difficult for the Iranian people and have limited the choices of the government, and weakened its political legitimacy, especially in the face of vast Gulf-Western attempts to exploit internal dissent and divisions inside Iran. (Not that dissent inside Iran is not real, and not that repression by the regime is not real).

Nonetheless, if the Iranian regime were to open an all-out war against the U.S., this would certainly cause great harm and damage to U.S. and Israeli interests.

Iran Sending Messages

In the last year, however, Iran successfully sent messages to Gulf regimes (through attacks on oil shipping in the Gulf, for which Iran did not claim responsibility, nor did it take responsibility for the pin-point attack on ARAMCO oil installations) that any future conflict would not spare their territories.

That quickly reversed the policy orientations of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which suddenly became weary of confrontation with Iran, and both are now negotiating (openly and secretively) with the Iranian government. Ironically, both the UAE and Saudi regimes -- which constituted a lobby for war against Iran in Western capitals -- are also eager to distance themselves from U.S. military action against Iran . And Kuwait quickly denied that the U.S. used its territory in the U.S. attack on Baghdad airport, while Qatar dispatched its foreign minister to Iran (officially to offer condolences over the death of Suleimani, but presumably also to distance itself and its territory from the U.S. attack).

The Iranian response was very measured and very specific. It was purposefully intended to avoid causing U.S. casualties; it was intended more as a message of Iranian missile capabilities and their pin point accuracy. And that message was not lost on Israel.

Hasan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah, sent a more strident message. He basically implied that it would be left to Iran's allies to engineer military responses. He also declared a war on the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, although he was at pains to stress that U.S. civilians are to be spared in any attack or retaliation.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/6yyC897UliI

Supporters of the Iran resistance axis have been quite angry in the wake of the assassination. The status of Suleimani in his camp is similar to the status of Nasrallah although Nasrallah -- due to his charisma and to his performance and the performance of his party in the July 2006 war -- may have attained a higher status.

It would be easy for the Trump administration to ignite a Middle East war by provoking Iran once again, and wrongly assuming that there are no limits to Iranian caution and self-restraint. But if the U.S. (and Israel with it or behind it) were to start a Middle East war, it will spread far wider and last far longer than the last war in Iraq, which the U.S. is yet to complete.

As'ad AbuKhalil is a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus. He is the author of the "Historical Dictionary of Lebanon" (1998), "Bin Laden, Islam and America's New War on Terrorism (2002), and "The Battle for Saudi Arabia" (2004). He tweets as @asadabukhal

This article was originally published by " Consortium News " -

[Jan 21, 2020] Lavrov expressed his condolences over the killing," the statement said. "The ministers stressed that such actions by the United States grossly violate the norms of international law

Jan 21, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jen , Jan 20 2020 22:07 utc | 45

BJD @ 39:

Russia's Lavrov, Iran's Zarif discuss Soleimani killing: statement

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif over the phone on Friday to discuss the killing of Iran's military chief Qassem Soleimani, the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement.

"Lavrov expressed his condolences over the killing," the statement said. "The ministers stressed that such actions by the United States grossly violate the norms of international law."

Likklemore , Jan 20 2020 21:41 utc | 36

Well, today Moscow Warns Iran Against Reckless Steps as Tehran Threatens to Quit Non-Proliferation Treaty
Earlier, Iranian Foreign Ministry's spokesman Seyyed Abbas Mousavi said that Tehran continues to adhere to the 2015 nuclear deal, adding that the European powers' claims about Iran violating the deal were unfounded.

Moscow warns Tehran against making 'reckless steps' to quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Russia's deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov said. He added that Russia urges Iran to comply with its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, giving those who oppose the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) further reasons for escalation is "counterproductive".

Is there a friend anywhere? Kim or Khan of Pakistan to ship one in.
Alternative, Moscow could declare its nuclear capabilities are extended to Iran. Just can't leave Iran hanging on a twig.

Bubbles , Jan 20 2020 22:29 utc | 53

Posted by: Likklemore | Jan 20 2020 21:41 utc | 36

Maybe it's because trump has a history with Russian mobsters and money laundering?


Or maybe it's just smart to say that? What's to be gained by setting off man child trump and spurring yet another temper tantrum via twitter?

trump did lotsa bidnezz with the International cabal that plundered Russia after the disillusion of the USSR. They stole from the Russian people, and laundered their ill begotten gains with chumps, like trump.

[Jan 21, 2020] US Officials Admit Covert Tech Program Is Fueling Iran Protests

Notable quotes:
"... Image source: Zuma Press/DW.com ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... "We work with technological companies to help free flow of information and provide circumvention tools that helped in [last week's] protest ," ..."
"... they were actively assisting in organizing recent protests ..."
Jan 21, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

US Officials Admit Covert Tech Program Is Fueling Iran Protests by Tyler Durden Mon, 01/20/2020 - 21:55 0 SHARES

After major protests hit multiple cities across Iran in November following a drastic government slash in gasoline subsidies which quickly turned anti-regime, broad internet outages were reported -- some lasting as long as a week or more nationwide -- following Tehran authorities ordering the blockage of external access.

And during smaller January protests over downed Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, more widespread internet outages were reported recently, likely as Iranian security services fear protest "crackdown" videos would fuel outrage in western media , and after months ago Mike Pompeo expressly urged Iranians in the streets to send the State Department damning videos that would implicate Tehran's leaders and police.

But now Washington appears to have initiated the "Syria option" inside Iran: covertly fueling and driving "popular protests " to eventually create conditions for large-scale confrontation on the ground geared toward regime change.

Image source: Zuma Press/DW.com

Financial Times reports Washington's 'covert' efforts are now increasing, and are more out in the open :

US government-funded technology companies have recorded an increase in the use of circumvention software in Iran in recent weeks after boosting efforts to help Iranian anti-regime protesters thwart internet censorship and use secure mobile messaging .

The outreach is part of a US government program dedicated to internet freedom that supports dissident pressure inside Iran and complements America's policy of "maximum pressure" over the regime. A US state department official told the Financial Times that since protests in Iran in 2018 -- at the time the largest in almost a decade -- Washington had accelerated efforts to provide Iranians more options on how they communicate with each other and the outside world .

Similar efforts had long been in place with anti-Assad groups prior to the outbreak of conflict in Syria in 2011, WikiLeaks cables previously revealed.

The US State Department is now openly boasting it's enacted this program for Iran , which includes "providing apps, servers and other technology to help people communicate, visit banned websites, install anti-tracking software and navigate data shutdowns," according to FT .

Confirmed: Drop in internet connectivity registered at #Sharif University, Tehran from 11:50 UTC where students are protesting for colleagues and alumni killed on flight #PS752 ; national connectivity remains stable despite sporadic disruptions on third day of #Iran protests📉 pic.twitter.com/LjaNNd4Ut2

-- NetBlocks.org (@netblocks) January 13, 2020

And dangerously, many Iranians may not even realize they could be in some instances relying on such US-funded countermeasures to circumvent domestic internet blockages:

"Many Iranians rely on virtual private networks (VPNs) that receive US funding or are beamed in with US support , not knowing they are relying on Washington-backed tools."

Iran is on occasion known to round of citizen-journalists and accuse them of being CIA assets -- thus the State Department's open boasting about its program, which is further connected to a broader $65.5 million "Internet Freedom program" in troubled spots throughout the world -- could only serve to increase this trend.

"We work with technological companies to help free flow of information and provide circumvention tools that helped in [last week's] protest ," one US state department official told the FT. "We are able to sponsor VPNs -- and that allows Iranians to use the internet."

So there it is: US officials explicitly admitting they were actively assisting in organizing recent protests which followed Soleimani's killing and the Ukrainian airliner shoot down.

I have asked the Iranian protestors to send us their videos, photos, and information documenting the regime's crackdown on protestors. The U.S. will expose and sanction the abuses. https://t.co/korr5p0woA

-- Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) November 21, 2019

At least one circumvention software is actually identified in the report as being produced by Canada-based Psiphon, which receives American government funds. Of course the company sees its role more as facilitating "free flow of information" and less as essentially a willing asset in pursuing covert regime change in Tehran.

Interestingly, the revelation comes just as other US-funded propaganda campaigns related to Iran are coming to light:

One of the most viral videos about Iran last week -- and a reason #IraniansDetestSoleimani was trending -- was made by a lobbyist who had worked for a militia group in Libya https://t.co/fN7v6Vztyo

-- BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) January 17, 2020

All of this suggests neocons in Washington could be a big step closer to fulfilling their long-term dream of seeing US-sponsored regime change come to Iran -- a policy plan which goes back to at least the 1990's and was given greater impetus and urgency under the Bush administration.

VodkaInKrakow , 6 hours ago link

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false" - Wm. Casey, former Director of the CIA under President (and Iranian arms dealer) Ronald Reagan(R).

So, when does Trump send ISIS to Iran? Oh, MEK is already there.

I remember when Trump supporters pointed out how Hillary supported a coup in Honduras. Well, Trump has Bolivia.

Then Obama created ISIS. Well, ISIS has been around since about 2000. And Trump signed NDAA's that sent money to "freedom fighters" in Syria.. .guess who...

Obama is a loser in Afghanistan and so are the Generals. Well, there was Bush. And now? Trump... going on 4 years of losing in Afghanistan with his own Generals.

Hillary and Libya. Trump and Libya.

Obama and NK? Trump and NK.

Obama and Venezuela? Trump and Venezuela. And what threat does Venezuela pose to The US? No one can answer that question.

Trump says "no more wars", is engaged in wars and trying to start one with Iran.

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THEY REMAIN THE SAME.

The Program is complete...

QABubba , 9 hours ago link

And are the protesters in Iran getting a paycheck too?
Those in the Ukraine did. Those in Libya did. Those in Syria did.

Put's the lie to indigenous protest.

Son of Captain Nemo , 10 hours ago link

"The outreach is part of a US government program dedicated to internet freedom that supports dissident pressure inside Iran and complements America's policy of "maximum pressure" over the regime. A US state department official told the Financial Times that since protests in Iran in 2018 -- at the time the largest in almost a decade -- Washington had accelerated efforts to provide Iranians more options on how they communicate with each other and the outside world ."...

VOA LIVE$...

Sure wish somebody in our government could have alerted Bobby McIIlvaine ( https://www.ae911truth.org/get-involved/bobby-mcilvaine-act ) with "emergency" internet services to his phone nearly 18 1/2 years ago to what his own government was about to do to him before he went into the office that day along with the other 2,976 victims?!!!

One thing I'll say for the American government since the banker bailouts, they "don't hide what they are doing" when it comes to subverting governments for looting purposes ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o )!... At least the Iranian leadership knows what is coming before it happens these days!...

Davidduke2000 , 15 hours ago link

The Iranian people are not stupid to commit suicide , they have seen the us handy work in 1953 when Iran had the first democracy in the middle east to be bamboozled by the cia who removed their elected prime minister and installed the shah.

of course some university students want a sexual revolution like in the us are revolting but they are a handful and they are being subdued .

mark1955 , 13 hours ago link

Agree 100%!

The Iranian people lived through CIA/MOSSAD style "Democracy" from 1953-1980 and will fight "Tooth and nail" not to return to those Horrific days of the Shah!

MARDUKTA , 15 hours ago link

BEHIND IT ALL:

https://truthernews.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/10-reasons-why-switzerland-is-home-to-the-cia-central-intelligence-agency/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Thinking123 , 18 hours ago link

Yes, this is what US government has been doing all over the world "Wars and Regime Changes".. Bowing down to Israel to accomplish "The Greater Israel Project". : https://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

STR88 , 18 hours ago link

How naive do you have to be to think the US is just giving out free internet for the sake of the Iranian people? even after they've done the same thing all throughout the middle east to cause mass riots and civil unrest.

The last thing you will ever get from the US government is the truth.

[Jan 21, 2020] Propaganda and Lies Iran and Ukrainian Flight PS752 - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Jan 21, 2020 | www.globalresearch.ca

Propaganda and Lies: Iran and Ukrainian Flight PS752 Exploited to further fan the flames of unrest in Iran. By Kurt Nimmo Global Research, January 21, 2020 Region: Middle East & North Africa Theme: Intelligence , Media Disinformation , US NATO War Agenda In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR?

Here is the cardinal rule about government -- everything it says through its spokespersons, hired guns, public relations adepts, and the mockingbird corporate media should be considered a self-serving lie, or at best a distortion hammered into shape to fit a predefined agenda.

For instance, we should question who is ultimately responsible for the shootdown of the Ukrainian airliner in Tehran following the assassination of Qassem Soleimani.

Former CIA military intelligence officer Philip Giraldi believes there is a possibility Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 was a false flag designed to put further pressure on the government of Iran and feed the USAID "opposition" to the mullahs.

Giraldi writes "there just might be considerably more to the story involving cyberwarfare carried out by the U.S. and possibly Israeli governments."

False Flag? Fmr CIA Officer Suggests US Hacked Ukrainian Plane Transponder To Provoke Iran Shootdown https://t.co/DHpDjGrIGf

-- zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 19, 2020

What seems to have been a case of bad judgements and human error does, however, include some elements that have yet to be explained. The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched. There were also problems with the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.

Giraldi explains the

SA-15 Tor defense system used by Iran has one major vulnerability. It can be hacked or "spoofed," permitting an intruder to impersonate a legitimate user and take control. The United States Navy and Air Force reportedly have developed technologies "that can fool enemy radar systems with false and deceptively moving targets." Fooling the system also means fooling the operator. The Guardian has also reported independently how the United States military has long been developing systems that can from a distance alter the electronics and targeting of Iran's available missiles.

Naturally, this possibility is not even mentioned by the corporate war propaganda media, with the notable exception of The Guardian. Instead, we are pelted with tweets and news articles purporting to show just how angry the Iranian people supposedly are over the shootdown, accidental or otherwise.

Kimia Alizadeh, the only Iranian woman to win an Olympic medal, announced that she had defected. She is part of growing public outrage in Iran after the military admitted to shooting down a Ukraine International Airlines jet. https://t.co/NkwtCTP0yw

-- New York Times World (@nytimesworld) January 13, 2020

Protests erupt in Iran after country admits to downing Ukraine plane https://t.co/Nsg0v34rGQ pic.twitter.com/MJk17XVJV9

-- The Hill (@thehill) January 12, 2020

Iran reporters quit state TV amid protests over Ukraine flight shootdown https://t.co/0ZOQWT2K8l

-- Newsweek (@Newsweek) January 13, 2020

The establishment media, long-serving as war propagandists, would have you believe the people of Iran care more about the shootdown of an passenger airliner than the four-decade long economic war against them waged by the USG, Israel, and Saudia Arabia -- a war that has the possibility of breaking out into a conflict that will kill far more than the 176 who died when two missiles hit flight PS752.

This reminds me of a murderous trick pulled by the Israelis. In September 2018, Syrian anti-aircraft defenses shot down a Russian military plane near the Hmeimim airbase where the Russians stage military operations against USG supported terrorists in Syria (and invited, along with Iran and Hezbollah, to do so by Syria, unlike the illegal American occupation and the apparently endless Israeli air raids).

"A Russian military spokesman said Israeli F-16 pilots were using the Russian plane as a shield while carrying out missile strikes against targets in Syria's Latakia province and put it in the line of fire from Syrian anti-aircraft batteries," The Guardian reported at the time.

Russia's defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, told a senior Israeli official that Israel bore "full responsibility" for the incident and the death of the Russian crew, a military spokesman said later on Tuesday. Israel's ambassador in Moscow was summoned to the Russian foreign ministry over the incident.

Putin let it go, however, realizing that pushing the issue too far would worsen the conflict and possibly result in further Russian casualities.

Such caution, however, cannot be attributed to the USG and certainly not Israel. Bibi Netanyahu, the Israeli PM, said Bashar al-Assad and the Syrians were solely responsible for the attack.

No such caution or diplomacy can be expected from the USG and its current loudmouth know-nothing president, Donald Trump. The death of nearly two hundred people is simply an excuse to whip up hysteria and push forward the covert war against Iran.

First and foremost, when you read the "news" dispensed by the war propaganda media, you should assume, unless otherwise proven and verified independently, that what they say about Iran and the Middle East is nothing less than a carelessly and hastily assembled pack of lies, distortion, and omissions, all designed to destroy Iran and kill thousands, possibly millions of innocent men, women, and children.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

[Jan 21, 2020] Given that the US military has known capabilities to alter or mask IFF transponder signals, as does the Israeli regime, it is entirely possible that this tragedy, which led some protesters to blame the Iranian government, may have been deliberately caused by the US in collusion with its Zionist ally in hopes of triggering their goal of regime change

Jan 21, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Smith , Jan 21 2020 18:53 utc | 36

An update for Flight 752 storey from Press TV:

"The accidental and most regrettable downing of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight PS-752, may involve more than human error under incredibly tense conditions. With the plane's IFF transponder switched off, the Tor missile defense system, which had reverted to manual operation because of an unknown source jamming communications, would have automatically identified the plane as "hostile". The Iranian missile operator, unable to contact higher-ups for verification due to the disrupted communications and given the high level of alert, had little basis to question the hostile tag applied by Tor to the aircraft.

Given that the US military has known capabilities to alter or mask IFF transponder signals, as does the Israeli regime, it is entirely possible that this tragedy, which led some protesters to blame the Iranian government, may have been deliberately caused by the US in collusion with its Zionist ally in hopes of triggering their goal of regime change.

While no clear evidence of tampering with the transponder has surfaced as yet, it is known that the 737-800, whose registration or "tail number" was UR-PSR, was photographed at the Israeli entity's Ben Gurion Airport five times since March of 2017, the last time being on October 18, 2019 at approximately 2:40 in the afternoon."

ADKC , Jan 21 2020 19:02 utc | 38

According to Reuters, Iran have confirmed that two Tor missiles were fired at PS752.

Iran Seeks Help Reading Downed Planes Black Boxes in New Standoff

PavewayIV , Jan 21 2020 19:39 utc | 45
Smith@36 - PressTV: "..With the plane's IFF transponder switched off,..."

Civilian aircraft have ATC SSR radar transponders, not military IFF transponders.

IFF aircraft interrogations are ALWAYS military only and ALWAYS encrypted. Their only job, if used by the TOR, is to confirm that a radar target was an Iranian military aircraft. PS752 1) couldn't understand encrypted TOR IFF interrogations, 2) wouldn't be able to provide encrypted replies to any TOR IFF interrogations, and 3) would still be considered "not an Iranian military aircraft" by the TOR. PS752's transponder would need a military IFF encoder/decoder which it does not have.

Likewise, TORs and their acquisition radars DO NOT have civilian ATC SSR radar capabilities to identify civilian aircraft. They do NOT interrogate civilian aircraft for ID, altitude, GPS or any other information, nor do they listen for civilian aircraft ADS-B broadcasts which also provide that information.

Surveillance radars higher up in the air defense network may have civilian aircraft ID capability and can assign appropriate IDs to radar targets BEFORE they appear on the TORs radar screen, but that requires a good data link to the network. That encrypted data link (also used for voice communications) was down at the time, and any ID information that may have been assigned by higher layers of the Iranian AD network wouldn't have appeared on the TOR or been considered by its classification and targeting software.

Sorry - I don't know how else to explain this. PressTV doesn't understand the distinction, nor does it understand the TORs capabilities.

Hausmeister , Jan 21 2020 22:26 utc | 58
"Sorry - I don't know how else to explain this. PressTV doesn't understand the distinction, nor does it understand the TORs capabilities."

Posted by: PavewayIV | Jan 21 2020 19:39 utc | 45

But 7 civilian planes had passed that area before. How to explain that?

/div> schroedingersrat 11 hours ago remove Share link Copy Key Architect of 2003 Iraq War Is Now a Key Architect of Trump Iran Policy

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/16/david-wurmser-iran-suleimani-iraq-war/

schroedingersrat 11 hours ago remove Share link Copy Key Architect of 2003 Iraq War Is Now a Key Architect of Trump Iran Policy

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/16/david-wurmser-iran-suleimani-iraq-war/ /div

[Jan 21, 2020] Iran, Trump, and the neoliberal/neoconservative compact by Bill Martin

Notable quotes:
"... In the larger global picture, if the U.S. is to find its own balance in the contemporary world, Friedman argues that the seemingly-endless instability in the Middle East is the first and foremost problem that must be solved. Iran is a major problem here, but so is Israel, and Friedman argues that the US must find the path toward "quietly distanc[ing] itself from Israel" (p.6). ..."
"... This course of action regarding Iran and Israel (and other actors in the Muslim world, including Pakistan and Turkey) is, in Friedman's geopolitical perspective, not so much a matter of supporting U.S. global hegemony as it is recognizing the larger course that the U.S. will be compelled to take. ..."
"... So, it's back to Plan A for the Democrats and the "Left" that would be laughably absurd if it wasn't so reactionary, to get the neoliberal/ neoconservative endless-war agenda back on track, so that the march toward Iran can continue sooner rather than later. For now, the more spectacular the failure of this impeachment nonsense, the better! ..."
Jan 19, 2020 | off-guardian.org

Let's be clear, there is a difference between substituting geopolitical power calculations for a universal perspective on the good of humanity, and, on the other hand, recognizing that the existing layout of the world has to be taken into account in attempts to open up a true politics. (My larger perspective on the problem of "opening" is presented in the long essay, "The Fourth Hypothesis," at counterpunch.org.)

Personally, I find the geopolitical analyses of George Friedman very much worthwhile to consider, especially when he is looking at things long-range, as in his books The Next 100 Years and The Next Decade. The latter was published at the beginning of 2012, and so we are coming to the close of the ten-year period that Friedman discusses.

One of the major arguments that Friedman makes in The Next Decade is that the United States will have to reach some sort of accommodation with Iran and its regional ambitions. The key to this, Friedman argues, is to bring about some kind of balance of power again, such as existed before Iraq was torn apart.

This is the key in general to continued U.S. hegemony in the world, in Friedman's view -- regional balances that keep regional powers tied up and unable to rise on the world stage. (An especially interesting example here is that Friedman says that Poland will be built up as a bulwark between Russia and Germany.)

In the larger global picture, if the U.S. is to find its own balance in the contemporary world, Friedman argues that the seemingly-endless instability in the Middle East is the first and foremost problem that must be solved. Iran is a major problem here, but so is Israel, and Friedman argues that the US must find the path toward "quietly distanc[ing] itself from Israel" (p.6).

This course of action regarding Iran and Israel (and other actors in the Muslim world, including Pakistan and Turkey) is, in Friedman's geopolitical perspective, not so much a matter of supporting U.S. global hegemony as it is recognizing the larger course that the U.S. will be compelled to take.

(As the founder, CEO, and "Chief Intelligence Officer" of Stratfor, Friedman aimed to provide "non-ideological" strategic intelligence. My understanding of "non-ideological" is that the analysis was not formulated to suit the agendas of the two mainstream political parties in the U.S. However, my sense is that Friedman does believe that U.S. global hegemony is on the whole good for the world.)

In his book that came out before The Next Decade (2011), The Next 100 Years (2009), Friedman makes the case that the U.S. will not be seriously challenged globally for decades to come -- in fact, all the way until about 2080!

Just to give a different spin to something I said earlier, and that I've tried to emphasize in my articles since March 2016: questions of mere power are not questions of politics. Geopolitics is not politics, either -- in my terminology, it is "anti-politics."

For my part, I am not interested in supporting U.S. hegemony, not in the present and not in the future, and for the most part not in the past, either.

For the moment, let us simply say that the historical periods of the U.S. that are more supportable -- because they make some contribution, however flawed, to the greater, universal, human project -- are either from before the U.S. entered the road of seeking to compete with other "great powers" on the world stage, or quite apart from this road.

In my view, the end of U.S. global hegemony and, for that matter, the end of any "great nation-state" global hegemony, is a condition sine qua non of a human future that is just and sustainable. So, again, the brilliance that George Friedman often brings to geopolitical analysis is to be understood in terms of a coldly-realistic perspective, not a warmly-normative one.)

Of course, this continued U.S. hegemony depends on certain "wise" courses of action being taken by U.S. leaders (Friedman doesn't really get into the question of what might be behind these leaders), including a "subtle" approach to the aforementioned questions of Israel and Iran.

Obviously, anything associated with Donald Trump is not going to be overly subtle! On the other hand, here we are almost at the end of Friedman's decade, so perhaps the time for subtlety has passed, and the U.S. is compelled to be a bit heavy-handed if there is to be any chance of extricating itself from the endless quagmire.

However, there's a certain fly, a rather large one, in the ointment that seems to have eluded Friedman's calculations: "the rise of China."

It isn't that Friedman avoids the China question, not at all; Friedman argues, however, that by 2020 China will not only not be contending with the United States to have the largest economy in the world, but instead that China will fragment, perhaps even devolve into civil war, because of deep inequalities between the relatively prosperous coastal urban areas, and the rural interior.

Certainly I know from study, and many conversations with people in China, this was a real concern going into the 2010s and in the first half of the decade.

The chapter dealing with all this in The Next 100 Years (Ch. 5) is titled, "China 2020: Paper Tiger," the latter term being one that Chairman Mao used regarding U.S. imperialism. Friedman writes of another "figure like Mao emerg[ing] to close the country off from the outside, [to] equalize the wealth -- or poverty " (p.7).

Being an anti-necessitarian in philosophy, I certainly believe anything can happen in social matters, but it seems as though President Xi Jinping and the current leadership of the Communist Party of China have, at least for the time being, managed to head off fragmentation at the pass, so to speak.

Friedman argued that the "pass" that China especially had to deal with is unsustainable growth rates; but it appears that China has accomplished this, by purposely slowing its economy down.

One of the things that Friedman is especially helpful with, in his larger geopolitical analysis, is understanding the role that naval power plays in sustaining U.S. hegemony. (In global terms, such power is what keeps the neoliberal "free market" running, and this power is far from free.)

*

... ... ...

Two of the best supporters of Trump's stated agenda are Tucker Carlson and Steve Hilton. Neither of them pull any punches on this issue when it comes to Republicans, and both of them go some distance beyond Trump in stating an explicitly anti-war agenda.

They perhaps do not entirely fit the mold of leftist anti-imperialism as it existed from the 1890s through the Sixties (as in the political decade, perhaps 1964-1974 or so) and 1970s, but they do in fact fit this mold vastly better than almost any major figure of the Democratic Party, with the possible exceptions of Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Andrew Yang. (But none of them has gone as far as Trump on this question!)

Certainly Elizabeth Warren is no exception, and at the moment of this writing she has made the crucial turn toward sticking the knife back into Bernie's back. That is her job, in my view, and part of it is to seem close to Bernie's positions (whatever their defects, which I'll discuss elsewhere), at least the ones that are more directly "economic," while winking at the ruling class.

There are a few things Carlson and Hilton say on the Iran situation and the Middle East in general that I don't agree with. But in the main I think both are right on where these issues are concerned.

As I've quoted Carlson a number of times previously, and as I also want to put forward Hilton as an important voice for a politics subservient to neither the liberal nor the conservative establishments, here let me quote what Hilton said in the midst of the Iran crisis, on January 5, 2020:

The best thing America can do to put the Middle East on a path that leads to more democracy, less terrorism, human rights and economic growth is to get the hell out of there while showing an absolute crystal clear determination to defend American interests with force whenever they are threatened.

That doesn't mean not doing anything, it means intervening only in ways that help America.

It means responding only to attacks on Americans disproportionately as a deterrent, just as we saw this week and it means finally accepting that it's not our job to fix the Middle East from afar.

The only part of this I take exception to is the "intervening only in ways that help America"-bit -- that opens the door to exactly the kinds of problems that Hilton wants the U.S. to avoid, besides the (to me, more important) fact that it is just morally wrong to think it is acceptable to intervene if it is in one's "interests."

My guess is that Hilton thinks that there is some built-in utilitarian or pragmatic calculus that means the morally-problematic interventions will not occur. I do not see where this has ever worked, but more importantly, this is where philosophy is important, theoretical work and abstract thinking are important.

It used to be that the Left was pretty good at this sort of thing, and there were some thoughtful conservatives who weren't bad, either. (A decent number of the latter, significantly, come from the Catholic intellectual tradition.) Now there are still a few of the latter, and there are ordinary people who are "thoughtful conservatives" in their "unschooled way" -- which is often better! -- but the Left has sold its intellectual soul along with its political soul.

That's a story for elsewhere (I have told parts of it in previous articles in this series); the point here is that the utilitarianism and "pragmatism" of merely calculating interests is not nearly going to cut it. (I have partly gone into this here because Hilton also advocates "pragmatism" in his very worthwhile book, Positive Populism -- it is the "affirmative" other side to Tucker Carlson's critical, "negative" expose, Ship of Fools.)

The wonderful philosophical pragmatism of William James is another matter; this is important because James, along with his friend Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), were leading figures of the Anti-Imperialist League back in the 1890s, when the U.S. establishment was beating the drums loudly to get into the race with Europeans for colonies.

They were for never getting "in" -- and of course they were not successful, which is why "get the hell out" is as important as anything people can say today.

What an insane world when the U.S. president says this and the political establishment opposes him, and "progressives" and "the Left" join in with the denunciations!

It has often been argued that the major utilitarian philosophers, from Bentham and Mill to Peter Singer, have implicit principles that go beyond the utilitarian calculus; I agree with this, and I think this is true of Steve Hilton as well.

In this light, allow me to quote a little more from the important statement he made on his Fox News Channel program, "The Next Revolution," on January 5; all of this is stuff I entirely agree with, and that expresses some very good principles:

The West's involvement in the Middle East has been a disaster from the start and finally, with President Trump, America is in a position to bring it to an end. We don't need their oil and we don't need their problems.

Finally, we have a U.S. president who gets that and wants to get out. There are no prospects for Middle East peace as long as we are there.

We're never going to defeat the ideology of Islamist terror as long as these countries are basket cases and one of the reasons they are basket cases is that our preposterous foreign policy establishment with monumental arrogance have treated the middle east like some chess game played out in the board rooms in Washington and London.

– [foxnews.com, transcribed by Yael Halon]

So then there is the usual tittering about this and that regarding Carlson and Hilton from liberal and progressive Democrats and leftists who support the Democrats, and it seems to me that there is one major reason why there is this foolish tittering: It is because these liberals and leftists really don't care about, for example, the destruction of Libya, or the murder of Berta Caceres.

Or, maybe they do care, but they have convinced themselves that these things have to swept under the rug in the name of defeating the pure evil of Trump. What this amounts to, in the "nationalist" discourse, is that Trump is some kind of nationalist (as he has said numerous times), perhaps of an "isolationist" sort, while the Democrats are in fact what can be called "nationalists of the neoliberal/neoconservative compact."

My liberal and leftist friends (some of them Maoists and post-Maoists and Trotskyists or some other kinds of Marxists or purported radicals -- feminists or antifa or whatever) just cannot see, it simply appears to be completely beyond the realm of their imaginations, that the latter kind of nationalism is much worse and qualitatively worse than what Trump represents, and it completely lacks the substantial good elements of Trump's agenda.

But hey, don't worry my liberal and leftist friends, it is hard to imagine that Joe Biden's "return to normalcy" won't happen at some point -- it will take not only an immense movement to even have a chance of things working out otherwise, but a movement that likes of which is beyond everyone's imagination at this point -- a movement of a revolutionary politics that remains to be invented, as all real politics are, by the masses.

Liberals and leftists have little to worry about here, they're okay with a Deep State society with a bullshit-democratic veneer and a neoliberal world order; this set-up doesn't really affect them all that much, not negatively at any rate, and the deplorables can just go to hell.

*

The Left I grew up with was the Sixties Left, and they used to be a great source of historical memory, and of anti-imperialism, civil rights, and ordinary working-people empowerment.

The current Left, and whatever array of Democratic-Party supporters, have received their marching orders, finally, from commander Pelosi (in reality, something more like a lieutenant), so the two weeks or so of "immense concern" about Iran has given way again to the extraordinarily-important and solemn work of impeachment.

But then, impeachment is about derailing the three main aspects of Trump's agenda, so you see how that works. Indeed, perhaps the way this is working is that Trump did in fact head off, whatever one thinks of the methods, a war with Iran (at this time! – and I do think this is but a temporary respite), or more accurately, a war between Iran and Israel that the U.S. would almost certainly be sucked into immediately.

So, it's back to Plan A for the Democrats and the "Left" that would be laughably absurd if it wasn't so reactionary, to get the neoliberal/ neoconservative endless-war agenda back on track, so that the march toward Iran can continue sooner rather than later. For now, the more spectacular the failure of this impeachment nonsense, the better!

Bill Martin is a philosopher and musician, retired from DePaul University. He is completing a book with the title, "The Trump Clarification: Disruption at the Edge of the System (toward a theory)." His most recent albums are "Raga Chaturanga" (Bill Martin + Zugzwang; Avant-Bass 3) and "Emptiness, Garden: String Quartets nos. 1 and 2 (Ryokucha Bass Guitar Quartet; Avant-Bass 4). He lives in Salina, Kansas, and plays bass guitar with The Radicles.

Dungroanin ,

I have read through finally. And comments too.

My opinion is Bill Martin is on the ball except for one personage- Hilton. If he is Camerons Hilton and architect of the Brexit referendum – for which he is rewarded with a 'seat at the table' of the crumbling Empire. The Strafor man too is just as complicit in the Empires wickedness.

But I'll let Bill off with that because he mentioned the Anti-Imperialist Mark Twain – always a joy to be reminded of Americas Dickens.

On Trump – he didn't use the Nuclear codes 10 minutes after getting them as warned by EVERYONE. Nor start a war with RocketMan, or Russia in Syria, or in Ukraine or with the Chinese using the proxy Uighars, or push through with attempted Bay of Pigs in Venezuela or just now Hong Kong. The Wall is not built and the ineffectual ripoff Obamacare version of a NHS is still there.
Judge by deeds not words.

Soleimani aside – He may have stopped the drive for war. Trumps direct contact with fellow world leaders HAS largely bypassed the war mongering State Department and also the Trillion dollar tax free Foundations set up last century to deliver the world Empire, that has so abused the American peoples and environment. He probably wasn't able to stop Bolivia.
The appointments of various players were not necessarily in his hands as Assad identified- the modern potus is merely a CEO/Chair of a board of directors who are put into place by the special interests who pour billions, 10's of billions into getting their politicians elected. They determine 'National Interests'. All he can do is accept their appointment and give them enough rope to hang themselves – which most have done!
These are that fight clubs rules.

On the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation – after 20 full years of working towards cohesion- they have succeeded. Iran is due to become a full member – once it is free of UN sanctions, which is why Trump was forced into pulling the treaty with them, so that technicality could stop that membership. China is not having it nor is Russia – Putins clear statement re the 'international rules' not being mandatory for them dovetails with the US position of Exceptionality. Checkmate.

As for the Old Robber Baron Banker Pirates idea that they should be allowed a Maritime Empire as consolation- ha ha ha, pull the other one.

The ancient sea trading routes from Africa to China were active for thousands of years before the Europeans turned up and used unequal power to disrupt and pillage at their hearts content.

What made that possible was of course explained in the brilliant Guns, Germs and Steel.

These ancients have ALL these and are equal or advanced in all else including Space, Comms and AI. A navy is not so vital when even nuclear subs are visible from low orbit satellites except in the deepest trenches – not a safe place to hide for months and also pretty crowded with all the other subs trying to hide there. As for Aircraft carrier groups – just build an island! Diego Garcia has a rival.

Double Checkmate.

The Empire is Dead. Long live the Empire.

Dungroanin ,

And this is hilarious about potus turning the tables on the brass who tried to drag him into the 'tank'.

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2020/01/the-betrayal-of-trump-by-larry-c-johnson.html

'Grab the damn fainting couch. Trump told the assembled military leaders who had presided over a military stalemate in Afghanistan and the rise of ISIS as "losers." Not a one of them had the balls to stand up, tell him to his face he was wrong and offer their resignation. Nope. They preferred to endure such abuse in order to keep their jobs. Pathetic.

This excerpt in the Washington Post tells the reader more about the corruption of the Deep State and their mindset than it does about Trump's so-called mental state. Trump acted no differently in front of these senior officers and diplomats than he did on the campaign trail. He was honest. That is something the liars in Washington cannot stomach. '

Rhys Jaggar ,

I am not an expert on US Constitutional Law, but is there any legal mechanism for a US President to hold a Referendum in the way that the UK held a 'Brexit Referendum' and Scotland held an 'Independence Referendum'?

How would a US Referendum in 'Getting the hell out of the Middle East, bringing our boys and girls home before the year is out' play out, I wonder?

That takes the argument away from arch hawks like Bolton et al and puts it firmly in the ambit of Joe Schmo of Main Street, Oshkosh

wardropper ,

Great idea.
Main problem is that most Americans are brought up to think their government is separate from themselves, and should not be seriously criticized.
By "criticized", I mean, taken to task in a way which actually puts them on a playing field where they are confronted by real people.
Shouting insults at the government from the rooftops is simply greeted with indulgent smiles from the guilty elite.

Richard Le Sarc ,

George Friedman is a bog standard Zionist, therefore, out of fear, a virulent Sinophobe, because the Zionists will never control China as they do the Western slave regimes. China surpassed the USA as the world' s largest economy in 2014, on the PPP calculus that the CIA,IMF and just about everyone uses. It' s growing three times as fast as the USA, too. The chance of China fragmenting by 2020 is minuscule, certainly far less than that of the USA. The Chinese have almost totally eliminated poverty, and will raise the living standard of all to a ' middle income' by 2049. It is, however, the genocidal policy of the USA, on which it expend billions EVERY year, to do its diabolical worst to attempt to foment and foster such a hideous fate inside China, by supporting vermin like the Hong Kong fascist thugs, the Uighur salafist terrorist butchers, the medieval theocrats of the Dalai clique and separatist movements in Inner Mongolia, ' Manchuria', Taiwan, even Guandong and Guangxi. It takes a real Western thug to look forward to the ghastly suffering that these villainous ambitions would unleash.

Antonym ,

In RlS's nut shell: China can annex area but Israel: no way!

Dungroanin ,

Which area is China looking to annex?

Richard Le Sarc ,

Ant is a pathological Zionist liar, but you can see his loyalty to ' Eretz Yisrael' , ' ..from the Nile to the Euphrates', and ' cleansed' of non-Jews, can' t you.

alsdkjf ,

I'm surprised that this author can even remember the counter culture of the 60s given his Trump love.

Yet more Trumpism from Off Guardian. One doesn't have to buy into the politics of post DLC corporate owned DNC to know Trump for what he is. A fascist.

It's just amazing this Trump "left". Pathetic.

Antonym ,

Trump .. better than HRC but the guy is totally hypnotized by the level of the New York stock exchanges: even his foreign policy is improvised around that. He simply thinks higher is a proof of better forgetting that 90% of Americans don't own serious quantity of stock and that levels are manipulated by big players and the FED. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/economy/stocks-economy.html

Look at his dealing with China: tough as much as the US stock market stays benign in the short term. Same for Iran etc.

Sure, he is crippled by Pelosi & the FBI / CIA, but he is also by his own stock dependent mind. Might be the reason he is still alive ???

alsdkjf ,

Trump crippled by the CIA? Trump?

I mean the fascist jerk appointed ex CIA torture loving Pompeo to replace swamp creature oil tycoon as Secretary of State, no?

He appointed torture queen within the CIA to become CIA Director, no?

He went to the CIA headquarters on day one of his Administration to lavish praise, no?

He took on ex CIA Director Woolsey as advisor on foreign policy during his campaign, no?

I tell ya that Trump is a real adversary of the CIA!

Gall ,

Roger that. Trump appoints a dominatrix as DCI. Only a masochist or a sadist would Dream of Gina..you know the head of the torture squad under Bush. Otherwise nice girl. PompAss is a total clown but a dangerous one who even makes John Bolton look sane. Now that's scary!

This guy is Hilary Clinton in drag. The only thing missing is the evil triumphalist cackle after whacking Soleimani. Maybe it wasn't recorded.

So much for "draining the swamp". The Whitehouse has become an even bigger swamp.

Antonym ,

Forgot about John Brennan ex- CIA head or James Clapper ex-DNI honcho?
John Brennan On 'All Roads With Trump Lead To Putin' | The Last Word | MSNBC
They practically too Trump hostage in his first year.

one ,

my take from this article:
There are, among the murderers and assassins in Washington, a couple of characters who appear to have 2% of human DNA.
They author may confirm.

two ,

"israel is right in the cen "
sorry, the muderous regime israel has repeatedly proven, it's never never right . please avoid this usage.

three ,

There are 53 or 54 'I's in the article, including his partner's Is. The author may confirm.

Dungroanin ,

Phew!

That is a lot of words mate. Fingers must be sore. I won't comment more until trying to re-read again except quote this:

"Being an anti-necessitarian in philosophy,.."

I must say i had a wtf moment at that point see ya later.

paul ,

The idea that Trump's recent actions in the Middle East were part of some incredibly cunning plan to avoid war with Iran, strikes me as somewhat implausible, to put it (very) charitably.

Even Hitler didn't want war. He wanted to achieve his objectives without fighting. When that didn't work, war was Plan B. Trump probably has very little actual control over foreign policy. He is surrounded by people who have been plotting and scheming against him from long before he was elected. He heads a chaotic and dysfunctional administration of billionaires, chancers, grifters, conmen, superannuated generals, religious nut jobs, swamp creatures, halfwits and outright criminals, lurching from one crisis and one fiasco to the next. Some of these people like Bolton were foisted upon him by Adelson and various other backers and wire pullers, but that is not to absolve Trump of personal responsibility.

Competing agencies which are a law unto themselves have been free to pursue their own turf wars at the expense of anything remotely resembling a rational and coherent strategy. So have quite low level bureaucrats, formulating and implementing their own policies with little regard for the White House. In Syria, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the State Department went their own way, each supporting competing and mutually antagonistic factions and terrorist groups. Agreements that were reached with Russia over Syria, for example, were deliberately sabotaged by Ashton Carter in 24 hours. Likewise, Bolton did everything he could to wreck Trump's delicate negotiations with N. Korea.

paul ,

Seen in this light, US policy (or the absence of any coherent policy) is more understandable. What passes for US leadership is the worst in its history, even given a very low bar. Arrogant, venal, corrupt, delusional, irredeemably ignorant, and ideologically driven. The only positive thing that can be said is that the alternative (Clinton) would probably have been even worse, if that is possible.

That may also be the key to understanding the current situation. For all his pandering to Israel, Trump is more of a self serving unprincipled opportunist than a true Neocon/ Zionist believer in the mould of Pence, Bolton and Pompeo. For that reason he is not trusted by the Zionist Power Elite. He is too much of a loose cannon. They will take all his Gives, like Jerusalem and the JCPOA, but without any gratitude.

It has taken them a century of plotting, scheming and manoeuvring to achieve their political, financial, and media stranglehold over the US. but America is a wasting asset and they are under time pressure. It is visibly declining and losing its influence. And the parasite will find it difficult to find a similar host. Who else is going to give Israel billions a year in tribute, unlimited free weaponry and diplomatic cover? Russia? Are Chinese troops "happy to die for Israel" asUS ones are (according to their general)?

paul ,

And they are way behind schedule. Assad was supposed to be dead by now, and Syria another defenceless failed state, broken up into feuding little cantons, with Israel expanding into the south of the country. The main event, the war with Iran, should have started lond ago.

That is the reason for the impeachment circus. This is not intended to be resolved one way or the other. It is intended to drag on indefinitely, for months and years, to distract and weaken Trump and make it possible to extract what they want. One of the reasons Trump agreed to the murder of Soleimani and his Iraqi opposite number was to appease some Republican senators like Graham whose support is essential to survive impeachment. They were the ones who wanted it, along with Bolton and Netanyahu.

paul ,

It is instructive that all the main players in the impeachment circus are Jews, under Sanhedrin Chief Priests Schiff and Nadler, apart from a few token goys thrown in to make up the numbers. That even goes for those defending Trump.

Richard Le Sarc ,

Don' t forget that Lebanon up to the Litani is the patrimony of the Jewish tribes of Asher and Naphtali, and, as Smotrich, Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, said on Israeli TV a few years ago, ' Damascus belongs to the Jews'.

bevin ,

" China will fragment, perhaps even devolve into civil war, because of deep inequalities between the relatively prosperous coastal urban areas, and the rural interior."

This is not Bill, but Bill's mate the Stratcor geopolitical theorist for hire.

What is happening in the world is that the only empire the globe, as a whole, has ever seen- the pirate kingdom that the Dutch, then the British and finally the US, leveraged out of the plunder and conquest of America -the maritime empire, of sea routes and navies is under challenge by a revival of the Eurasian proto-empires that preceded it and drove its merchants and princes on the Atlantic coast, to sea.

We know who the neo-liberals are the current iteration of the gloomy philosophies of the Scots Enlightenment, (Cobbett's 'Scotch Feelosophy') utilitarianism in its crudest form and the principles of necessary inequalities, from the Austrian School back to the various crude racisms which became characteristic of the C19th.
The neo-cons are the latest expression of the maritime powers' fear of Eurasia and its interior lines of communication. Besides which the importance of navies and of maritime agility crumble.
Bill mentions that China has not got much of a navy. I'm not so sure about that, but isn't it becoming clear that navies-except to shipyards, prostitutes and arms contractors- are no longer of sovereign importance? There must be missile commanders in China drooling over the prospect of catching a US Fleet in all its glory within 500 miles of the mainland. Not to mention on the east coast of the Persian Gulf.
The neo-cons are the last in a long line of strategists, ideologists and, for the most part, mercenary publicists defying the logic of Halford Mackinder's geo-strategy for a lot more than a penny a line. And what they urge, is all that they can without crossing the line from deceitfulness to complete dishonesty: chaos and destabilisation within Eurasia, surrounding Russia, subverting Sinkiang and Tibet, employing sectarian guerrillas, fabricating nationalists and nationalisms.. recreate the land piracy, the raiding and the ethnic explosions that drove trade from the land to the sea and crippled the Qing empire.
The clash is between war, necessary to the Maritime Empire and Peace, vital to the consolidation and flowering of Eurasia.

As to Israel, and perhaps we can go into this later: it looms much larger in the US imagination (and the imaginations the 'west' borrows from the US) than anywhere else. It is a tiny sliver of a country. Far from being an elephant in any room, it is simply a highly perfumed lapdog which also serves as its master's ventriloquist's dummy. Its danger lies in the fact that after decades of neglect by its idiotic self indulgent masters, it has become an openly fascist regime, which was definitely not meant to happen, and, misled by its own exotic theories of race, has come to believe that it can do what it wants. It can't-and this is one reason why Bill misjudges the reasoning behind the Soleimani killing- but it likes to act, or rather threaten to act, as if it could.

(By the way-note to morons across the web-Bill's partner quotes Adorno and writes about him too: cue rants about Cultural Marxism.)

Hugh O'Neill ,

Thanks, Bevin. The article was so long, I had quite forgotten that he laid too much emphasis on the Stratcor Unspeakable. Clever he may be, but not much use without a moral compass. Talking of geo-strategists, you will doubtless be aware of the work of A.T. Mahan whose blueprint for acquisition of inspired Teddy Roosevelt and leaders throughout Europe, Russia, Japan.

Richard Le Sarc ,

Friedman is a snake oil peddler. He tells the ruling psychopaths what they want to hear, like ' China crumbling', their favourite wet-dream.

bevin ,

I agree about Mahan's importance. He understood what lay behind the Empire on which the sun never set but he had enough brains to have been able to realise that current conditions make those fleets obsolete. In fact the Germans in the last War realised that too- their strategy was Eurasian, it broke down over the small matter of devouring the USSR. The expiry date on the tin of Empire has been obvious for a long time- there is simply too much money to be made by ignoring it.
Russia has always been the problem, either real (very occasionally) or latent for the Dutch/British/US Empire because it is just so clear that the quickest and most efficient communications between Shanghai and Lisbon do not go through the Straits of Malacca, the Suez Canal, or round the cape . Russia never had to do a thing to earn the enmity of the Empire, simply existing was a challenge. And that remains the case- for centuries the Empire denounced the Russians because of the Autocracy, then it was the anarchism of the Bolsheviks, then it was the autocracy again, this time featuring Stalin, then it was the chaos of the oligarchs and now we are back with the Tsar/Stalin Putin.

Hugh O'Neill ,

Phenomenal diagnosis, Bevin. However, one suspects that there is still too much profit to be made by the MIC in pursuing useless strategies. I imagine Mahan turning in his grave in his final geo-strategic twist.

Richard Le Sarc ,

Yes-Zionist hubris will get Israel into a whole world of sorrow.

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

More USA Deep State conspiracy theorizing which makes the author American paternalism posing as authorship that is revenue neutral when it ain't.

Any article with mention of mother-'Tucker' Carlson is one that is pure propagandistic tripe in the extreme. Off-G is a UK blog yet this Americanism & worn out aged propaganda still prevails in the minds of US centric myopics writ large across all states in the disunity equally divided from cities to rural towns all.

MOU

johny conspiranoid ,

"More USA Deep State conspiracy theorizing which makes the author American paternalism posing as authorship that is revenue neutral when it ain'"
Is this even a sentence?

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

It was a sentence when I was smoking marijuana yesterday, Johnny C. Today it is still a sentence IMHO, but you transcribed it incorrectly, and forgot the end of the sentence.

NOTE: When I smoke marijuana I am allowed to write uncoordinated sentences. These are the rules in CANADA. If you don't like it write to your local politician and complain bitterly.

MOU

Charlotte Russe ,

Bush, Obama, and Clinton are despicable. In fact, they're particularly disgusting, inasmuch, as they were much more "cognizant" than Trump of how their actions would lead to very specific insidious consequences. In addition, they were more able to cleverly conceal their malevolent deeds from the public. And that's why Trump is now sitting in the Oval Office–he won because of public disgust for lying politicians.

However, Trump is "dangerous" because he's a "misinformed idiot," and as such is extremely malleable. Of course, ignorance is no excuse when the future of humanity is on the line

In any event, Trump is often not aware of the outcome of his actions. And when you're surrounded and misinformed by warmongering neoconservative nutcases, especially ones who donated to your campaign chances are you'll do stupid things. And that's what they're counting on.

alsdkfj ,

Trump is some virtuous example of a truth teller? Trump?

The biggest liar to every occupy the White House and that is saying a lot.

Swamp Monster fascist Trump. So much to love, right?

He could murder one of your friends and you'd still apologize for him, is my guess.

Hugh O'Neill ,

It was a long read, but I got there. In essence, I agreed with 99%, but I hesitate to share too much praise for Trump's qualities as a Human Being – though he may be marginally more Human than the entire US body politic. I was walking our new puppy yesterday when he did his usual attempt to leap all over other walkers. I pleaded their forgiveness and explained that his big heart was in inverse proportion to his small brain. It occurred to me later that the opposite would be pure evil i.e. a small heart but big brain. Capitalism as is now infects the Human Experiment, has reduced both brains and hearts: propagandists believe their own lies, and too few trust their own instincts and innate compassion, ground down by the relentless distractions of lies and 'entertainment' (at least the Romas gave you free bread!).
I get the impression that Trump's world view hasn't altered much since he was about 11 years old. I do not intend to insult all eleven-year-olds, but his naivety is not a redeeming feature of his spoilt brat bully personality. He has swallowed hook, line and sinker every John Wayne cowboy movie and thinks the world can be divided into good guys and bad guys depending on what colour hat they wear. In the days of Black & White TV, it was either black or white. The world seemed so much simpler aged 11 .(1966).

Dungroanin ,

Yet I have yet to see one photo of Trump with a gun or in uniform.

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

The Duck learned to dress appropriately for business, I'll give him that. As a New York Real Estate scion you will never see him dress otherwise. Protocol in business is a contemporary business suit. No other manner of dress is allowed for the executive class in North America or UK.

[Jan 21, 2020] The Middle East Strategic "Balance" Shredded -- Strategic Culture

Jan 21, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org

The U.S. was having some success with turning protest messaging against Iran – until, that is – its killing and wounding of so many Iraqi security force members last week (Ketaib Hizbullah is a part of Iraq's armed forces).

Escalation of maximum-pressure was one thing (Iran was confident of weathering that); but assassinating such a senior official on his state duties, was quite something else. We have not observed a state assassinating a most senior official of another state before.

And the manner of its doing, was unprecedented too. Soleimani was officially visiting Iraq. He arrived openly as a VIP guest from Syria, and was met on the tarmac by an equally senior Iraqi official, Al-Muhandis, who was assassinated also, (together with seven others). It was all open. General Soleimani regularly used his mobile phone as he argued that as a senior state official, if he were to be assassinated by another state, it would only be as an act of war.

This act, performed at the international airport of Baghdad, constitutes not just the sundering of red lines, but a humiliation inflicted on Iraq – its government and people. It will upend Iraq's strategic positioning. The erstwhile Iraqi attempt at balancing between Washington and Iran will be swept away by Trump's hubristic trampling on the country's sovereignty. It may well mark the beginning of the end of the U.S. presence in Iraq (and therefore Syria, too), and ultimately, of America's footprint in the Middle East.

Trump may earn easy plaudits now for his "We're America, Bitch!", as one senior White House official defined the Trump foreign policy doctrine; but the doubts – and unforeseen consequences soon may come home to roost.

Why did he do it? If no one really wanted 'war', why did Trump escalate and smash up all the crockery? He has had an easy run (so far) towards re-election, so why play the always unpredictable 'wild card' of a yet another Mid-East conflict?

Was it that he wanted to show 'no Benghazi'; no U.S. embassy siege 'on my watch' – unlike Obama's handling of that situation? Was he persuaded that these assassinations would play well to his constituency (Israeli and Evangelical)? Or was he offered this option baldly by the Netanyahu faction in Washington? Maybe.

Some in Israel are worried about a three or four front war reaching Israel. Senior Israeli officials recently have been speculating about the likelihood of regional conflict occurring within the coming months. Israel's PM however, is fighting for his political life, and has requested immunity from prosecution on three indictments – pleading that this was his legal right, and that it was needed for him to "continue to lead Israel" for the sake of its future. Effectively, Netanyahu has nothing to lose from escalating tensions with Iran -- but much to gain.

Opposition Israeli political and military leaders have warned that the PM needs 'war' with Iran -- effectively to underscore the country's 'need' for his continued leadership. And for technical reasons in the Israeli parliament, his plea is unlikely to be settled before the March general elections. Netanyahu thus may still have some time to wind up the case for his continued tenure of the premiership.

One prime factor in the Israeli caution towards Iran rests not so much on the waywardness of Netanyahu, but on the inconstancy of President Trump: Can it be guaranteed that the U.S. will back Israel unreservedly -- were it to again to become enmeshed in a Mid-East war? The Israeli and Gulf answer seemingly is 'no'. The import of this assessment is significant. Trump now is seen by some in Israel – and by some insiders in Washington – as a threat to Israel's future security vis à vis Iran. Was Trump aware of this? Was this act a gamble to guarantee no slippage in that vital constituency in the lead up to the U.S. elections? We do not know.

So we arrive at three final questions: How far will Iran absorb this new escalation? Will Iran confine its retaliation to within Iraq? Or will the U.S. cross another 'red line' by striking inside Iran itself, in any subsequent tit for tat?

Is it deliberate (or is it political autism) that makes Secretary Pompeo term all the Iraqi Hash'd a-Sha'abi forces – whether or not part of official Iraqi forces – as "Iran-led"? The term seems to be used as a laissez-passer to attack all the many Hash'd a-Sha'abi units on the grounds that, being "Iran-linked", they therefore count as 'terrorist forces'. This formulation gives rise to the false sequitur that all other Iraqis would somehow approve of the killings. This would be laughable, if it were not so serious. The Hash'd forces led the war against ISIS and are esteemed by the vast majority of Iraqis. And Soleimani was on the ground at the front line, with those Iraqi forces.

These forces are not Iranian 'proxies'. They are Iraqi nationalists who share a common Shi'a identity with their co-religionists in Iran, and across the region. They share a common zeitgeist, they see politics similarly, but they are no puppets (we write from direct experience).

But what this formulation does do is to invite a widening conflict: Many Iraqis will be outraged by the U.S. attacks on fellow Iraqis and will revenge them. Pompeo (falsely) will then blame Iran. Is that Pompeo's purpose: casus belli?

But where is the off-ramp? Iran will respond Is this affair simply set to escalate from limited military exchanges and from thence, to escalate until what? We understand that this was not addressed in Washington before the President's decision was made. There are no real U.S. channels of communication (other than low level) with Iran; nor is there a plan for the next days. Nor an obvious exit. Is Trump relying on gut instinct again?

[Jan 21, 2020] The Many Matryoska Dolls to America's Way of Imagining Iran -- Strategic Culture

Notable quotes:
"... The Open Society and its Enemies ..."
"... "Since President Donald Trump ordered the drone strike that killed [Soleimani – justified in terms of deterrence, and allegedly halting an attack] a handful of Trump's advisers, however, [espied another] strategic benefit to killing Soleimani: Call it regime disruption ..."
"... "The case for disruption is outlined in a series of unclassified memos sent to [John Bolton]in May and June 2019 their author, David Wurmser, is a longtime adviser to Bolton who then served as a consultant to the National Security Council. Wurmser argues that Iran is in the midst of a legitimacy crisis. Its leadership, he writes, is divided between camps that seek an apocalyptic return of the Hidden Imam, and those that favour of the preservation of the Islamic Republic. All the while, many Iranians have grown disgusted with the regime's incompetence and corruption. ..."
"... "Wurmser's crucial insight [is that] – were unexpected, rule-changing actions taken against Iran, it would confuse the regime. It would need to scramble," he writes. Such a U.S. attack would "rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them upon which the regime depends for stability and survival." Such a moment of confusion, Wurmser writes, will create momentary paralysis -- and the perception among the Iranian public that its leaders are weak. ..."
"... "Wurmser's memos show that the Trump administration has been debating the blow against Soleimani since the current crisis began, some seven months ago After Iran downed a U.S. drone [in June], Wurmser advised Bolton that the U.S. response should be overt and designed to send a message that the U.S. holds the Iranian regime, not the Iranian people, responsible. "This could even involve something as a targeted strike on someone like Soleimani or his top deputies," Wurmser wrote in a June 22 memo. ..."
"... In these memos, Wurmser is careful to counsel against a ground invasion of Iran. He says the U.S. response "does not need to be boots on the ground (in fact, it should not be)." Rather, he stresses that the U.S. response should be calibrated to exacerbate the regime's domestic legitimacy crisis. ..."
"... Coping with Crumbling States ..."
"... Clean Break ..."
Jan 21, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org

lastair Crooke January 20, 2020 © Photo: Flickr / DonkeyHotey On the 17 September 1656, Oliver Cromwell, a Protestant Puritan, who had won a civil war, and had the English king beheaded in public, railed against England's enemies. There was, he told Parliament that day, an axis of evil abroad in the world. And this axis – led by Catholic Spain – was, at root, the problem of a people that had placed themselves at the service of 'evil'. This 'evil', and the servitude that it beget, was the evil of a religion – Catholicism – that refused the English peoples' desire for simple liberties: " [an evil] that put men under restraint under which there was no freedom and under which, there could be 'no liberty of individual consciousness'".

That was how the English protestant leader saw Catholic Spain in 1656. And it is very close to how key orientations in the U.S. sees Iran today : The evil of religion – of Shi'ism – subjecting (they believe) Iranians to repression, and to serfdom. In Europe, this ideological struggle against the 'evil' of an imposed religious community (the Holy 'Roman' Axis, then) brought Europe to 'near-Armageddon', with the worst affected parts of Europe seeing their population decimated by up to 60% during the conflict.

Is this faction in the U.S. now intent on invoking a new, near-Armageddon – on this occasion, in the Middle East – in order, like Cromwell, to destroy the religious 'community known' as the Shi'a Resistance Axis, seen to stretch across the region, in order to preserve the Jewish "peoples' desire for simple liberties"?

Of course, today's leaders of this ideological faction are no longer Puritan Protestants (though the Christian Evangelicals are at one with Cromwell's 'Old Testament' literalism and prophesy). No, its lead ideologues are the neo-conservatives, who have leveraged Karl Popper's hugely influential The Open Society and its Enemies – a seminal treatise, which to a large extent, has shaped how many Americans imagine their 'world'. Popper's was history understood as a series of attempts, by the forces of reaction, to smother an open society with the weapons of traditional religion and traditional culture:

Marx and Russia were cast as the archetypal reactionary threat to open societies. This construct was taken up by Reagan, and re-connected to the Christian apocalyptic tradition (hence the neo-conservative coalition with Evangelists yearning for Redemption , and with liberal interventionists, yearning for a secular millenarianism). All concur that Iran is reactionary, and furthermore, the posit, poses a grave threat to Israel's self-proclaimed 'open society'.

The point here is that there is little point in arguing with these people that Iran poses no threat to the U.S. (which is obvious) – for the 'project' is ideological through and through. It has to be understood by these lights. Popper's purpose was to propose that only liberal globalism would bring about a "growing measure of humane and enlightened life" and a free and open society – period.

All this is but the outer Matryoshka – a suitable public rhetoric, a painted image – that can be used to encase the secret, inner dolls. Eli Lake, writing in Bloomberg , however, gives away the next doll:

"Since President Donald Trump ordered the drone strike that killed [Soleimani – justified in terms of deterrence, and allegedly halting an attack] a handful of Trump's advisers, however, [espied another] strategic benefit to killing Soleimani: Call it regime disruption

"The case for disruption is outlined in a series of unclassified memos sent to [John Bolton]in May and June 2019 their author, David Wurmser, is a longtime adviser to Bolton who then served as a consultant to the National Security Council. Wurmser argues that Iran is in the midst of a legitimacy crisis. Its leadership, he writes, is divided between camps that seek an apocalyptic return of the Hidden Imam, and those that favour of the preservation of the Islamic Republic. All the while, many Iranians have grown disgusted with the regime's incompetence and corruption.

"Wurmser's crucial insight [is that] – were unexpected, rule-changing actions taken against Iran, it would confuse the regime. It would need to scramble," he writes. Such a U.S. attack would "rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them upon which the regime depends for stability and survival." Such a moment of confusion, Wurmser writes, will create momentary paralysis -- and the perception among the Iranian public that its leaders are weak.

"Wurmser's memos show that the Trump administration has been debating the blow against Soleimani since the current crisis began, some seven months ago After Iran downed a U.S. drone [in June], Wurmser advised Bolton that the U.S. response should be overt and designed to send a message that the U.S. holds the Iranian regime, not the Iranian people, responsible. "This could even involve something as a targeted strike on someone like Soleimani or his top deputies," Wurmser wrote in a June 22 memo.

In these memos, Wurmser is careful to counsel against a ground invasion of Iran. He says the U.S. response "does not need to be boots on the ground (in fact, it should not be)." Rather, he stresses that the U.S. response should be calibrated to exacerbate the regime's domestic legitimacy crisis.

So there it is – David Wurmser is the 'doll' within: no military invasion, but just a strategy to blow apart the Iranian Republic. Wurmser, Eli Lake reveals, has quietly been advising Bolton and the Trump Administration all along. This was the neo-con, who in 1996, compiled Coping with Crumbling States (which flowed on from the infamous Clean Break policy strategy paper, written for Netanyahu, as a blueprint for destructing Israel's enemies). Both these papers advocated the overthrow of the Secular-Arab nationalist states – excoriated both as "crumbling relics of the 'evil' USSR" (using Popperian language, of course) – and inherently hostile to Israel (the real message).

Well ( big surprise ), Wurmser has now been at work as the author of how to 'implode' and destroy Iran. And his insight? "A targeted strike on someone like Soleimani"; split the Iranian leadership into warring factions; cut an open wound into the flesh of Iran's domestic legitimacy; put a finger into that open wound, and twist it; disrupt – and pretend that the U.S. sides with the Iranian people, against its government.

Eli Lake seems, in his Bloomberg piece, to think that the Wurmser strategy has worked. Really? The problem here is that narratives in Washington are so far apart from the reality that exists on the ground – they simply do not touch at any point. Millions attended Soleimani's cortege. His killing gave a renewed cohesion to Iran. Little more than a dribble have protested.

Now let us unpack the next 'doll': Trump bought into Wurmser's 'play', albeit, with Trump subsequently admitting that he did the assassination under intense pressure from Republican Senators. Maybe he believed the patently absurd narrative that Iranians would 'be dancing in the street' at Soleimani's killing. In any event, Trump is not known, exactly, for admitting his mistakes. Rather, when something is portrayed as his error, the President adopts the full 'salesman' persona: trying to convince his base that the murder was no error, but a great strategic success – "They like us", Trump claimed of protestors in Iran.

Tom Luongo has observed : "Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate begins next week, and it's clear that this will not be a walk in the park for the President. Anyone dismissing this because the Republicans hold the Senate, simply do not understand why this impeachment exists in the first place. It is [occurring because it offers] the ultimate form of leverage over a President whose desire to end the wars in the Middle East is anathema to the entrenched powers in the D.C. Swamp." Ah, so here we arrive at another inner Matryoshka.

This is Luongo's point: Impeachment was the leverage to drive open a wedge between Republican neo-conservatives in the Senate – and Trump. And now the Pelosi pressure on Republican Senators is escalating . The Establishment threw cold water over Trump's assertion of imminent attack, as justification for murdering Soleimani, and Trump responds by painting himself further into a corner on Iran – by going the full salesman 'monte'.

On the campaign trail, the President goes way over-the-top, calling Soleimani a "son of a b -- -", who killed 'thousands' and furthermore was responsible for every U.S. veteran who lost a limb in Iraq. And he then conjures up a fantasy picture of protesters pouring onto the streets of Tehran, tearing down images of Soleimani, and screaming abuse at the Iranian leadership.

It is nonsense. There are no mass protests (there have been a few hundred students protesting at one main Tehran University). But Trump has dived in pretty deep, now threatening the Euro-Three signatories to the JCPOA, that unless they brand Iran as having defaulted on JCPOA at the UNSC disputes mechanism, he will slap an eye-watering 25% tariff on their automobiles.

So, how will Trump avoid plunging in even deeper to conflict if – and when – Americans die in Iraq or Syria at the hands of militia – and when Pompeo or Lindsay Graham will claim, baldly, 'Iran's proxies did it'? Sending emollient faxes to the Swiss to pass to Tehran will not do. Tehran will not read them, or believe them, even if they did.

It all reeks of stage-management; a set up: a very clever stage-management, designed to end with the U.S. crossing Iran's 'red line', by striking at a target within Iranian territory. Here, finally, we arrive at the innermost doll.

Cui bono ? Some Senators who never liked Trump, and would prefer Pence as President; the Democrats, who would prefer to run their candidate against Pence in November, rather than Trump. But also, as someone who once worked with Wurmser observed tartly: when you hear that name (Wurmser), immediately you think Netanyahu, his intimate associate.

Matryoshka herself?

[Jan 20, 2020] Some people, in the US, still do not understand why Iranian people do not "love" America...If you had around 100.000 casualties by nerve gas that was sold by the US and his poodles (forget other western countries, you know who is "the boss" in the game) full aligned with Iraq,

Jan 20, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

DFC , Jan 20 2020 20:36 utc | 25

b said:

"During the Iran-Iraq war Iraq's Saddam Hussein ordered the use of chemical weapons against Iranian front lines and cities. Ten thousand Iranians died of those and many more were wounded by them"

Nope, in fact the estimate body count is much higher:

"According to a 2002 article in the Star-Ledger, 20,000 Iranian combatants and combat medics were killed on the spot by nerve gas." (this was only a part, there were also many civilians killed)

"In a declassified 1991 report, the CIA estimated that Iran had suffered more than 50,000 casualties from Iraq's use of several chemical weapons,[10] though current estimates are more than 100,000"

"Reporter Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post stated that Reagan's administration was well aware that the materials sold to Iraq would be used to manufacture chemical weapons for use in the war against Iran"
"According to Reagan's foreign policy, every attempt to save Iraq was necessary and legal.[4]"

All of this is in the wikipedia, hardly a "hardcore iranian trolls" web:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against_Iran

Some people, in the US, still do not understand why Iranian people do not "love" America...If you had around 100.000 casualties by nerve gas that was sold by the US and his poodles (forget other western countries, you know who is "the boss" in the game) full aligned with Iraq, and then you attack Iran with sanctions and threats again and again, and at the peak of hypocrisy in 2003 USA invaded Iraq "to counter the threat of WMD" (sold by the US)...What do you think of the US if you are an Iranian were living all your live under the "Damocles sword" of the threats and sactions of the Empire?

DFC , Jan 20 2020 22:27 utc | 52

@ Posted by: Laguerre | Jan 20 2020 21:48 utc | 38

Let me see if I understand your point:

First US give permissions in September 1980 (if not encouraged) to Saddam to invade Iran, to finish the new Islamic regime that was seen as an enemy by Washington; and then when Iranians, at a huge costs, retaliates and turn the tide, then the US thought it was justified to supply Iraq with the chemicals (the "dual-use" technology) to make huge amounts of nerve gases and support the use against Iranian soldiers (with some unavoidable thousands of "collateral damages"), and also helping them with intelligence, satellite imagery and etc...Is that your point?

Do you think US would have permitted Iraq attacks Iran if the Shah was governing Iran? Do you think all the US did is justified? Do you think the people of Iran has no reasons for not "loving" America?

[Jan 19, 2020] Friedman s Hapless Fear-mongering

Notable quotes:
"... They have promoted dishonest claims about the JCPOA and made unfounded claims about Iran's so-called "nuclear ambitions" in order to make it seem as if the Iranian government is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. They have done this to justify their hard-line policies and to lay the groundwork for pursuing regime change and war. Every time that someone repeats false claims about a non-existent "nuclear weapons program" in Iran, it creates unnecessary fear and plays into the administration's hands. ..."
"... The administration is already working overtime to propagandize the public and scare Americans into supporting aggressive and destructive policies against Iran, and no one should be giving them extra help. ..."
"... "Friedman's claim that Iran restarted a "nuclear weapons program" is completely false. That isn't what the Iranian government did, and it is irresponsible to say this when it is clearly untrue." ..."
"... Friedman isn't usually thought of as a devotee of Truth, and the chance of him correcting even the most egregious falsehoods you point out is approximately zero. At heart he's a propaganda guy, not a fact-based analyst. ..."
"... Friedman does it for Israel. It is their line, their constant foreign policy push. The NYT lets him, seems to encourage it, due to its own complex ties to Israel. ..."
"... The Israel Lobby is behind vast wars, killing, and waste. It has become an endless evil. ..."
"... Friedman seems to forget that Iran is a signatory of the NPT and inspectors come and monitor activities, all outside JPCOA. But hey, Iraq had WMD at the time the international inspectors were saying that it didn't and their message and activities were obstructed and blocked by the US. Same as with the alleged gas attacks in Syria and the OPCW "mishandling" the reporting... US has learned since Iraq and wanted compliance from these types of organizations. ..."
theamericanconservative.com

Friedman's latest column obviously wasn't fact-checked before it was published:

And then, a few weeks later, Trump ordered the killing of Suleimani, an action that required him to shift more troops into the region and tell Iraqis that we're not leaving their territory, even though their Parliament voted to evict us. It also prompted Iran to restart its nuclear weapons program [bold mine-DL], which could well necessitate U.S. military action. And then, a few weeks later, Trump ordered the killing of Suleimani, an action that required him to shift more troops into the region and tell Iraqis that we're not leaving their territory, even though their Parliament voted to evict us. It also prompted Iran to restart its nuclear weapons program [bold mine-DL], which could well necessitate U.S. military action.
Friedman's claim that Iran restarted a "nuclear weapons program" is completely false. That isn't what the Iranian government did, and it is irresponsible to say this when it is clearly untrue. Iran has no nuclear weapons program, and it hasn't had anything like that for more than sixteen years. The Iranian government took another step in reducing its compliance with the JCPOA in the days following the assassination, but contrary to other misleading headlines their government did not abandon the nuclear deal. Iran has not repudiated its commitment to keep its nuclear program peaceful, and it doesn't help in reducing tensions to suggest that they have. Trump's recent actions are reckless and dangerous, but it is wrong to say that those actions have caused Iran to start up a nuclear weapons program. That isn't the case, and engaging in more threat inflation when tensions are already so high is foolish.

Friedman is not the only one to make this blunder, but it is the sort of sloppy mistake we expect from him. If this were just another error from Friedman, it would be annoying but it wouldn't matter very much. This has to do with the nature of our debate over Iran policy and the nuclear issue in particular. This matters because there is a great deal of confusion in this country about Iran's nuclear program that the Trump administration has deliberately encouraged. They have promoted dishonest claims about the JCPOA and made unfounded claims about Iran's so-called "nuclear ambitions" in order to make it seem as if the Iranian government is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. They have done this to justify their hard-line policies and to lay the groundwork for pursuing regime change and war. Every time that someone repeats false claims about a non-existent "nuclear weapons program" in Iran, it creates unnecessary fear and plays into the administration's hands.

The administration is already working overtime to propagandize the public and scare Americans into supporting aggressive and destructive policies against Iran, and no one should be giving them extra help. The second part of Friedman's sentence is also quite dangerous, because it encourages his readers to think that the U.S. would somehow be justified in attacking Iran in the unlikely event that they started developing a nuclear weapon. He suggests that an Iranian nuclear weapons program might "necessitate" military action, but any attack on Iran under those circumstances would be illegal and a war of choice just like the invasion of Iraq that Friedman supported almost 17 years ago. Even when Friedman seems to be skeptical of something that the government has done, he can't help but indulge in threat inflation and lend support to the idea of preventive war.

Friedman's claim that Iran restarted a "nuclear weapons program" is completely false. That isn't what the Iranian government did, and it is irresponsible to say this when it is clearly untrue. Iran has no nuclear weapons program, and it hasn't had anything like that for more than sixteen years. The Iranian government took another step in reducing its compliance with the JCPOA in the days following the assassination, but contrary to other misleading headlines their government did not abandon the nuclear deal. Iran has not repudiated its commitment to keep its nuclear program peaceful, and it doesn't help in reducing tensions to suggest that they have. Trump's recent actions are reckless and dangerous, but it is wrong to say that those actions have caused Iran to start up a nuclear weapons program. That isn't the case, and engaging in more threat inflation when tensions are already so high is foolish.

... ... ...

He suggests that an Iranian nuclear weapons program might "necessitate" military action, but any attack on Iran under those circumstances would be illegal and a war of choice just like the invasion of Iraq that Friedman supported almost 17 years ago. Even when Friedman seems to be skeptical of something that the government has done, he can't help but indulge in threat inflation and lend support to the idea of preventive war. The second part of Friedman's sentence is also quite dangerous, because it encourages his readers to think that the U.S. would somehow be justified in attacking Iran in the unlikely event that they started developing a nuclear weapon. He suggests that an Iranian nuclear weapons program might "necessitate" military action, but any attack on Iran under those circumstances would be illegal and a war of choice just like the invasion of Iraq that Friedman supported almost 17 years ago. Even when Friedman seems to be skeptical of something that the government has done, he can't help but indulge in threat inflation and lend support to the idea of preventive war.

Gospel Free • 3 days ago

"Friedman's claim that Iran restarted a "nuclear weapons program" is completely false. That isn't what the Iranian government did, and it is irresponsible to say this when it is clearly untrue."

Friedman isn't usually thought of as a devotee of Truth, and the chance of him correcting even the most egregious falsehoods you point out is approximately zero. At heart he's a propaganda guy, not a fact-based analyst.

Mark Thomason • 2 days ago
Friedman does it for Israel. It is their line, their constant foreign policy push. The NYT lets him, seems to encourage it, due to its own complex ties to Israel.

The Israel Lobby is behind vast wars, killing, and waste. It has become an endless evil.

Donna • 2 days ago
Friedman's readers are the choir, and he's just singing to them. People who have seen through his fabrications stopped reading him years ago. Friedman will always have his little clique of deluded pseudo-intellectuals, but truly intelligent people don't waste their time with him.
blimbax • 2 days ago
I think the picture of Friedman that accompanies this article tells a big part of the story. His furrowed brow, the intensity of his studied gaze, his penetrating and knowing look into the the complexities that only someone of his intelligence can unravel. It is really the picture of a stuffed shirt.

Friedman represents something really wrong with our society and culture: The incompetent, the ignorant, and the arrogant ones are given positions of power and influence, and the wise and knowledgeable are marginalized.

Taras77 • 2 days ago
It is difficult to name a more odious shill for Israel war mongering than friedman but than he does have competition in the NYT staff. NYT is a bugle for Israel.
FL_Cottonmouth • 2 days ago • edited
Mr. Friedman recently called Gen. Soleimani "the dumbest man in Iran" for sponsoring terrorist forces in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen backing paramilitary forces fighting terrorism in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.

Mr. Friedman is one of the dumbest pundits in the media class and almost certainly the dumbest ever to work for The New York Times. He just can't help himself...

kouroi • a day ago
Friedman seems to forget that Iran is a signatory of the NPT and inspectors come and monitor activities, all outside JPCOA. But hey, Iraq had WMD at the time the international inspectors were saying that it didn't and their message and activities were obstructed and blocked by the US. Same as with the alleged gas attacks in Syria and the OPCW "mishandling" the reporting... US has learned since Iraq and wanted compliance from these types of organizations.

[Jan 19, 2020] Crisis in Iran will drive wedge between Europe and Washington

Jan 19, 2020 | www.politico.eu

Ellie Geranmayeh is a senior policy fellow and deputy head of the Middle East and North Africa program at the European Council on Foreign Relations. She specializes in European foreign policy in relation to Iran, particularly on the nuclear and regional dossiers and sanctions policy.

... ... ...

The response from Tehran could be immediate or more long term, ranging from military action in the region to cyber attacks inside the U.S. and heavy political pushback. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly warned that there would not be war with the U.S. and Iran has so far acted in a calculated and rational fashion to Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign. If this position holds, Tehran will attempt to manage the risk of direct conflict, continuing to deploy asymmetric tactics to undermine U.S. interests, albeit with the red lines now redrawn.

The gravity and scale of Iranian compliance will be influenced by the recent escalation with the U.S.

The extensive U.S. military presence in the Middle East and Afghanistan means the U.S. is likely to bear the brunt of retaliation. Iran has deep ties to both state and non-state actors across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Yemen that can be utilized to inflict pain on America. Soleimani's death has already triggered a new decline in the Trump administration's relations with Baghdad that may extend to Kabul, and is also likely to heat up the long debate inside Tehran over how far to push U.S. military forces out of neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan.

... ... ...

If Tehran takes drastic steps on the nuclear file, it could mark the total collapse of the agreement.

... ... ...

In the space of six months, the U.S. and Iran have gone from targeting drones, oil installations and bases, to killing personnel. It is still unclear how and when Iran will choose to respond to Soleimani's assassination. But the new commander of the Quds Force -- appointed within 12 hours of Soleimani's death -- will no doubt be eager to demonstrate his willingness to exact revenge against America.

When that happens, neither the Middle East nor Europe will be isolated from the blowback.

[Jan 19, 2020] The murder of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis will resonate hugely throughout Iraq

Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

uncle tungsten , Jan 19 2020 10:57 utc | 104

The murder of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis will resonate hugely throughout Iraq. Trump in so many ways represents the bad ruler Gilgamesh who is poorly advised in his conquest by Enkidu (Pompeo) and they brutally slay the guardian of the forest to steal the precious timber. Then they murder the sacred bull of heaven (Soleimani and al-Muhandis) for prowess and nothing more. This slaughter of the sacred bull enrages the gods and they slay Enkidu which breaks Gilgamesh heart. etc etc. (drastically simplified and likely contested).

This tale is deeply known throughout the lands of the Middle East in all manner of old and modern iterations.

Trump is so unwise and devoid of subtlety that he has ended any chance of salvation in that land and has started every chance of retribution on a scale he could not conceive. His assault on all culture and sacred leaders is bonded to the deepest sense of existential being that any further aggression will simply escalate the payback. The USA urgently needs some cooler heads to intervene but they are not yet impacting on him. Indeed Trump is so eager to pat himself on the back with his adrenalin rush of murdering other leaders that it is disgusting.

[Jan 19, 2020] ISIS had become a proxy army of the CIA; that's likely why Soleimani had to be killed.

Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

michael888 , Jan 19 2020 13:19 utc | 114

Almost all of the "terrorism" affecting the West has been Wahabbi Salafist Sunni driven. Iran, despite their religious head, is a more modern sectarian nation than Saudi Arabia. ISIS had become a proxy army of the CIA; that's likely why Soleimani had to be killed. It is time to align with Iran and the Shia for a change. They also have oil! Would send a nice message to our "allies" Israel and Saudi Arabia as well.

Sasha , Jan 19 2020 13:23 utc | 115

Trump has given signals of opposition to the wisdom of the use of jihadi proxies,

@Posted by: BM | Jan 19 2020 11:09 utc | 107

Really?

Revealed: US moves IS leaders to Al-Anbar, Iraq

After only a week or so after this heinous crime, we are assisting already to a new campaign on whitewashing Trump at each of the US military blogs...SST at the head...as always...but following the rest...be it a editorial level, be it at commentariat level...

What part of Trump admitting he personally ordered the murder you have not understood?

What part of Soleimani and Al Muhandis being the main strategic heads of real anti-IS front have you not understood?

[Jan 19, 2020] They are trying to couch their violent threatening behavior aimed at Iraqi leaders to keep them out of the China-Iran orbit, as part of "The Patriotic Duty of Team America World Police". It is like a mafioso saying to the police about their protection racket: "I'm doing you'se a favor by keeping everyone in the neighborhood safe from criminals."

Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Joshua , Jan 18 2020 20:22 utc | 14

What manner of nation does these things? What manner of man? Why are these criminals not facing arrest and trial at this very moment? Is it because they all had their magical 'I'm a special guy' hats on? Justice will come to us all.

Kali , Jan 18 2020 20:22 utc | 15

I don't think what Pompeo was saying is vague, it is really just a way to con the US media into believing that what they did was anything other than what it really was. They are trying to couch their violent threatening behavior aimed at Iraqi leaders to keep them out of the China-Iran orbit, as part of "The Patriotic Duty of Team America World Police". It is like a mafioso saying to the police about their protection racket: "I'm doing you'se a favor by keeping everyone in the neighborhood safe from criminals."

"It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name."

Jay , Jan 18 2020 20:28 utc | 18
It's odd to see Reuters get the name of the Hoover Institution wrong, and also be wrong about the Institution's association with Stanford University. The Institution is on the Stanford campus but has a separate board of directors.

Okay, Reuters is making typically sloppy errors about the name and the amount of control Stanford has over the rightwing "Institute" on its campus. Stanford, the university, has plenty of US military intelligence (and actual black world) ties, but almost no one working at Stanford would think killing Soleimani a good idea. Though plenty of the "thinkers" at The Hoover Institution would.


Right, Pompeo is delusional. Murdering Soleimani will deter no one. Nor of course do the Iranian missile strikes on US bases in Iraq mean the end of Iran's response to the act of war.

Trailer Trash , Jan 18 2020 20:37 utc | 20
I am surprised at how many establishment media have actually labelled this murder as "assassination" instead of the usual euphemisms. I think nearly everyone in the world understands that bragging about international murder completely changes international relations. Except for Pompous and Trumpet, of course.

Everyone will be filing their hair-triggers. There seems to be a general world-wide mobilization but no one is calling it that. It is all "war games" and such. At some point before the 2003 Iraq invasion it was clear to me that the decision for open war had been made. It is now clear to me that there will be an invasion of Iran, starting with Iraq. I think the B-52s sent to the area are for killing Iraqis, since they have no air defense.

At the same time, the US asset bubbles are nearly "priced to perfection". That means they have no where to go except down. Debts that can't be paid won't be paid. All it takes is a break in the chain of payments and the next financial panic is ON! Can Uncle Sam greatly expand his War on the World in the middle of financial chaos? I think he will probably try.

I speculate that Uncle Sam believes Iran and Iraq will simply cower and wait for the next blow. I predict they will not. Soleimani's assassination and the subsequent Iranian attack have not substantially changed the strategic situation, except to tie down the boiler relief valve and turn up the heat. God, if there is one, help us all. We're sure gonna need it.

Ian2 , Jan 18 2020 20:46 utc | 21
Does this idiot Pompeo not realize the door swing both ways? Unless he plans to live his remaining days bunkered in NORAD, he's just as vulnerable as the rest.
psychohistorian , Jan 18 2020 21:22 utc | 25
Pompeo is the spokesman for the rules based Western empire mafia don, Trump.

The event is now being turned into a US media event (real time movie making here) by Trump letting out text versions of the backroom chatter around the murder. This will not sit well with the ME, IMO.

What late empire keeps pushing for is some event that can be blown into global support for war escalation....but it hasn't happened, yet

And all this over public/private global control of value sharing in the social human contract....what a way to run a railroad/species......

ptb , Jan 18 2020 21:58 utc | 33
Not only will it not deter anyone, it is loudly signaling that third rate neocons are the only decision makers left in the room.

You're likely to see more provocations, since it's now such an easy button to push. i.e. for any regional or global powers who need US forces to be diverted for a while. Any bullshit they manage to sell to the young Bolton's in the bureaucracy will do.

While not exactly unprecedented, the change is how much the mask is off now.

Robert Snefjella , Jan 18 2020 22:00 utc | 34
The part of Pompeo's speech quoted by b above is American to the core: every sentence or short paragraph contains at minimum one outright lie; the entire quote selected is also both palpably delusional and stupid.

But having said that, there is something uniquely refreshing about the Trump/Pompeo tag team's capacity for blurting out lies and inanities, and furthermore, they do it with gusto. Guile is not Pompeo's strong suit.

One might say that the criminality of the 'new deterrence' is as American as apple pie, except that apple pie in my experience is innocent of all that, unless I suppose it contains a deadly poison, and is fed to a political or ideological foe.

What is new about the 'new deterrence' that will surely make life far more dangerous for Americans, is that it publicly declares itself as a policy with no bounds, no ethical, or logical, or legal constraints. So what the Americans have been doing for generations, often but not by any means always with 'plausible denial', and sometimes quite brazenly, is now explicitly underlined policy.

Previously, the fight was 'against communism', or 'for democracy', or for 'national security'.

So for example, when Nicaragua during the "Reagan Revolution' was sanctioned, attacked, vilified, subjected to uncounted atrocities, because those dastardly Nicaraguans had replaced their loathsome monster dictator with a government trying to do the right thing for the people, the war against that country was under the rubric of protecting American 'national security', with bits of domino theory and communist hordes concerns thrown in.

So what is the difference between deploying tens of thousands of maniacal murderous 'contras' as 'deterrence' against a small country's attempts at making a decent life for its people, and a drone attack on Soleimani and his companions?

I think one main difference is that the 'world has changed' around the perpetrators, but they are still living the delusions of brainwashed childhood, the wild west, white hat un-self conscious monstrosities riding into town, gonna clean the place up. Pathetic and extremely dangerous.

vk , Jan 18 2020 22:01 utc | 37
There's another logical flaw in Pompeo's argument.

The USA is a nuclear power. If you claim to assassinate other countries' generals as a deterrent, then that signals America's true enemies - Russia and China - that it will vacilate in using its own nuclear deterrent if an American target is to be neutralized. That would bring more, not less, instability to the world order.

But maybe that's the American aim with this: to shake the already existing international order with the objective to try to destroy Eurasia with its massive war machine and, therefore, initiate another cycle of accumulation of American capitalism.

Another potential unintended blowback of Soleimani's assassination lies in the fact that the USA is not officially at war with Iran. Iran was being sanctioned by the UN. That poses a threat in the corners of the American Empire, since it sends a message that the USA doesn't need to be at war with a nation in order to gratuitously attack it; it also sends the message that it is not enough to play by the rules and accept the UN's sanctions - you could still do all of that and submit yourself and still be attacked by the Americans.

The endgame of this is that there's a clear message to the American "allies" (i.e. vassals, provinces): stay in line and obey without questioning, even if that goes directly against your national interests. This will leave the Empire even more unstable at its frontier because, inevitably, there'll come a time where the USA will directly command its vassals/provinces to literally hurt their own economies just to keep the American one afloat (or not sinking too fast). Gramsci's "Law of Hegemony" states that, the more coercion and the less consensus, the more unstable is one's hegemony.

Trailer Trash , Jan 18 2020 22:03 utc | 38
>Tottering as it appears to be, the U.S. looks to be
> ready to burn the world; its "adversaries" aren't yet
> strong enough to avoid the flamethrower.
> Posted by: Zee | Jan 18 2020 21:30 utc | 27

Indeed. But the longer Iran can delay the inevitable, the stronger and better prepared it becomes, while Uncle Sam is busy burning the furniture and getting financially more precarious. US planners seem to think that one can build an economy around poor people giving each other haircuts while rich people keep trading the exact same assets back and forth while steady driving asset prices higher.

Somewhere in the economic cycle someone has to actually make stuff and grow food. But planners have allowed the manufacturing (and associated engineering, etc.) to leave while driving farmers into bankruptcy. They are mortgaged to the hilt. When land prices quit rising, there is no additional collateral and no new credit. With no additional credit, no one will sell them seeds and equipment. So they are out of business. It's scary to think how few people actually grow all the food to feed millions and millions.

Asset bubbles have real consequences, such as millions can not afford rent anymore while millions of housing units remain empty because their value still goes up even without rental income. Scenes from Soylent Green come to mind, thinking about how more and more people are crammed into fewer living quarters.

Our brain-dead leaders have created a situation where they must continue to inflate bubbles to keep increasing collateral to back more debt. But the bubbles impoverish the rest of us. And bubbles always pop. Always.

I'm not sure how much the next financial crisis will affect the US killing machine, but I doubt it would make the war machine stronger.

Trailer Trash , Jan 18 2020 22:08 utc | 39
>The GOP criticized Obama for Libya but only because they
> wanted to be able to say they were the tough guys. The
> media was oh-so-happy to harp on the Iraq after Bush's
> destruction of Iraq but very quiet on the aftermath of Libya.
> Posted by: Curtis | Jan 18 2020 21:37 utc | 29

Yes to this. There is no disagreement in DC on the goals, just fussing over the tactics and who takes credit. Two right wings on the war bird. Maybe that is why it is on a downward spiral.

~~~ , Jan 18 2020 22:08 utc | 40
Via ZH :

Describing that the drone strike took out "two for the price of one" -- in reference to slain Iraqi Shia paramilitary commander Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, who had been at the airport to greet Soleimani, Trump gave a more detailed accounting than ever before of proceedings in the 'situation room' (which had been set up at Mar-a-Lago) that night.

He went on to recount listening to military officials as they watched the strike from "cameras that are miles in the sky."

"They're together sir," Trump recalled the military officials saying. "Sir, they have two minutes and 11 seconds. No emotion. '2 minutes and 11 seconds to live, sir. They're in the car, they're in an armored vehicle. Sir, they have approximately one minute to live, sir. 30 seconds. 10, 9, 8 ...' "

"Then all of a sudden, boom," he went on. "'They're gone, sir. Cutting off.' "

"I said, where is this guy?" Trump continued. "That was the last I heard from him."

E Mo Scel , Jan 18 2020 22:19 utc | 42
"We put together a campaign of diplomatic isolation, economic pressure, and military deterrence."

"diplomatic isolation" - when I read this I thought of the Ukrainian plane and the demand for an "investigation according to international guidelines" (well, Syria got that investigation according to international guidelines with the OPCW and we know how that went) - it may lead to diplomatic isolation. Watch it. As such, Pompeo might have laid out a motive for a potential US involvement.

"economic pressure" - while the E3 did not sanction Iran, with their lack of action in regards to find working mechanisms and their depending on the US, that goal has been achieved.

"military deterrence" - Pompeo thinks in CIA terms which can be seen as a covert weapons trafficking organization (Timber Sycamore) and something like a secret military organization. The murder of Suleimani is a war crime and as such a criminal act; it can hardly be considered a military deterrence - although the murder was carried out by the US military (maybe by CIA embedded in base?).

I don't know. It's a lot of speculation. Iran may have a reason to not state their systems got hacked. But in the current context it may be advisable to do so, turn a potential cyberattack back to its place of origin.

dorje , Jan 18 2020 23:18 utc | 43
Pompeo and Trump have no concept of personal honour as they come from a sub-culture that has none.

In the rest of the world, honour-integrity is very important. Throughout MENA to Pakistan, the US was viewed as treacherous for using Sadaam to fight Iran then turning on him in service of Israel's goals. Bush 2 contributed, through his blatant financial criminality (much of this remains unknown to average Americans), to the perception that the US is incapable of honouring ANY agreement (re:oil and other sub-rosa deals the US made).
The decimation of Syria, Iraq and Libya was not enough; criminal elites in the US have now completely exposed themselves to the Muslim world. I am firmly convinced that the Arab 'street' has concluded the US and Israel are inseparable in their policy of murder and mayhem. I am betting the elites view reconciliation within the Arab and Islamic world as the way forward with input from Russia, China when and if needed. Turning away from US-Israeli meddling and treachery will be a primary concern for the 20's.
I don't believe Pompeo or Trump have the foresight to understand killing Soleimani has sealed how the US is perceived: Indonesia, Malaysia, Muslim India (all 250+million), Afghanistan and Pakistan will accelarate the turning away.
This 'decision' to murder Soleimani will be cited by future non_court historians as seminal. The US murdered the 2nd most important person in Iranian politics. This has to be one of THE STUPIDEST DECISIONS I have seen come out of the Washington, D.C--Tel Aviv--London axis. I really cannot think of any other official action by the US that compares in stupidity. Unofficially, 911 was the stupidest act of the last 2 decades but as for official I believe this takes the cakes.
In essence, screaming to the world that you are a gangster is not a very graceful way to wind down an Empire. Pompeo-Trump-BoBo should have looked at a map. I see a hemisphere that is geographically isolated that has to make a case for why anyone should interact with it. Currently, all they have is the petrodollar system that supports 1, 000 military bases. Problem: they have just given many of the (often unwilling) participants in that system a big reason to leave it. I believe this is referred to as 'suicide'?
Correct me if I'm wrong. I would be happy to be.

Dick , Jan 18 2020 23:25 utc | 44
Anyone who has studied the history of the Third Reich would note a curious similarity between Germany's behaviour under Hitler and the current behaviour of the US both internally and externally. Is it just me, or have other's noted the similarity of Pompeo to Herman Goering in looks and behaviour?

[Jan 19, 2020] The leadership in the US need to stop thinking that they are impervious to revenge

Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Old Microbiologist , Jan 18 2020 11:21 utc | 120

The leadership in the US need to stop thinking that they are impervious to revenge. Very small drones can fly autonomously and each can carry 2 Kg of cargo which can be explosives, chemical or bioweapons or a combination. They are cheap, easy to build and can operate autonomously. With only using relatively simple algorithms they can be made to fly in groups and track using already extant facial recognition software. I can envision a scenario where drones are flown to the top of a semi-trailer somewhere south to hitch a ride north on I-95 until they get into DC near Fort Belvoir or Andrews AFB. They could then lift off and loiter perched on transmission lines where they can easily recharge using rf energy and wait. Once a target arrives, say a President on the golf course or perhaps Air Force 1 taxiing on the runway or even perhaps perch outside a window, they can then lift off and conduct an attack either directly or as limpet mines. With swarming you can send a mass of drones all flying autonomously with varied patterns. It would be impossible to stop them. Because they are autonomous jamming won't work. They would be impossible to trace back to their origin and most could be 3D printed and use off the shelf parts. If I can think this way, I am certain others are as well. Snake drones would be particularly difficult to stop.

Old Microbiologist , Jan 18 2020 18:23 utc | 155

Old hippe @128.yes, but these were being guided remotely from a US Navy aircraft and somewhat controllable from remote which is what happened. I think inside the US they don't think that far ahead and jamming would interfere with wifi etc. so not palatable. I Ave in mind they would be sitting in the grass or on a nearby telephone pole waiting for the target and travel less than 100 meters to hit. Autonomous means flying without any external controls and would be committed once set out. One perched on a window with 2kg of C4 waiting for whatever executive to sit down next to it would be another scenario. A snake drone could navigate in the sewers up to an executive toilet. The possibilities are endless. It is just a matter of time.

[Jan 19, 2020] The Murder Of Qassem Soleimani Will Deter No One

Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

The Murder Of Qassem Soleimani Will Deter No One

The Trump administration sees the U.S. assassination of Qassem Soleimani as a form of deterrence not only with regards to Iran but also towards Russia, China and others. That view is wrong.

The claim that the murder of Soleimani was necessary because of an 'imminent threat' has been debunked by Trump himself when he tweeted that 'it doesn't really matter' if there was such a threat or not.

In a speech at the Hoover Institute Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the assassination was part of a new deterrence strategy. As Reuters reported:

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday said Qassem Soleimani was killed as part of a broader strategy of deterring challenges by U.S. foes that also applies to China and Russia, further diluting the assertion that the top Iranian general was struck because he was plotting imminent attacks on U.S. targets.

In his speech at Stanford University's Hoover Institute, Pompeo made no mention of the threat of imminent attacks planned by Soleimani.

The speech itself, headlined The Restoration of Deterrence: The Iranian Example , makes that less explicit as Reuters lets it appear:

On the 3rd of this month, we took one of the world's deadliest terrorists off the battlefield for good.
...
But I want to lay this out in context of what we've been trying to do. There is a bigger strategy to this.

President Trump and those of us in his national security team are re-establishing deterrence – real deterrence ‒ against the Islamic Republic. In strategic terms, deterrence simply means persuading the other party that the costs of a specific behavior exceed its benefits. It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it. Your adversary must understand not only do you have the capacity to impose costs but that you are, in fact, willing to do so.
...
And let's be honest. For decades, U.S. administrations of both political parties never did enough against Iran to get the deterrence that is necessary to keep us all safe.
...
So what did we do? We put together a campaign of diplomatic isolation, economic pressure, and military deterrence.
...
Qasem Soleimani discovered our resolve to defend American lives.
...
We have re-established deterrence, but we know it's not everlasting, that risk remains. We are determined not to lose that deterrence. In all cases, we have to do this.
...
We saw, not just in Iran, but in other places, too, where American deterrence was weak. We watched Russia's 2014 occupation of the Crimea and support for aggression against Ukraine because deterrence had been undermined. We have resumed lethal support to the Ukrainian military.

China's island building, too, in the South China Sea, and its brazen attempts to coerce American allies undermined deterrence. The Trump administration has ramped up naval exercises in the South China Sea, alongside our allies and friends and partners throughout the region.

You saw, too, Russia ignored a treaty. We withdrew from the INF with the unanimous support of our NATO allies because there was only one party complying with a two-party agreement. We think this, again, restores credibility and deterrence to protect America.

This understanding of 'deterrence' seems to be vague and incomplete. A longer piece I am working on will further delve deeper into that issue. But an important point is that deterrence works in both directions.

Iran responded with a missile strike on U.S. bases in Iraq. The missiles hit the targets they were aimed at . This was a warning that any further U.S. action would cause serious U.S. casualties. That strike, which was only the first part of Iran's response to the murdering of Soleimani, deterred the U.S. from further action. Iran also declared that it will expel the U.S. from the Middle East. How is Iran deterred when it openly declares that it will take on such a project?

Reuters makes it seem that the U.S. would not even shy away from killing a Russian or Chinese high officer on a visit in a third country. That is, for now, still out of bounds as China and Russia deter the U.S. from such acts with their own might.

Russia and China already had no doubts that the U.S. is immoral and willing to commit war crimes. And while 'western' media avoid that characterization for the assassination of Soleimani there is no doubt that it was one.

In a letter to the New York Times the now 100 years old chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg trials, Benjamin B. Ferencz, warned of the larger effects of such deeds when he writes :

The administration recently announced that, on orders of the president, the United States had "taken out" (which really means "murdered") an important military leader of a country with which we were not at war. As a Harvard Law School graduate who has written extensively on the subject, I view such immoral action as a clear violation of national and international law.

The public is entitled to know the truth. The United Nations Charter, the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in The Hague are all being bypassed. In this cyberspace world, young people everywhere are in mortal danger unless we change the hearts and minds of those who seem to prefer war to law.

The killing of a Soleimani will also only have a short term effect when it comes to general deterrence. It was a onetime shot to which others will react. Groups and people who work against 'U.S. interests' will now do so less publicly. Countries will seek asymmetric advantages to prevent such U.S. action against themselves. By committing the crime the U.S. and Trump made the global situation for themselves more complicated.

Posted by b on January 18, 2020 at 19:28 UTC | Permalink

james , Jan 18 2020 19:52 utc | 1

next page " "And let's be honest." anyone who starts off with those words - run the other way when they say that.. pomparse is a real embarrassment to the usa on the world stage at this point... there is no international law that the usa will not completely bypass / lie / or obfuscate to push its uni-polar exceptional agenda at this point.. anyone paying any attention can see this clearly.
Soleimani's Ghost , Jan 18 2020 19:53 utc | 2
In terms of deterrence re Iran, these people don't seem to know much about the role of martyrdom in Shi'ism
lysias , Jan 18 2020 19:59 utc | 3
Pompeo speaks as though he wants to provoke an assassination attempt on himself.
chet380 , Jan 18 2020 19:59 utc | 4
If push comes to shove, the Iranians are well aware that the US would, by its bombing and missiles that the Iranians cannot completely withstand, cause many deaths and massive destruction to its cities and infrastructure ... BUT the Americans are very much aware that the Iranian response would be devastating -- all US ME military assets would come under massive fire resulting in many deaths; all Gulf State oil infrastructure would be destroyed; Tel Aviv and Riyadh would be attacked; the Strait of Hormuz would be blocked, and on and on.

It seems highly unlikely that the US would take such a risk -- let us call it Mutual Assured Destructiveness

exiled off mainstree , Jan 18 2020 20:00 utc | 5
It is interesting that the commentary closes with a letter by Benjamin Ferencz, perhaps the last surviving Nuremberg prosecutor. As he indicates, the assassination is a war crime, and, in my view, even the threat of such an assassination is a serious breach of international law. Regimes following such a policy have gone rogue, and cabinet ministers making such a pronouncement that the assassination was carried out as a deterrent are, in effect, confessing to war crimes. In future the reach of the offending regime may be much less than it is now, and, if that occurs, the rogue minister better be careful if he travels outside of his home country.
1 , Jan 18 2020 20:02 utc | 6
Thanks B, for your continued articles that are never mentioned elsewhere. I completely agree with your assessment. War used to have rules. Any american army brass or higher ups in USA, Britain, Israel and allies will have to keep looking over their shoulder when they leave their own country. Israel already cancelled trips to Saudi Arabia over security concerns. The gloves are off and targeted assignation will hit allies of USA. The president family are fair game, People who sponsor the the orange prophet of misery, Pompous Pompeoo, Esper or any general will have a very paranoid time knowing that the rules of war that once protected them from targeted assignation no longer apply. After all if america can do this, what's stopping their adversaries from doing the same.
ChasMark , Jan 18 2020 20:05 utc | 7
Benjamin B. Ferencz, his touted Harvard Law School pedigree Nuremberg Trial experience have precisely ZERO persuasive value.

Ferencz was one of the most vicious and manipulative of the Nuremberg prosecutors. In a BBC interview he stated boldly that he threatened to kill detainees or their families unless they confessed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=48&v=jmFg_ZkKo8M

Interviewer: "In previous interviews you've described how in gathering testimonies you did resort to duress, for instance, lining up villagers and threatening to shoot them if they lied. Such methods now would amount to witness harassment of the most extreme order.

Ferencz: Perhaps it would. but it's only because the people who make allegations don't understand what war is about -- bring a room of 20 people together -- this is an actual case -- and say I want you all to write out what happened, what your role was, what others did. Anybody who lies will be shot.
"Oh, how can you do a thing like that!" You're threatening them, it's torture! What am I going to tell 'em? That you won't get your patty-cake tonight? ' Please be honest, please confess that you're a murderer. Please do that, I don't want to have to ____ you of anything.'
What are you talking about? There's a war going on! They will kill you if they could. They were killing some of their buddies before. So what am I going to do? I didn't shoot them. But I threatened to , and that's the only weapon I had. And if that be torture, then call me a torturer."

Moreover, Rabbi Stephen Wise, one of the key instigators of World War II and US involvement in it, recorded a Personal Letter he sent to his wife / daughter (probably) shortly after Germany's surrender. The Rabbi wrote that he and Nahum Goldmann had lunch with Justice Robert Jackson, and that

"Justice [Robert] Jackson. . . .has grand and spacious ideas on the Nuremberg trials in mid-October, with Weizmann, Goldmann or S.S.W. [Stephen S. Wise] as Jewish witnesses to present the Jewish Case –not permitted as Amicus Curiae!

In itself it becomes the greatest trial in history, with what Jackson calls its broad departure from Anglo-Saxon legal tradition.
Retroactively "aggressive war-making" becomes criminally punishable–with membership in the Gestapo prima facie proof of criminal participation."

If Ferencz has an ounce of integrity, he will condemn as "aggressive war-making" every person who voted for an illegal war against Iraq, and every person involved in imposing sanctions on Iran -- themselves acts of "aggressive war."

But he won't because he doesn't.

Piotr Berman , Jan 18 2020 20:06 utc | 8
"By committing the crime the U.S. and Trump made the global situation for themselves more complicate."

USA is not exactly the sole economic superpower, but as long as the allies, EU, NATO, major allies in Asia and Latin America, behave like poodles, USA pretty much controls what is "normal". After Obama campaigns of murder by drone, now Trump raises it to a higher level, and Europe, the most critical link in the web of alliances, applauds (UK) or accepts and cooperates. That can be a useful clarification for US establishment.

So the bottom line is that while it is hard to show constructive goals achieved by raising murder policies to a more brazen level, nothing changes for the worse. Allies tolerate irrationality, cruelty etc. and to some extend, join the fun.

William Gruff , Jan 18 2020 20:07 utc | 9
Pompeo: "In all cases, we have to do this."

In all cases they have to murder? That is psycho killer talk. Notice how comfortable the American public is with that.

America disconnected from reality years ago. I rather doubt they could even find their way back if they were to somehow return to their senses.

Kooshy , Jan 18 2020 20:13 utc | 10
IMO, from what I understand of Shia mentality, after immoral assassination of general Soleimani the only thing can prevent a violent revenge against US military or political staff would be a Fatwa by a grand ayatollah to nullify a fatwa by any junior Ayatollah authorizing (sanctioning) specific action. It was an incalculably caster F* mistake that can last for a generation at least.
John Dowser , Jan 18 2020 20:16 utc | 11
"t̶h̶e̶ U̶.̶S̶.̶ Israel and Trump made the global situation for themselves more complicate"

Not if the purpose was more pressure by complication. The goal then to create a pretext: a pressure cooker which will cause military exchange or, especially after some limited violent exchange, increasing internal strife inside Iran which can't afford more war.

The conditions for this tactic would be clear: containing all the likely fall-out of the above unraveling, namely:

- contain China with the trade war no one can win but will make it near impossible for China to deal with Iran, Iraq and Syria.
- increased containment Palestine and Lebanon by Israel. Make very move there seem way too expensive for especially Hezbollah.
- prevent any kind of weapon transport or technology transfer to Lebanon which could break above containment.
- vastly improved border security and travel limitations
- increasing War on T̶e̶r̶r̶o̶r̶ Blow Back related powers for Homeland Security, NSA etc.

Russia is seen as less of a problem as any potential military support would be simply too costly and too little gain for Putin.

And make no mistake, Trump is fully ready to display nuclear might the moment Iran would demonstrate their own remarkable advances. And he would make it very clear that the US is willing. The new policy of deterrence is very simple and yet horrible: examples have to be made to demonstrate that "all options are still on the table". If he wants to keep declining America great but not have expensive wars and yet force others to still follow American lead: there's only one cold logical solution to that.

Joshua , Jan 18 2020 20:19 utc | 12
The glaring fact of the matter is that the us president and his accomplices useld false allegations as an excuse to murder these men. They also did so in a cowardly manner, under a false invitation to negotiate (and, Yes I do believe that).
In my country, when a person orders someone to murder someone else in exchange for compensation (in this case salaries), the police call it murder for hire.
Paul Damascene , Jan 18 2020 20:20 utc | 13
Deterrence and decapitation strikes ...

Idle speculation on my part, but I am not alone in wondering if the Soleimani assassination accelerated Putin's restructuring agenda. (I'm not suggesting it was generated or even influenced in substance by the strike, just that the timing may have been.) Given the power of the President in Russia, as the CIA itself very well understands, there is perhaps no more tempting target for an overt military assassination strike than President Putin.

Of course, deterrence of rational actors is precisely what would prevent this, but I imagine Russian strategic thinkers have wondered whether or for how long the US remains a rational actor. Moreover, this would be the sort of thing that a fanatical faction could pull off. In some Strangelovean bunker somewhere, there may be those who would actually welcome a last gasp of large-scale warfare before the Eurasian Heartland is lost and the Petrodollar-fueled global finance empire, nominally sheltered in the US, dies away.

Creative destruction ... a last chance to shuffle the cards, and perhaps reset a losing game to zero.

Joshua , Jan 18 2020 20:22 utc | 14
What manner of nation does these things? What manner of man? Why are these criminals not facing arrest and trial at this very moment? Is it because they all had their magical 'I'm a special guy' hats on? Justice will come to us all.
Kali , Jan 18 2020 20:22 utc | 15
I don't think what Pompeo was saying is vague, it is really just a way to con the US media into believing that what they did was anything other than what it really was. They are trying to couch their violent threatening behavior aimed at Iraqi leaders to keep them out of the China-Iran orbit, as part of "The Patriotic Duty of Team America World Police". It is like a mafioso saying to the police about their protection racket: "I'm doing you'se a favor by keeping everyone in the neighborhood safe from criminals."

"It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name."

Kali , Jan 18 2020 20:25 utc | 16
"This second Beast worked magical signs, dazzling people by making fire come down from Heaven. It used the magic it got from the Beast to dupe earth dwellers, getting them to make an image of the Beast that received the deathblow and lived. It was able to animate the image of the Beast so that it talked, and then arrange that anyone not worshiping the Beast would be killed. It forced all people, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to have a mark on the right hand or forehead. Without the mark of the name of the Beast or the number of its name, it was impossible to buy or sell anything."
james , Jan 18 2020 20:28 utc | 17
yeah - mafia tactics as offered by trump /pompeo and etc is exactly what it is... and when Benjamin B. Ferencz calls it what it is, apologists show up to can ferencz @ 7.. so what will persuade you chasmark?? do i need to send a hit man over to your place?
Jay , Jan 18 2020 20:28 utc | 18
It's odd to see Reuters get the name of the Hoover Institution wrong, and also be wrong about the Institution's association with Stanford University. The Institution is on the Stanford campus but has a separate board of directors.

Okay, Reuters is making typically sloppy errors about the name and the amount of control Stanford has over the rightwing "Institute" on its campus. Stanford, the university, has plenty of US military intelligence (and actual black world) ties, but almost no one working at Stanford would think killing Soleimani a good idea. Though plenty of the "thinkers" at The Hoover Institution would.


Right, Pompeo is delusional. Murdering Soleimani will deter no one. Nor of course do the Iranian missile strikes on US bases in Iraq mean the end of Iran's response to the act of war.

nietzsche1510 , Jan 18 2020 20:29 utc | 19
all this rhetoric says the obvious: the USA wants to destroy physically the Near East (Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, etc). either he destroys the whole region or he cannot be reelected or better he gets impeached in the Senate.
Trailer Trash , Jan 18 2020 20:37 utc | 20
I am surprised at how many establishment media have actually labelled this murder as "assassination" instead of the usual euphemisms. I think nearly everyone in the world understands that bragging about international murder completely changes international relations. Except for Pompous and Trumpet, of course.

Everyone will be filing their hair-triggers. There seems to be a general world-wide mobilization but no one is calling it that. It is all "war games" and such. At some point before the 2003 Iraq invasion it was clear to me that the decision for open war had been made. It is now clear to me that there will be an invasion of Iran, starting with Iraq. I think the B-52s sent to the area are for killing Iraqis, since they have no air defense.

At the same time, the US asset bubbles are nearly "priced to perfection". That means they have no where to go except down. Debts that can't be paid won't be paid. All it takes is a break in the chain of payments and the next financial panic is ON! Can Uncle Sam greatly expand his War on the World in the middle of financial chaos? I think he will probably try.

I speculate that Uncle Sam believes Iran and Iraq will simply cower and wait for the next blow. I predict they will not. Soleimani's assassination and the subsequent Iranian attack have not substantially changed the strategic situation, except to tie down the boiler relief valve and turn up the heat. God, if there is one, help us all. We're sure gonna need it.

Ian2 , Jan 18 2020 20:46 utc | 21
Does this idiot Pompeo not realize the door swing both ways? Unless he plans to live his remaining days bunkered in NORAD, he's just as vulnerable as the rest.
Kooshy , Jan 18 2020 20:49 utc | 22

Should have add to my earlier comment (10) , the missile attack on American bases on Iraq was Iran's military/ government response for killing General Soleimani, by no means was the Shia' response since that would need a Fatwa and not necessary by an Iranian cleric or even by Iranian Shia. Is now a religious matter for all believers.
El Cid , Jan 18 2020 20:51 utc | 23
Sooner or later, Saudi Arabia will make peace with Iran. It will improve relations with Russia and China, and will reduce ties with Israel. Soon, Turkey will be completely out of Syria, and Idlib will be entirely liberated. The US, in Iraq, will slowly be drained of vitality with a death of a thousand cuts. Medium range missile production in conjunction with Russian S-300 air defense will will spread throughout the Middle East, and Israel's air force will be neutralized. Then the pipeline from Iran to Syria will be completed.
Willy2 , Jan 18 2020 21:17 utc | 24
- I think that EVERYONE who is involved in the Middle East will think twice before one makes a (provocative) move. Tensions will remain high. But some people may (and will) do (deliberately) something (provocative) that will ratchet up tensions even more. With the intent of ratcheting tensions higher.
- There was someone who said that in 2020 World War III would start. For a long time I thought this person was nuts. But now I am not so sure anymore that this person was nuts.
- There were also people who said that we were "sleepwalking" into WW III, something along the lines of what happened before WW I. These persons were talking about a war between the US (+ NATO) and Russia. But now I think that if a war would break out that then not only Russia but also China and Iran are going to be part of that war. No, I am not sure anymore that this going to end well.

- I also think that everyone haas become (more) cautious. And that an act of A-symmetric warfare has become (more) unlikely.

psychohistorian , Jan 18 2020 21:22 utc | 25
Pompeo is the spokesman for the rules based Western empire mafia don, Trump.

The event is now being turned into a US media event (real time movie making here) by Trump letting out text versions of the backroom chatter around the murder. This will not sit well with the ME, IMO.

What late empire keeps pushing for is some event that can be blown into global support for war escalation....but it hasn't happened, yet

And all this over public/private global control of value sharing in the social human contract....what a way to run a railroad/species......

cirsium , Jan 18 2020 21:26 utc | 26
@William Gruff, 9
"In all cases they have to murder? That is psycho killer talk. Notice how comfortable the American public is with that."

Maybe that's because
"The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer." D H Lawrence

Zee , Jan 18 2020 21:30 utc | 27
The most depressing thing about the assassination's aftermath is that Western Europe's leaders are as bad as America's - "It's the economy, stupid!" So, a threat to their auto manufacturers is a threat to jobs, and one has to consider the next election. They were already controlled thanks to the NSA's eavesdropping on their cell phones, a threat to individual politicians - no need for them to worry about physical elimination, then; Trump threatened via economics their parties' chances of reelection, meaning they have support for knuckling under. China, Russia and Iran are on their own - China was still working on its economic might, Russia was still working on building a strong political foundation, and Iran already has its hands full with internal and external threats. The fence-sitters (India, smaller Asian and African countries) will sit on the sidelines, working to improve their own economies and waiting to see who looks more powerful before joining one side or the other to break down or uphold the international norms and laws it took centuries to build. Tottering as it appears to be, the U.S. looks to be ready to burn the world; its "adversaries" aren't yet strong enough to avoid the flamethrower.
cdvision , Jan 18 2020 21:33 utc | 28
Be careful what you wish for Mr Pompeo, the sword has 2 edges. I don't think turning the other cheek is in the Shia lexicon.
Curtis , Jan 18 2020 21:37 utc | 29
Trailer Trash 20
The only reason I wouldn't be surprised at big media calling Soleimani's murder an "assassination" is how the media politics is played by party. Since the media tends to lean left, they want to be thorns in Trump's side. Neither party is against war; they want to be the instigators to get the glory (while shifting/limiting blame). Amid the media's stories on this were the talking points of Trump going too far by DEMs in congress.
Recall Libya. The GOP criticized Obama for Libya but only because they wanted to be able to say they were the tough guys. The media was oh-so-happy to harp on the Iraq after Bush's destruction of Iraq but very quiet on the aftermath of Libya.
blues , Jan 18 2020 21:39 utc | 30
Maybe I stupidly posted this in the wrong thread?

Trump is simply a third-rate Godfather type gangster, with a touch of the charm and a lot of the baggage. I think his murder of General Qassem Soleimani was not something he would have done if he had any choice. It was a very stupid move, and Trump is just not that stupid. I really think this was demanded by the 'churnitalists'. These churnitalists are probably the psychos of the predatory arm of the CIA, and their billionaire allies.

See, it all works like this:

These churnitalists (who supposedly provide us with 'protection', or 'security') are the real rulers (because everybody who defies them ends up dead). Now just ask your self: How does rulership actually really work? It's really kind of simple. The only actual way to establish rulership over other people is to prove, again and again, that you can force them to do stupid things, for absolutely no reason. This is called 'people-churning', and all you have to do is just keep churning out low-class 'history' by constantly forcing the weaker ones to do stupid things. Again and again. This happens constantly in a churnitalist gangster society. Even in schools and legislatures, and so on. Haven't you noticed it yet?

Ron , Jan 18 2020 21:41 utc | 31
Kali 15

Ten reasons why the US is the Beast of Revelation

james , Jan 18 2020 21:44 utc | 32
@ 24 willy2... i have been talking about war in 2020 for some time based off the astrology..i have mentioned it in passing here at moa a few times in the past couple of years.. see my comments in this skyscript link from june 2015..
ptb , Jan 18 2020 21:58 utc | 33
Not only will it not deter anyone, it is loudly signaling that third rate neocons are the only decision makers left in the room.

You're likely to see more provocations, since it's now such an easy button to push. i.e. for any regional or global powers who need US forces to be diverted for a while. Any bullshit they manage to sell to the young Bolton's in the bureaucracy will do.

While not exactly unprecedented, the change is how much the mask is off now.

Robert Snefjella , Jan 18 2020 22:00 utc | 34
The part of Pompeo's speech quoted by b above is American to the core: every sentence or short paragraph contains at minimum one outright lie; the entire quote selected is also both palpably delusional and stupid.

But having said that, there is something uniquely refreshing about the Trump/Pompeo tag team's capacity for blurting out lies and inanities, and furthermore, they do it with gusto. Guile is not Pompeo's strong suit.

One might say that the criminality of the 'new deterrence' is as American as apple pie, except that apple pie in my experience is innocent of all that, unless I suppose it contains a deadly poison, and is fed to a political or ideological foe.

What is new about the 'new deterrence' that will surely make life far more dangerous for Americans, is that it publicly declares itself as a policy with no bounds, no ethical, or logical, or legal constraints. So what the Americans have been doing for generations, often but not by any means always with 'plausible denial', and sometimes quite brazenly, is now explicitly underlined policy.

Previously, the fight was 'against communism', or 'for democracy', or for 'national security'.

So for example, when Nicaragua during the "Reagan Revolution' was sanctioned, attacked, vilified, subjected to uncounted atrocities, because those dastardly Nicaraguans had replaced their loathsome monster dictator with a government trying to do the right thing for the people, the war against that country was under the rubric of protecting American 'national security', with bits of domino theory and communist hordes concerns thrown in.

So what is the difference between deploying tens of thousands of maniacal murderous 'contras' as 'deterrence' against a small country's attempts at making a decent life for its people, and a drone attack on Soleimani and his companions?

I think one main difference is that the 'world has changed' around the perpetrators, but they are still living the delusions of brainwashed childhood, the wild west, white hat un-self conscious monstrosities riding into town, gonna clean the place up. Pathetic and extremely dangerous.

Kali , Jan 18 2020 22:00 utc | 35
@31 Ron

There are 2 beasts, the first is either America or NATO, or basically "The Empire" or The Neocon Oligarchy--all work well but America is a bit too broad since there are many good people in America. The second beast whose number is 666, is Trump. Search: Trump 666 and be amazed.

And of course The Pièce de résistance

les7 , Jan 18 2020 22:01 utc | 36
Gruff @ 9

So sadly but profoundly true

vk , Jan 18 2020 22:01 utc | 37
There's another logical flaw in Pompeo's argument.

The USA is a nuclear power. If you claim to assassinate other countries' generals as a deterrent, then that signals America's true enemies - Russia and China - that it will vacilate in using its own nuclear deterrent if an American target is to be neutralized. That would bring more, not less, instability to the world order.

But maybe that's the American aim with this: to shake the already existing international order with the objective to try to destroy Eurasia with its massive war machine and, therefore, initiate another cycle of accumulation of American capitalism.

Another potential unintended blowback of Soleimani's assassination lies in the fact that the USA is not officially at war with Iran. Iran was being sanctioned by the UN. That poses a threat in the corners of the American Empire, since it sends a message that the USA doesn't need to be at war with a nation in order to gratuitously attack it; it also sends the message that it is not enough to play by the rules and accept the UN's sanctions - you could still do all of that and submit yourself and still be attacked by the Americans.

The endgame of this is that there's a clear message to the American "allies" (i.e. vassals, provinces): stay in line and obey without questioning, even if that goes directly against your national interests. This will leave the Empire even more unstable at its frontier because, inevitably, there'll come a time where the USA will directly command its vassals/provinces to literally hurt their own economies just to keep the American one afloat (or not sinking too fast). Gramsci's "Law of Hegemony" states that, the more coercion and the less consensus, the more unstable is one's hegemony.

Trailer Trash , Jan 18 2020 22:03 utc | 38
>Tottering as it appears to be, the U.S. looks to be
> ready to burn the world; its "adversaries" aren't yet
> strong enough to avoid the flamethrower.
> Posted by: Zee | Jan 18 2020 21:30 utc | 27

Indeed. But the longer Iran can delay the inevitable, the stronger and better prepared it becomes, while Uncle Sam is busy burning the furniture and getting financially more precarious. US planners seem to think that one can build an economy around poor people giving each other haircuts while rich people keep trading the exact same assets back and forth while steady driving asset prices higher.

Somewhere in the economic cycle someone has to actually make stuff and grow food. But planners have allowed the manufacturing (and associated engineering, etc.) to leave while driving farmers into bankruptcy. They are mortgaged to the hilt. When land prices quit rising, there is no additional collateral and no new credit. With no additional credit, no one will sell them seeds and equipment. So they are out of business. It's scary to think how few people actually grow all the food to feed millions and millions.

Asset bubbles have real consequences, such as millions can not afford rent anymore while millions of housing units remain empty because their value still goes up even without rental income. Scenes from Soylent Green come to mind, thinking about how more and more people are crammed into fewer living quarters.

Our brain-dead leaders have created a situation where they must continue to inflate bubbles to keep increasing collateral to back more debt. But the bubbles impoverish the rest of us. And bubbles always pop. Always.

I'm not sure how much the next financial crisis will affect the US killing machine, but I doubt it would make the war machine stronger.

Trailer Trash , Jan 18 2020 22:08 utc | 39
>The GOP criticized Obama for Libya but only because they
> wanted to be able to say they were the tough guys. The
> media was oh-so-happy to harp on the Iraq after Bush's
> destruction of Iraq but very quiet on the aftermath of Libya.
> Posted by: Curtis | Jan 18 2020 21:37 utc | 29

Yes to this. There is no disagreement in DC on the goals, just fussing over the tactics and who takes credit. Two right wings on the war bird. Maybe that is why it is on a downward spiral.

~~~ , Jan 18 2020 22:08 utc | 40
Via ZH :

Describing that the drone strike took out "two for the price of one" -- in reference to slain Iraqi Shia paramilitary commander Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, who had been at the airport to greet Soleimani, Trump gave a more detailed accounting than ever before of proceedings in the 'situation room' (which had been set up at Mar-a-Lago) that night.

He went on to recount listening to military officials as they watched the strike from "cameras that are miles in the sky."

"They're together sir," Trump recalled the military officials saying. "Sir, they have two minutes and 11 seconds. No emotion. '2 minutes and 11 seconds to live, sir. They're in the car, they're in an armored vehicle. Sir, they have approximately one minute to live, sir. 30 seconds. 10, 9, 8 ...' "

"Then all of a sudden, boom," he went on. "'They're gone, sir. Cutting off.' "

"I said, where is this guy?" Trump continued. "That was the last I heard from him."

Lurker in the Dark , Jan 18 2020 22:09 utc | 41
b: Usage or typo alert - about 2/3 of the way through your piece.
Reuters makes it seem that the U.S. would not even shy away from killing a Russian or Chinese high officer on a visit in a third country. That is, for now, still out of bounce as China and Russia deter the U.S. from such acts with their own might...

The English language expression is "out of bounds" as in, of course, outside the bounding lines defining a field of play.

E Mo Scel , Jan 18 2020 22:19 utc | 42
"We put together a campaign of diplomatic isolation, economic pressure, and military deterrence."

"diplomatic isolation" - when I read this I thought of the Ukrainian plane and the demand for an "investigation according to international guidelines" (well, Syria got that investigation according to international guidelines with the OPCW and we know how that went) - it may lead to diplomatic isolation. Watch it. As such, Pompeo might have laid out a motive for a potential US involvement.

"economic pressure" - while the E3 did not sanction Iran, with their lack of action in regards to find working mechanisms and their depending on the US, that goal has been achieved.

"military deterrence" - Pompeo thinks in CIA terms which can be seen as a covert weapons trafficking organization (Timber Sycamore) and something like a secret military organization. The murder of Suleimani is a war crime and as such a criminal act; it can hardly be considered a military deterrence - although the murder was carried out by the US military (maybe by CIA embedded in base?).

I don't know. It's a lot of speculation. Iran may have a reason to not state their systems got hacked. But in the current context it may be advisable to do so, turn a potential cyberattack back to its place of origin.

dorje , Jan 18 2020 23:18 utc | 43
Pompeo and Trump have no concept of personal honour as they come from a sub-culture that has none.

In the rest of the world, honour-integrity is very important. Throughout MENA to Pakistan, the US was viewed as treacherous for using Sadaam to fight Iran then turning on him in service of Israel's goals. Bush 2 contributed, through his blatant financial criminality (much of this remains unknown to average Americans), to the perception that the US is incapable of honouring ANY agreement (re:oil and other sub-rosa deals the US made).
The decimation of Syria, Iraq and Libya was not enough; criminal elites in the US have now completely exposed themselves to the Muslim world. I am firmly convinced that the Arab 'street' has concluded the US and Israel are inseparable in their policy of murder and mayhem. I am betting the elites view reconciliation within the Arab and Islamic world as the way forward with input from Russia, China when and if needed. Turning away from US-Israeli meddling and treachery will be a primary concern for the 20's.
I don't believe Pompeo or Trump have the foresight to understand killing Soleimani has sealed how the US is perceived: Indonesia, Malaysia, Muslim India (all 250+million), Afghanistan and Pakistan will accelarate the turning away.
This 'decision' to murder Soleimani will be cited by future non_court historians as seminal. The US murdered the 2nd most important person in Iranian politics. This has to be one of THE STUPIDEST DECISIONS I have seen come out of the Washington, D.C--Tel Aviv--London axis. I really cannot think of any other official action by the US that compares in stupidity. Unofficially, 911 was the stupidest act of the last 2 decades but as for official I believe this takes the cakes.
In essence, screaming to the world that you are a gangster is not a very graceful way to wind down an Empire. Pompeo-Trump-BoBo should have looked at a map. I see a hemisphere that is geographically isolated that has to make a case for why anyone should interact with it. Currently, all they have is the petrodollar system that supports 1, 000 military bases. Problem: they have just given many of the (often unwilling) participants in that system a big reason to leave it. I believe this is referred to as 'suicide'?
Correct me if I'm wrong. I would be happy to be.

Dick , Jan 18 2020 23:25 utc | 44
Anyone who has studied the history of the Third Reich would note a curious similarity between Germany's behaviour under Hitler and the current behaviour of the US both internally and externally. Is it just me, or have other's noted the similarity of Pompeo to Herman Goering in looks and behaviour?
Clueless Joe , Jan 18 2020 23:28 utc | 45
That's one of the good aspect of Trump administration, in the long run. With these psychos openly plagiarizing Grand Moff Tarkin ("Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station."), it will be pretty had for any sane and sensible observer not to come to the conclusion that, deep down, the USA *is* an Evil Empire that has to be fought and brought down - and thankfully, this time, one saner Obama-like presidency, if it ever happens after Trump, won't be enough to change that perception.
Sunny Runny Burger , Jan 18 2020 23:47 utc | 46
I can only guess what Toynbee would think of the US now, it certainly looks like suicide to me and if the US actually had any friends left they would be busy trying to talk the US out of it. From this point of view the relative silence speaks loudly and says something quite different than at least some people think.

US NATO "allies" haven't exactly been enthusiastic. Maybe I'm wrong in thinking the UK came closest with Johnson's "not crying" remark, everything else seems to be tortured statements walking on eggshells. 2nd biggest NATO member Turkey cooperates with Iran and plenty of others in NATO have wanted and worked towards normal relations despite differences, some more publicly than others. It might not have amounted to anything but that's my impression at least.

Any support for war against Iran is microscopic. Against Russia? Except for the rarest of the worst of fools not a chance. Against China? People would have trouble comprehending the question itself due to how absurd the notion is.

ChasMark , Jan 18 2020 23:56 utc | 47
Dick | Jan 18 2020 23:25 utc | 44

"Is it just me" who makes the argument reductio ad Hitlerum?

No, it's you and every other moron who gets his history from teevee and Hollywood.

If the compulsion to resort to WWII analogies is too compelling to overcome, flip the script:

US and Britain 'won' the war in Germany by deliberately firebombing civilian targets, over and over and over and over again.
United States Dept. of Interior records in detail how Standard Oil engineers, USAF, Jewish architects, and Jewish Hollywood studio set designers constructed and practiced creating firestorms with the stated goal of killing working class German civilians, including "infants in cribs."

In a discussion of his book, The Fire, Jörg Friedrich emphasized that Allied bombers dropped leaflets telling the Germans they were about to kill that their only recourse was to overthrow their government -- to topple or kill Hitler: the "greatest generation" killed civilians as "deterrents" to Wehrmacht's defensive actions against Allied invasion.

Since at least 1995 US tactics against Iran have been similar: Ed Royce spelled them out: US will sanction Iranian citizens in an effort to make life so miserable for them that they will riot and overthrow their government.

So yes, it IS "just like the Nazis" -- US-zionists are running a similar playbook as that used to prostrate Germany.
And Iraq.
And Libya.
And Syria.

Notice that wrt Syria, having reduced that ancient place to rubble, much like Allies reduced Germany's cultural heritage to rubble, US 'diplomats' are steadfastly refusing to allow Syria access to resources with which to finance its reconstruction, and are also blocking any other country's attempt to aid Syria in reconstruction: Destroying Syria was 'hi-tech eminent domain,' and now USA intends to be the only entity to finance and rebuild Syria -- or else US will continue the destruction of Syria.

Most Americans think Marshall plan was an act more generous than Jesus Christ on the cross, but in fact it was a cynical strategy to completely dominate Germany in saecula saeculorum. (US LOANED the money, and far more-- about 2.5 X more-- was committed to England -- relatively undamaged -- than to Germany, where 70% of infrastructure was rubble.)
You won't learn that from the Hollywood version of WWII.

Roberto , Jan 18 2020 23:58 utc | 48
the Nuremberg trials:

Was Nuremebrg trial a fair trial? Not, it was not. It was very unfair.

Likklemore , Jan 19 2020 0:10 utc | 49
I recall RT reported on December 31. 19 Trump warned

LINK

"This is not a Warning, it is a Threat," Trump declared in a tweet on Tuesday afternoon, adding that Iran will "pay a very BIG PRICE" for the embassy siege earlier in the day."

They sure did. So who is next?

Yesterday Trump warned the supreme leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khameni:

'Be very careful with your words': Trump warns Iran's Khamenei after ayatollah delivers fiery sermon slamming 'American clowns'

US President Donald Trump has warned the supreme leader of Iran to watch his language, following a heated sermon in which Ayatollah Ali Khamenei slammed American leaders as "clowns."
Leading a prayer in Tehran on Friday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei boasted that Iran had the "spirit to slap an arrogant, aggressive global power" in its retaliation to the assassination of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, which he said struck a "serious blow" to Washington's "dignity" – triggering a response from the US president.

"The so-called 'Supreme Leader' of Iran, who has not been so Supreme lately, had some nasty things to say about the United States and Europe," Trump tweeted. "Their economy is crashing, and their people are suffering. He should be very careful with his words!"

In his sermon, Khamenei blasted "American clowns," who he said "lie in utter viciousness that they stand with the Iranian people," referring to recent comments by Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

How dare he?


Pft , Jan 19 2020 0:28 utc | 50
Lets face it, assassinations are not a new thing. It became more organized with Lord Palmerstons gangs of thugs in the mid 19th century (one of which took out Lincoln) . Since the end of WWII the global mafia jumped across the pond and assassinations have been covert actions arranged by the CIA , with operations having a high degree of plausible deniability. But most higher ups had a pretty good idea who was behind it . Trumps just continued this but like Bush and Obama have made clear its their right to do so against terrorists . Of course the definition of terrorist has become rather broad. Trump recently said he authorized the hit because he said bad things about America. Maybe saying bad things about Trump can get you labelled the same. Watch out for those drones barflies.

So basically the main change is they no longer care about plausible deniability . They are proud to admit it. And nobody seems to care enough to express any outrage. Name any countries leader who has except in muted terms. Europe, Russia, China, etc everyone quiet as a mouse. China so outraged they signed a trade deal giving them nothing. UN? Might as well move it to Cuba , Iran or Venezuela for all the clout it has.

So you know, maybe the deterrence is working. Terrorism works both ways. The world seems terrorized and hardly anyone in the US dares criticize Trumps action without saying the general was evil and deserved it. Its not just drones they fear as financial terrorism (sanctions, denied access to USD) works quite well also (except in Irans case).

ChasMark , Jan 19 2020 0:30 utc | 51
james | Jan 18 2020 20:28 utc | 17

The argument is correct.
(Although the mafia label bespeaks a limited frame of reference and it's inappropriate in any event -- crime families do not have the reach or power of state assassination squads.)

Ferencz does not have the moral standing to make the argument.
It's like granting Ted Bundy credibility for criticizing police brutality.

mcohen , Jan 19 2020 0:30 utc | 52
What a story.
Per/Norway , Jan 19 2020 0:32 utc | 53
Posted by: Kali | Jan 18 2020 22:00 utc | 35

The beast rises from the bottomless pit, it is written in the book you quoted!
How do you suggest a mere mortal and retard like trump does that?
The murcanized xtianity eschatology you have been reading is stupid and in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM Orthodox(Orthodox=Christian)

"ORTHODOXESCHATOLOGYdotBLOGSPOTdotCOM"
"orthodoxinfoDOTcom"
"preteristarchiveDOTcom"
You will find info that is not xtian but Christian @ those blogs..
The last one is a library with ancient and old texts about Christianity!
If you search "THEOSIS THE TRUE PURPOSE OF HUMAN LIFE" on orthodoxinfo you will also find a book WELL worth reading if you are/want to be Christian.

Per
Russian Orthodox
Norway

"And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them."

Per/Norway , Jan 19 2020 0:36 utc | 54
Kali @35
i messed up and hit post b4 i pasted this..
"'The beast that thou didst see: it was, and it is not; and it is about to come up out of the abyss, and to go away to destruction, and wonder shall those dwelling upon the earth, whose names have not been written upon the scroll of the life from the foundation of the world, beholding the beast that was, and is not, although it is."
Per
Russian Orthodox
Norway
BLP , Jan 19 2020 0:40 utc | 55

several additions if i may:

first speculation. however it happened, "deep state" power or factions now have a jacket
on Trump. he can't disown what happened. Brennan and Stephen Schwarzman are safe.
the Money and the MIC get what they want. Trump's agenda of converting the common good
to corporate profit is acceptable. they can use Trump to defeat Sanders.

it's quite possible American power is unimpressed by the Russia-China alliance which has
just revealed it's limitations. i think this link has already run on this site:
https://ejmagnier.com/2020/01/05/fragmentation-in-the-axis-of-resistance-led-to-soleimanis-death/.

here's a welcome dose of realism from the Holy Russia Neverland to substantiate this view:
https://thesaker.is/battle-of-the-ages-to-stop-eurasian-integration/
3 comments from India by Anaam esp this one: Anaam on January 17, 2020 · at 10:32 am EST/EDT

and lastly this outlier from ibm.com. a new, more powerful battery made from sea water.
charges in 5 min. in California this means electricity off your roof for everything including
your car plus a surplus for export. how soon? doesn't say. oil dependent economies
want to know. and we won't need the "petro" for the petrodollar.
https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/

Likklemore , Jan 19 2020 0:44 utc | 56
The truth of it is Trump murdered General Soleimani because the general was very effective in defeating ISIS - the U.S. created and funded - terrorists in Syria and Iraq. The neocons were none too pleased.

Release Jan.18 2020 21st centurywire audio Interview with Dr. Mohammad Marandi, Tehran University

America's Miscalculation with Iran

LINK

@ ChasMark 7 - not an ounce of integrity! Trump or Ferencz?

How is it I posted days ago that link to Ferencz's letter to New York Times and not a pips. Are you defending Trump's war crimes as against bringing the Nazis to justice?

How about the U.S. waterboarding and torturing Muslims at Gitmo? 19 years on with NO TRIALS!!! That's OK, right?

karlof1 , Jan 19 2020 0:58 utc | 57
As far as b's premise goes, he's proven it IMO. Looks like the CIA made the next move in Lebanon. IMO, Asia plus Russia & Belarus hold the geoeconomic and geopolitical deterrence cards. The Financial Parasite continues hollowing out what remains of US industry and retail helped along by Trump's Trade War. I presented the fundamental economic info and arguments on the prior threads, so I don't have anything to add.
pretzelattack , Jan 19 2020 1:08 utc | 58
the price of fake freedom is remaining ever vigilant to prevent peace breaking out. trump's as much a warmonger as any of them (which is to say impeachment won't make a bit of difference).
Likklemore , Jan 19 2020 1:27 utc | 59
F. William Engdahl asks,

Unintended Consequences: Did Trump just give the Middle East to China and Russia?

[Before] the US assassination of Soleimani, there were numerous back-channel efforts for détente in the costly wars that have raged across the region since the US-instigated Arab Spring between Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran and Iraq. Russia and China have both in different ways been playing a key role in changing the geopolitical tensions. At this juncture the credibility of Washington as any honest partner is effectively zero if not minus.

[.] The US president just tweeted his support for renewed anti-government Iran protests, in Farsi. We are clearly in for some very nasty trouble in the Middle East as Washington tries to deal with the unintended consequences of its recent Middle East actions.[.]

Run home as fast as you can. In this election year, an observation; 10% of companies are losing money but thanks to the Feds, the Markets are making ATH ...all time highs. On main street Joe and Jane are in a well of hurt "it's the economy, stupid."

Copeland , Jan 19 2020 1:28 utc | 60
There is nothing ambiguous about Pompeo's statement. It is evidence of a profound psychotic break. It is a megalomaniac delusion of godlike power, a deterance not attainable on a human scale. "In all cases, we have to do this."

The masters of the universe will kill those who do not comply. The projection of their psychic power to intimidate the world goes well beyond Iraq and Iran, brushing aside all the little insubstantial nations that are constantly underfoot. Russia and China are to take heed now, it is they too who must sleep with one eye open. The deterrence necessary to keep us all safe means to go ahead and challenge those islands China built in the South China Sea.

The smiling villains do not accept that Crimea is part of Russia. Pompeo compares Soleimani to bin Laden. There are so many departures from reality in the speech amidst all the levity that it seems like someone has opened the doors of the Asylum.

ChasMark , Jan 19 2020 1:50 utc | 61
Likklemore | Jan 19 2020 0:44 utc | 56

Your retorts don't make sense relative to anything I've posted.

"not an ounce of integrity! Trump or Ferencz?"
Neither.

"How is it I posted days ago that link to Ferencz's letter to New York Times and not a pips."

U can't fool all of the people all of the time. I wasn't fooled by Ferencz's claim to righteousness based on Harvard when his Nuremberg activities were outrageous and the Nuremberg set-up itself was that of a kangaroo court.

"Are you defending Trump's war crimes as against bringing the Nazis to justice?"

Trump's war crimes are indefensible; the Nuremberg trials were not about "bringing Nazis to justice," they involved, as Rabbi Wise said, a largely Jewish exercise in revenge. If Nuremberg were about "justice," Wise himself would have been in the dock along with FDR (post mortem), Churchill, Stalin, and Truman + + +
If Congress were just, it would be impeaching Trump, Pompeo, Pence etc. for war crimes.

But that does not make the Nuremberg trials the model of justice: they were not: as Rabbi Stephen Wise wrote to his family, months before the trials began, they were set up by FDR's man Robert Jackson as a

" broad departure from Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. [in which]
Retroactively "aggressive war-making" becomes criminally punishable–with membership in the Gestapo prima facie proof of criminal participation."

Ferencz's co-ethnics participated in the creation of the kangaroo court that Ferencz himself utilized more to vent his spleen than to establish international models of justice.

That is why the so-called Nuremberg principles have not and cannot be properly applied to the war crimes committed by Bush (I and II), by Clinton (Bill & Hill), Obama, Trump -- not to mention FDR, Truman & Churchill.

Further, as Ferencz surely realizes, "The United Nations Charter, the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in The Hague" are toothless: if they were effective bodies for meting justice, even the sanctions on Iran would be subject to judgment under United Nations Charter, along with Victoria Kagan Nuland's subversion of Ukraine and every other 'color revolution' US has engaged in: the UN Charter proscribes interference in the internal affairs of member states.

ak74 , Jan 19 2020 2:13 utc | 62
In the Orwellian value system of America, Mike Pompeo's idea of "deterrence" is really NewSpeak for America's brazen war crimes, wars of aggression, and shredding of international law.

America is a mafia nation masquerading as a democracy.

And Donald Trump is a two-bit New York mafioso don in charge of this America Mafia state.

JC , Jan 19 2020 2:29 utc | 63
@El Cid 23

Hey you missed out Israel - "will be completely out of Palestine and return Golan Height to Syria"

Wishfool thinking !

james , Jan 19 2020 2:31 utc | 64
@51 chasmark.... thanks.. got it.. i don't much much of anything about the man..
Dr. George W Oprisko , Jan 19 2020 2:46 utc | 65
To ChasMark........

You are a CIA/NSA TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You condone pre-meditated MURDER!!!

So.........

You won't mind............ will you.............

IF someone chooses to put a hellfire missile up your ASS!!

INDY

Idland , Jan 19 2020 3:01 utc | 66
Just monitor any of Pompeo's HD presentations. Look for blink rate and eye micro movements, (saccades).Real evidence of lizard brain psycopathy.
Circe , Jan 19 2020 3:03 utc | 67
Trump recounts minute by minute details of Soleimani assassination at a fundraiser held at his Florida resort. Cause that's what normal people do; brag about murdering someone. I'll bet his fat cat Zionist friends emptied their coffers. SICK.

trump-brags-killed-2-for-price-of-1

Jackrabbit , Jan 19 2020 3:09 utc | 68
ak74 @62: Mike Pompeo's idea of "deterrence" is really NewSpeak ...

Exactly. And we might add:

"America First" means America is the Empire's Fist;

"Stand with the people of " is 'New World Order' psyop;

"Economic sanctions" is the economic part of hybrid warfare;

"War on terror" is the war on ALL enemies of the empire via terrorist destabilization;

"Russiagate" is McCarthyist war on dissent;

"Trump" is the latest dear leader whose flaws are blessings and whose 'gut instinct' is God's will. We know this because his fake enemies (like the Democrats, "fake news", and ISIS) always fail when they confront him.


!!
V , Jan 19 2020 3:12 utc | 69 Dr. George W Oprisko | Jan 19 2020 2:46 utc | 65
You are a CIA/NSA TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You condone pre-meditated MURDER!!!

Are you sure you actually read Chasmark @ 61?
Nowhere does he; You condone pre-meditated MURDER!!!
What Chasmark did, was to post the truth of the Nuremberg Trials.
They were an out and out sham...
You definitely need to up your reading comprehension and or, your knowledge of history...

ben , Jan 19 2020 3:22 utc | 70
And the other countries of the world whine, but do nothing. I'm afraid they've become as shallow and self-absorbed as most Americans, afraid to confront the world's bully.

Torches and pitchforks are needed, and we get marches. I'm afraid the depravity has to get worse before direct action is taken.

I only hope to live long enough to see the debacle that is inevitable, even if takes me with it.

Justice and truth demand a reckoning..

Sounds dark, I know, but these are very dark days.

Likklemore , Jan 19 2020 3:26 utc | 71
@ ChasMark 61 in reply to mine @ 56

Among some of very good points you made, I take issue:

"Your retorts don't make sense relative to anything I've posted."

Perhaps you should re-read my comment vs what you posited. Look to Gitmo; is it any different to your critique of Nuremberg where there was a trial, albeit with deficiencies, vs holding and torturing prisoners over 18 years without a trial? that was my point.

You continue to offer up Rabbi Wise who proffered the Nuremberg trials were [.] "a largely Jewish exercise in revenge"

I may add, they are also continuing to take out their revenge on Palestinians who had nothing to do with events in Germany. The once oppressed have become oppressors.

If Congress were just, it would be impeaching Trump, Pompeo, Pence etc. for war crimes.

Don't expect justice from Congress they are all too busy at the money trough to recognize war crimes.
War crimes are prosecuted by the ICC which the US and Israel do not recognize. US is not a state party; have threatened, denied visas and barred entry to ICC investigators of war crimes

Further, as Ferencz surely realizes, "The United Nations Charter, the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in The Hague" are toothless:

Toothless! Perhaps but
Don't tell that to Africans or Slobodan Milosevic while ELITES residing on that sliver of the "occupied lands of Palestine" continue to roam free. Oh wait, they are the chosen ones who rule the world!

ben , Jan 19 2020 3:31 utc | 72
@71 said in part; "The once oppressed have become oppressors."

A succinct description of the Israelis..

fundas , Jan 19 2020 3:39 utc | 73
Pompeo's speech may just be an attempt to reduce the cost of a future false flag assassination that could be blamed on one of the enemies. If the enemy does what we do, no need for an all out war. There will be a range of response options including just firing a few missiles. Cost of war with the chosen enemy may be too high or the timing just not right.
snake , Jan 19 2020 3:41 utc | 74
William Gruff @ 9 Expressions of <=reality-disconnected human behavior=> describes victim response to rules, enforcement behaviors and media products that bathe the differentiation space that allows to produce human automatons. An examination of the forces at work inside of the nation state container (differentiation space) will likely reveal private and external forces that produce in these public containers, reality-disconnected human responders (human behavior is a function of its environment; all learning is a result of personal experience). No one can learn from another, but everyone can learn from the behaviors of that other.

The physical environment is nature's doing, but the non physical environment is man's doing. We can organize content as a product of the physical environment ( we build a home) or as a product of the virtual environment (we produce a movie).

Conscious physical man is a highly differentiated product of both environments. A person growing up in the jungles of Belize, will not learn to operate a sled designed to operate in snow, and a person in the cold north will not learn to survive in the topical jungles of the Amazon. Experience is the only teacher, human expression is the experience modified product of sets of expressed genes. Experience in both the physical environment and the virtual environment contribute to the human response to the challenges of life. The virtual environment is about knowledge, habit, privilege, opportunity and a host of other non physical components. see Law, Moral attitudes, and behavioral change, p. 243 ref and to be clear behavior has three components. ref 7

What is this virtual space (environment) that allows differentiated humans to be manufactured from genetic material in to adult automatons. How are these automatons programmed? Since is it rarely possible to modify the physical space; most human differentiation occurs in virtual space. How many such digital spaces are there? virtual content means<= the verbal and non verbal (ref.12) discourse that engages interactively with the mind (conscious and unconsciousness). Environments can be natural or manufactured. Environment then is the container space. The contents of the manufactured environment are psycho-econo-socio-metically designed, media engineered, sets of media products. Each nation state supports a different set of contents within its container space. The order, arrangement and time of environments presented controls the mental behaviors of the media connected humans who reside within the container space environment.

The content of each nation state in the system is a set of environment variables operative in each human container. Two hundred and six different container spaces (the global nation state system=NSS) divides and separates the 8 billion humans in the world. Human differentiation is a product of the 206 different container environments. Your observation that "Pompeo is a psycho"; expresses the real problem for humanity; its leaders are the products of the physical and virtual content of the host nation state within the system of nation states. Each nation state is led by a few. I say to solve this always war condition it is necessary to control the humans that occupy the positions in the nation states or to eliminate the nation state system, and find some better way to address human need for governance.


1. VR empathy
2. self regulation in response to?
3. developing ideas into simulated experiences
4. regulated behavior
5. modify behavior
6. understanding conditions where regulation succeeds or fails to change underlying attitudes.
7. behavior has three components
8. drivers of behavior
9. basic-behavior-components/
10. learning to respond appropriately
11. genetic variables impacting responsive behavior
12. Communication is actually a constant flow of nonverbal and verbal details

The container space supports 24/7 digital presentations. humans animate the human containers, and the human containers constitution the nation states.

Pompeo is a victim of nation state programming, the question is, which nation state programmed him?

Jackrabbit , Jan 19 2020 3:45 utc | 75
That strike, which was only the first part of Iran's response to the murdering of Soleimani, deterred the U.S. from further action.

Is USA really 'deterred' or just didn't want war at this time? USA is 'deterred' if the Iranian response actually stopped them in some way.

But they took Iran's 'slap' and RESPONDED (though not militarily) with more sanctions and even tried to turn the attack to their advantage by saying (initially) that Iran missed on purpose ( as I explained here ) and conducting Electronic Warfare/Info War that may have contributed to Iran's mistaken downing of a commercial airliner.

And, as bar patrons know only too well, Pompeo has refused to negotiate a USA exit from Iraq, saying that "USA is a force for good in the Middle East".

IMO USA wants to put on UN sanctions (now in progress) and, when war comes, USA will portray it as entirely Iran's fault. The claim will be that Iran is "lashing out" due to "sanctions imposed by the world community" .

!!

tjfxh , Jan 19 2020 3:54 utc | 76
Why does anyone gives either the president or US officials credence regarding what they say, especially Secretary Pompeo, not to mention POTUS? Taking Pompeo at this word and responding to it strikes me as a waste of time. These people are never going to say publicly what they are up to, which is world domination. Nor is it their own ideal. This has been the policy of the US elite at least since WWII, which was simply a transfer of the seat of power from London to Washington as the British Empire morphed into the Anglo-American Empire. Global domination through sea power was British policy for centuries and the US just recently joining the game, especially when the game expanded to air power as well. Arguably, this goes back to the end of WWI, if not the Spanish-American war that embarked the US on empire.
Idland , Jan 19 2020 4:00 utc | 77
Anybody know what's up with Andrew Peek getting sacked from the NSC Russia desk tonight?
Peter AU1 , Jan 19 2020 4:39 utc | 78
Deterrence, I guess is the politically correct term for what Trump is doing.
He sees that the Dollar hegemonic empire was crumbling same as most who don't rely on MSM for their news.
Trump believes US can hold its position in the world through pure military power, or the threat of military power.
He wants to regain what he calls importance from early 90s when US was sole undisputed superpower.
Iran though, he believes is a blot on USA's past that needs erasing.
Throughout the election campaign, Trump's big thing was rebuilding US military. He believes this will restore US power in the world. Ruling through the world fear rather than soft power and blackmail.
juliania , Jan 19 2020 4:54 utc | 79
Well said, dorje @ 43. That is how it is.

Today is Theophany in the Orthodox Christian Church, the baptism of Christ in the River Jordan:

Today Thou hast appeared to the universe
and Thy light, O Lord, hast shone on us,
who with understanding praise Thee:
Thou hast come and revealed Thyself
O Light Unapproachable!

Biloximarxkelly , Jan 19 2020 5:03 utc | 80
The 2000 page report about Afganistan sums up USA's criminal insanity. Further, Trump says the response attack from Iran did not harm troops nor do anything of significant damage. Indeed Iran's missiles are far superior than the USA's and the counter attack for the General's assassination. I have mused, that, perhaps the USA was/is set up in this scenario via Iran, Et Al.
ak74 , Jan 19 2020 5:09 utc | 81
The basis of the American Empire and its parasitic economy and Way of Life(TM) itself are premised on what should be called America's Dollar Dictatorship.

Because of the US Dollar, America is able to wage economic siege warfare (aka economic sanctions) on multiple nations around the planet--all in order to impose the Land of the Free's imperial dictates on them.

This is American global gangsterism in everything but name--and disguised behind the founding American deceptions of "Freedom and Democracy."

The vast majority Americans--including some fake "alternative media" shills--will attempt to spindoctor this issue by avoiding such blunt description of this system.

Instead, they prefer to employ Orwellian euphemisms about the "US PetroDollar" or the "US Dollar Reserve Currency" or how America's superpower status is dependent on this dollar syistem.

But former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accurately calls out this system for what it is: America's global dictatorship of the Dollar.

This is another reason why America has such hatred for Iran:

Dollar dictatorship the foundation of American empire - Iran's Ahmadinejad
https://www.rt.com/business/435310-dollar-us-empire-reorder-ahmadinejad/

America Escalates its "Democratic" Oil War in the Near East
https://michael-hudson.com/2020/01/america-escalates-its-democratic-oil-war-in-the-near-east/

Mike Javaras , Jan 19 2020 5:13 utc | 82
Best explanation I've seen yet of the 752 jet takedown. It was a false flag attack by the US or its allies intended to frame Iran. The Iranian missile hit second after the plane had already been hit by the Stinger and was several seconds from crashing anyway. The rich kids of Tehran were in the housing complex at 6 AM to film the Stinger shootdown by their terrorist buddies. They have properly been arrested. There have been other arrests too. I wonder what they will come up with.

This makes more sense than any other theory I have seen.

https://beyondhighbrow.com/2020/01/18/false-flag-flight-752-in-iran-was-shot-down-by-us-allies-with-a-stinger-missile-not-by-an-iranian-missile/

Likklemore , Jan 19 2020 5:20 utc | 83
@ Peter AU1 78

Tom Luongo, who frequently cites b, has coined a new word for Trump's and his minions tactics. Tom asks:

Does Gangsternomics Meet its End in the Iraqi Desert?

In the aftermath of the killing of Iranian IRGC General Qassem Soleimani a lot of questions hung in the air. The big one was, in my mind, "Why now?"

There are a lot of angles to answer that question. Many of them were supplied by caretaker Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi who tried to let the world know through official (and unofficial) channels of the extent of the pressure he was under by the U.S.

In short, President Trump was engaged in months of what can best be described as gangsternomics in directing the course of Iraq's future economic and political development.[/]

Iraq's importance goes much farther than just protecting the petrodollar to the U.S. It is the fulcrum now on which the entire U.S. defense against Eurasian integration rests. The entire region is slipping out of the grasp of the U.S.


And this started with Russia moving into Syria in 2015 successfully. We are downstream of this as it has blown open the playbook and revealed it for how ugly it is.

Trump's crude gangster tactics in Iraq, Venezuela, Bolivia and to a lesser extent in Syria cannot be hidden behind the false veil of moral preening and virtue signaling about bringing democracy to these benighted places.[/]

What began in Syria with Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and China standing up together and saying, "No," continues today in Iraq. To this point Iran has been the major actor. Tomorrow it will be Russia, China and India.

And that is what is ultimately at stake here, the ability of the U.S. to employ gangsternomics in the Middle East and make it stick.[.]

By the time Trump is done threatening people over S-400's and pipelines the entire world will be happy to trade in yuan and/or rubles rather than dollars.[.]


full article here

Patroklos , Jan 19 2020 5:40 utc | 84
"...deterrence to protect America."

Pompeo omitted a crucial part of this sentence: "deterrence to protect [the financial and energy hegemony of] America".

While this might be obvious to us, the narrative that US foreign policy is about protecting citizens, values and apple pie from 'bad guys' -- and indeed that the militaries of all Western countries are benign police forces preventing ISIS from burning your old Eagles albums and other violations of 'freedom' -- is such a regular part of the MSM/cinema diet masticated by the general public that we have completely forgotten that the basic function of the armed forces is the pursuit of vested interests through superior violence. It always seemed strange to me that the post-ww2 cinematic template for war-movies, and by extension the basic plot of all reporting of western military activity in the media, always represented the enemy as evil precisely because they use militaries in an instrumental way (i.e for the purpose they were designed). The Germans, or for that matter the Persians in 300 , or any baddies in war films, seek to extend and protect their interests (real or imagined) by deploying armed forces. The good guys are always identifiable through this idea of 'deterrence': "hey man, all we want is just to live and let live, but you pushed us so we pushed back." Then one stirs in a little 'preemptive deterrence': you looked like you were going to push so we acted. If we 'accidentally' go too far, it's because there is a deranged C-in-C: Hitler, or Xerxes, or some other naughty boy who can be the fall-guy, scapegoat, etc. To get serious we need to go back a very long way, to, say, the Iliad , which, like all Greek (and Roman) literature, assumes as a premise (and it's tragedy) that the warrior's basic function is to kill, pillage, rape and occasionally protect others from the same. But mostly take by force . No qualms or BS 'deterrence', armies are for taking other people's stuff by force (land-grabs, etc). I would respect Pompeo a whole lot more (but not much more...) if he just once came out and said: "Iran is run by people who don't want us to take their stuff; we want to undermine them and replace them with paid yes-men who will let us take Iran's stuff. We will use violence and armed force to make this happen. But we have no intention of distributing this loot evenly among our citizens. Instead it will be paid as dividends to select shareholders and spent retooling the military for next poor bastards who stand up to us."

Just once.

hopehely , Jan 19 2020 6:00 utc | 85
Patroklos 84
Xerxes wanted water from Spartans, Hitler wanted land from "subhumans", but I don't see what kind of stuff Americans want from Iranians. When they had Iran under control during Pahlavi rule, what stuff did they take from Iran? They were giving Iran lots of money - didn't give them USD printing press machine too?
Jackrabbit , Jan 19 2020 6:00 utc | 86
Mike Javaras @82: The Iranian missile hit second after the plane had already been hit by the Stinger ...

MANPADs like Stingers are heat-seeking. They go after ENGINES. On a big plane like PS732, a MANPADs is unlikely to have stopped the transponder and communications.

Philip Giraldi points a finger at US/Israeli Electronic Warfare:

Who Targeted Ukraine Airlines Flight 752?
Iran Shot It Down But There May Be More to the Story

Giraldi thinks the transponder was hacked. But the article he cites also talks about a device on board that would've allowed for EW. And he notes that Israel probably ALSO has the capability to have been responsible for the EW and/or device on board.

!!

Biloximarxkelly , Jan 19 2020 6:01 utc | 87
All sentinent beings are working on the evolution of our planet & humanity. Problem is the very worst of our species are incurably criminally insane.

Love your blog MOA

Peter AU1 , Jan 19 2020 6:05 utc | 88
Likklemore 83

Thanks. Gangsternomics seems a good term for Trump's vision of US world power. Trump is pragmatic or realist in that he knows there is no court or authority to hold the US to account.
As to US holding power purely through military power, that can only happen long term if he gets hold of a good chunk of the worlds energy reserves (as in Persian gulf and Venezuela oil). If he doesn't achieve that, then the US goes down. Iran needs to ensure it stays under Russia's nuclear umbrella as there are no rules.

V , Jan 19 2020 6:21 utc | 89
MOSCOW – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated there is unverified information that at least six American F-35 jets were in the Iranian border area at the time when Tehran accidentally downed Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 last week.

www.fortruss.com

krollchem , Jan 19 2020 6:27 utc | 90
Sickening series of Trump interviews and speeches demanding that Iraq pay America and its allies over a trillion dollars for liberating Iraq (time stamp 8:20 to 12:00).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWZfDJerI0o

This demonstrates that US attacks in Iraq over the last 30-40 years was mostly about the control (including transportation routes) and than profiting from its oil and gas reserves.

A secondary reason is to put troop on the border with Iran to further destabilize it via state terrorism to overthrow the government and then take its oil and gas too.

It will get interesting when a pro Iranian new Prime minister takes office and China offers Iraq a line of credit equivalent to the funds that would be frozen in Western bank accounts if Iraq actually demands the troops to leave.

"The Iran-linked Binaa parliamentary voting bloc has nominated Asaad al-Edani, a former minister and governor of oil-rich Basra province. Binaa's bloc is mostly made up of the Fatah party led by militia leader turned politician Hadi al-Ameri, who is close to Tehran."

The Kurdish President of Iraq has stated that "Out of an eagerness to spare blood and preserve civil peace, I apologize for not naming Edani prime minister," the letter continued. "I am ready to submit my resignation to parliament."
https://time.com/5755588/iraq-president-resignation/

Currently, the rival Sairoon bloc, headed by populist Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, said it would not participate in the process of nominating a new premier."
https://www.ft.com/content/50f09fe4-27f4-11ea-9a4f-963f0ec7e134

However, "Iraqi Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr demanded that Iraqis stage a "million-man march" against the continued US military presence in the country"
https://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13981025000319

I close with a visionary French rock opera Starmania "story of an alternate reality where a fascist millionaire (read Trump) famous for building skyscrapers is running for president on an anti-immigration policy, and where the poor are getting more and more desperate for their voices to be heard."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78LytR-6Xmk


Patroklos , Jan 19 2020 6:39 utc | 91
@hopehely | Jan 19 2020 6:00 utc | 85

Xerxes wanted water from Spartans, Hitler wanted land from "subhumans", but I don't see what kind of stuff Americans want from Iranians. When they had Iran under control during Pahlavi rule, what stuff did they take from Iran? They were giving Iran lots of money - didn't give them USD printing press machine too?

Assuming that your post was serious...

1. Water from the Spartans? That makes absolutely no sense as a glance at any historical map of the Achaemenid Empire will show;
2. Lebensraum was indeed a specific war aim of Hitler;
3. Under the Shah Anglo-American (not mention Dutch, French and other) interests skimmed all Iranian energy resources, kept the USSR under pressure on the southern coast of the Caspian Sea and provided a key friendly power in the most important region of central Asia. Petro-dollar supremacy could not have been established without control of the Persian Gulf. The Persian elite were given wonderful opportunities while the rest... well we know what the rest get.

psychohistorian , Jan 19 2020 6:47 utc | 92
@ krollchem #90 with the Starmania link that is not working

I get the following error from Oregon, USA
"
Video unavailable
This video contains content from WMG, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
"

Thanks for the rest of the comment and agree with the sickness of demanding Iraq pay for being invaded.

When will all this idiocy end? Soon I hope.

hopehely , Jan 19 2020 7:08 utc | 93
Posted by: Patroklos | Jan 19 2020 6:39 utc | 91

1. Water from the Spartans? That makes absolutely no sense as a glance at any historical map of the Achaemenid Empire will show;

That was in the movie 300. I guess you did not watch it. :-)

The Persian elite were given wonderful opportunities while the rest... well we know what the rest get.

Not just the elite. Persian middle class was pretty well off too. Spending vacation in Europe was easy, quite affordable. Not any more. I know I know, those dang sanctions... well that is what you get when you piss off the big dawg.

uncle tungsten , Jan 19 2020 7:20 utc | 94
Idland #77
Anybody know what's up with Andrew Peek getting sacked from the NSC Russia desk tonight?

Odd that, and he seemed like such a trustworthy chap as indicated in his twitter feed.
Perhaps he has some Ciaramella connections that would make Trump uncomfortable. Or Trump is taking absolutely no more chances with any insider he has no control over when attending high level meetings.

Patroklos , Jan 19 2020 7:34 utc | 95
@ hopehely 93

Are you talking about 'earth and water' ? The symbolic gesture of submission to the Great King? That's a very different thing altogether. You make it sound like 'water rights'... I did indeed watch the film I'm sad to say, but Xerxes was not after water.

I'd like to know what proportion of the pre-1979 population of Iran qualified as 'middle-class' and what that meant in real terms. Outside of Tehran, Shiraz, etc there probably weren't a lot of Iranians skiing in St Moritz.

Richard , Jan 19 2020 7:35 utc | 96
There are certain signs that nations exhibit when they slide into becoming 'regimes'...targeted, illegal assassinations of opponents is one of these; America's recent political trajectory has been from oligarchy to kakistocracy and now, it seems, to regime - banana republic next, perhaps?...

https://richardhennerley.com/2020/01/14/welcome-to-the-american-regime/

arata , Jan 19 2020 8:22 utc | 97
Soleimani had delivered an speech on 2 August 2018 in Hamadan, in his speech he read 5 verses poems from Rumi the famous Persian poet lived on 13 century. You can watch and listen minute 35:45 of the film , if you know Farsi. He said let enemy pay attention to these poems.

He has selected 5 verses from two locations from Book3 of Masnavi.

How the lover, impelled by love, said "I don't care" to the person who counseled and scolded him.

Verse 3833 : Do not thou threaten me with being killed // For I thirst lamentably for mine own blood.

V-3838 : If that One of friendly countenance shed my blood, // dancing (in triumph) I will strew (lavish) my soul (life) upon Him.

Story of those who ate the young elephant from greed and because they neglected the advice of the sincere counselor.

V-96 : Men dance and whirl on the battle-field // They dance in their own blood.

V-97 : They clap a hand when they are freed from the hand of ego // They make a dance when they jump out from their own imperfection,

V-98: The inner musicians strike the tambourine // The Oceans burst into foam from their ecstasy

I think Soleimani selected last 3 verses from this story of baby elephant killer, and revenge of the mother elephant, without intending the content of story. But the coincidence is striking.

psychedelicatessen , Jan 19 2020 9:14 utc | 98
Peter AU1 @78

No fault in your reasoning, particularly when expressing this from Trump's point of view. I'd go a bit further and suggest he understands Iran, North Korea and Cuba are the only remaining nations without a Rothschild central bank. Thinking he's successfully rebuilt the U.S. military could be the single most critical failure of his presidency. Upgrading hardware with a tactical nuclear weapon preference, isn't synonymous with rebuilding. What's neglected are the people operating any apparatus. As an example, there is no timely military action to counter mining of the Strait of Hormuz as illustrated by Death and Neglect in the 7th Fleet . A firsthand account from a U.S. Naval officer is eye opening (emphasis mine).

He'd seen his ship, one of the Navy's fleet of 11 minesweepers, sidelined by repairs and maintenance for more than 20 months. Once the ship, based in Japan, returned to action, its crew was only able to conduct its most essential training -- how to identify and defuse underwater mines -- for fewer than 10 days the entire next year . During those training missions, the officer said, the crew found it hard to trust the ship's faulty navigation system: It ran on Windows 2000.

Sonar which identifies dishwashers, crab traps and cars as possible mines, can hardly be considered a rebuilt military. The Navy's eleven minesweepers built more than 25 years ago, have had their decommissioning continually delayed because no replacement plan was implemented. I'll await the deeper understanding of 'deterrence' from b, even as I consider willingness to commit and brag about war crimes as beyond the point of no return.
Peter AU1 , Jan 19 2020 9:32 utc | 99
psychedelicatessen "Thinking he's successfully rebuilt the U.S. military could be the single most critical failure of his presidency."

I would be in agreement on the overall gist of your reply, but on Trump thinking he's successfully rebuilt the US military, I'm not so sure. He is a pragmatic gangster when it comes to world affairs which is why his Nuclear Posture Review lowered the threshold of first use of nukes. b's previous post on 'How Trump rebelled against the generals' also fits in with this line of thought.
I believe Trump needs to be thought of as a CEO brought in to pull a company back from the edge of bankruptcy. I think that is the way he sees himself, and as I have put in previous comments, there are no rules. I had thought Trump may be adverse to pure terrorism but depending on what comes of the Ukie airliner shootdown in Iran, there may be absolutely no rules as far as Trump is concerned.

ADKC , Jan 19 2020 9:33 utc | 100
Jackrabbit @86

The article linked by Mike Jarvis @86 makes observational comments about the behavior of the first missile strike in PS752 and that it must have been a stinger/manpad (and not a Tor). The same article also concludes that EW must also have been involved. Everything I have read indicates that the first missile strike behaved like a stinger/manpad - until this can be disproved it must remain a valid theory.

[Jan 19, 2020] Pompeo idea of deterence means "deterrence to protect [the financial and energy hegemony of] America".

Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo omitted a crucial part of this sentence: "deterrence to protect [the financial and energy hegemony of] America". ..."
"... a regular part of the MSM/cinema diet masticated by the general public that we have completely forgotten that the basic function of the armed forces is the pursuit of vested interests through superior violence. ..."
"... No qualms or BS 'deterrence', armies are for taking other people's stuff by force (land-grabs, etc). I would respect Pompeo a whole lot more (but not much more...) if he just once came out and said: "Iran is run by people who don't want us to take their stuff; we want to undermine them and replace them with paid yes-men who will let us take Iran's stuff. We will use violence and armed force to make this happen. ..."
"... But we have no intention of distributing this loot evenly among our citizens. Instead it will be paid as dividends to select shareholders and spent retooling the military for next poor bastards who stand up to us." ..."
Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Patroklos , Jan 19 2020 5:40 utc | 84

"...deterrence to protect America."

Pompeo omitted a crucial part of this sentence: "deterrence to protect [the financial and energy hegemony of] America".

While this might be obvious to us, the narrative that US foreign policy is about protecting citizens, values and apple pie from 'bad guys' -- and indeed that the militaries of all Western countries are benign police forces preventing ISIS from burning your old Eagles albums and other violations of 'freedom' -- is such a regular part of the MSM/cinema diet masticated by the general public that we have completely forgotten that the basic function of the armed forces is the pursuit of vested interests through superior violence.

It always seemed strange to me that the post-ww2 cinematic template for war-movies, and by extension the basic plot of all reporting of western military activity in the media, always represented the enemy as evil precisely because they use militaries in an instrumental way (i.e for the purpose they were designed). The Germans, or for that matter the Persians in 300 , or any baddies in war films, seek to extend and protect their interests (real or imagined) by deploying armed forces.

The good guys are always identifiable through this idea of 'deterrence': "hey man, all we want is just to live and let live, but you pushed us so we pushed back." Then one stirs in a little 'preemptive deterrence': you looked like you were going to push so we acted. If we 'accidentally' go too far, it's because there is a deranged C-in-C: Hitler, or Xerxes, or some other naughty boy who can be the fall-guy, scapegoat, etc.

To get serious we need to go back a very long way, to, say, the Iliad , which, like all Greek (and Roman) literature, assumes as a premise (and it's tragedy) that the warrior's basic function is to kill, pillage, rape and occasionally protect others from the same. But mostly take by force .

No qualms or BS 'deterrence', armies are for taking other people's stuff by force (land-grabs, etc). I would respect Pompeo a whole lot more (but not much more...) if he just once came out and said: "Iran is run by people who don't want us to take their stuff; we want to undermine them and replace them with paid yes-men who will let us take Iran's stuff. We will use violence and armed force to make this happen.

But we have no intention of distributing this loot evenly among our citizens. Instead it will be paid as dividends to select shareholders and spent retooling the military for next poor bastards who stand up to us."

Just once.

[Jan 19, 2020] The USA is in the middle east and is fighting a war with Iran due to three factors: Full Spectrum Dominance, oil, and Isreal

Jan 19, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

TheSnark • a day ago

The general gist of this article is on target, but I feel some of the details are off.

First off, Iran does want to be a region hegemon, they have wanted that for 5,000 years. But they only succeeded, and then only temporarily, when the opposition was weak. Today they are opposed by Israel, which is far stronger them Iran militarily, and by the Saudis, who are far richer. Those two can contain Iran by themselves with little US support.

Secondly, Iran getting nuclear weapons is a problem. If they do, next will be the Turks and Saudis, then the Egyptians and then who know who else. Having several nuclear powers in an unstable part of the world is a bad thing in general, and when (not if, but when) one of those state collapses like Iran did in 1979 or the USSR did in 1989, the risk of loose nukes floating around is far too real. Better nobody has them (I am not a particular friend or foe of Israel, but I trust them more than the Arab states on this score).

But our aggressive policy and troop deployments give the Iranians every incentive to build nukes. Their previous incentive was to counter Saddam Hussien's Iraq, but we graciously eliminated threat. But then we provided them with our own incentive to nuclearize. Very dumb.

Clyde Schechter TheSnark • a day ago
I don't fully agree that Iran having nuclear weapons would be a problem for us. To the extent that any country's having them is a problem, sure. But Iran lacks the means to deliver such a weapon to US territory, and their regime, which has, for better or for worse, been rather stable over 40 years, has, notwithstanding aggressive rhetoric, been pragmatic: they know the awful consequences that would come from unleashing a nuclear attack on us. They wouldn't even think of it. Even attacking Israel, something within their capabilities, would certainly unleash nuclear retaliation and mutually assured destruction. The mullahs are not into that.

I think that nuclear non-proliferation became a dead letter when Pakistan and India acquired nuclear weapons and the world shrugged. Pakistan has one of the least stable governments around, having frequent coups, an intelligence service brimming with religious and ideological fanatics, and a history of repeated wars with neighboring India. If ever a red line should have been drawn, that was it. But nothing was done, barely anything was even said. From that point on, nobody really has any basis to complain if Iran (or any of the other countries you mention) goes nuclear.

Worse, US foreign policy is almost perfectly designed to maximize nuclear proliferation around the world. We have clearly and repeatedly sent the message to all nations that nuclear weapons are the only deterrent to US aggression, and that giving up your nuclear weapons (or agreeing not to make them, as Iran did) is suicidal. The world already knows that the US is a lawless, rogue nation, and that its treaty promises are not worth the paper they are written on. You really have to question the sanity of any government that has the resources to develop nukes and isn't doing that.

Tom Riddle Clyde Schechter • 16 hours ago

to the extent that any country's having them is a problem, sure.

This is a pretty big "but", though? Nuclear proliferation is a huge danger and it's why a country like Germany without a huge middle east presence or danger of getting attacked with Iranian nuclear weapons would so forcefully back the JCPOA.

The existence and success of the JCPOA should be indictivative of the correct method to fight proliferation and the importance of doing so. To the degree that the US should be involved with the affairs of the Middle East, it should be done through the State Department (or what's left of it when the Republicans are finished with it).

As for Pakistan's nukes means "nobody really has any basis to complain if Iran (or any of the other countries you mention) goes nuclear." IR doesn't run on moral consitency. We should complain about countries that start up nuclear programs, but we should also complain about how the US's action have made nuclear proliferation more likely and not less. I'd rather not the US give up on non-proliferation just because Pakistan has the bomb. We just need to pretending our military can find solutions to political problems.

AlexanderHistory X Clyde Schechter • 8 hours ago
It's not relevant that they can't strike America. They have the means to deliver a nuclear warhead to Israel, which is all that matters to the people in charge of this country.
Steve Naidamast AlexanderHistory X • 7 hours ago
And Iran does not even need nuclear weapons to completely destroy the Israeli state. They have more than enough conventional missiles to do the job. And such anti-missile defense systems such as the Patriot and Iron Dome implementations have both been shown to be completely

inadequate against the type of missile onslaught Iran could deliver against Israel...

Clyde Schechter AlexanderHistory X • 4 hours ago
Yes, Iran could strike Israel with a nuke. Or, as Steve Naidamast has pointed out in his response to you, they could obliterate Israel with conventional ballistics as well. In 40 years, they haven't done that. And they know that Israel would respond in kind, or with nuclear weapons, and they would be destroyed. So they will not do that.

In any case, while it is true that the people running the country view the defense of Israel as our responsibility, even as a top priority. In my opinion, and I think many readers here agree, that is precisely the problem. There is no reason we should commit to the defense of Israel: its existence and well being is not relevant to the defense of the United States. In fact, our unconditional support of everything Israel does, no matter how blatantly wrong it may be, is one of the things that fuels anti-American hatred around the world and motivates terrorists. Pulling away from our connection to Israel would be one of the best things we could do to enhance our national security.

Steve Naidamast • a day ago
The US is in the Mid East for Israel's interests and Israel's interests only. This article completely ignores this reality and tries to obfuscate it with a lot of air over how another analyst views the situation there.

Had the US not recognized partition in 1947/1948 and then the subsequent state of Israel, much of the violence in the Mid East would have never occurred in the first place. This combined with assassination of the Iranian head of state in 1953 (over the move to nationalize Iranian oil and thus pushing out the British and Dutch oil industry) by Eisenhower only served to seriously complicate the matters in this region.

Iran would have most likely never had felt the need to develop nuclear weapons if the United States had simply just left well enough alone.

Unfortunately, the United States with few exception has never had anything but dim light bulbs in the presidency. Even Truman's senior military leaders, Mid East Foreign Service policy experts, and Secretary of State Marshall all warned him of the consequences of recognizing an Israel state and they were all correct...

AlexanderHistory X Steve Naidamast • 8 hours ago
You are correct. All of this nonsense makes me question how much of a conspiracy theory ZOG is.
kouroi • 16 hours ago
Mr Larison,

You know it, I know it, and pretty much everyone lurking around knows it: The US is in the ME for very basic things that insure its primacy:
- the control of the oil flow;
- the control of the way that oil is being transaction-ed, must be US dollars. The flow of dollars, especially the excess dollars needs to be controlled and be returned back to fund US deficit - which of course US has no intention of repaying (external creditors only), and the Feds, which are private bodies of financiers which benefit tremendously from controlling the world's reserve currency, understand this;
- Oiled ME countries must be run by autocracies in fear of revolutions so they need US support;
- Nationalist movements and republicanism are to be killed and persecuted;
- While a nuclear Iran might pose a threat to Israel, like India/Pakistan, US/Russia, it would be all MAD, so not much to worry about.

US will stay in the ME as long as it will take to insure its primacy. And they will kill any external or internal threats to this primacy.

Furthermore, there is a stirred appetite in the US and what its elites stand for. Look at TPP, at the proposed treaty on services, etc. The intention is to privatize everything in the world and have it in the hands of some, few. Thus State Owned Enterprises are to be shunned and ultimately appropriated. This is all what TPP was about, this is all what the trade war with China is about, and this is all the upset with Russia and Putin is about.

It is a very simple equation, that had the US population (military/intelligence) harnessed to be the slave drivers of the rest of the world, while they themselves think they are free, and liberators. This is the content of the red pill.

Not much different than the story told in the "Against the Grain A Deep History of Earlier States" by James C. Scott
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lse...

Alex (the one that likes Ike) • 9 hours ago • edited
And how can it be the other way if there are only two parties making decisions, and both of them are committed as hell to staying bogged down in the Middle East whatever the cost even to American troops and America's own economy , not to even mention the poor peoples of that region? Just the latest example: Democrats received a totally free and unprovoked electoral gift from Trump in the form of his administration committing an unmitigated idiocy regarding Iran (which, probably, resulted in dead American soldiers, not only wounded ones, given that even those wounded were concealed in the beginning). A real, not clownish cause for an impeachment investigation, against which Republican senators would have a very hard time looking honest and non-partisan in defending the president. A dream for any half-literate opposition political strategist in an election year. Their actions? They didn't think even for a minute that maybe - just maybe - they should not squander that gift. Instead they threw it - a real (and their last) opportunity to look solid in trying to impeach Trump - down the drain, industriously flushed the closet and kept on digging some clownish personalities from Ukraine, who are not even Ukrainian residents due to living in the US for years. You know how it looks like? The Democratic Party's neolib bosses (also known as the Republican Party's neocon bosses) called the DNC and said: keep on playing in your political sandbox, babies, but don't even dare to pester the POTUS on those issues that further our policies.

To say that I'm eager to read a reply from that miserable partisan hack which shall have a cheek to claim that either of the American institutional parties is not controlled by neocons/neolibs after all this is to say nothing.

AlexanderHistory X • 8 hours ago
There are too many Jews and Christian Zionists involved with America's foreign policy, who are happy to sacrifice America's well being for the sake of israel.
Until that changes, which I can't see how it will while America exists in its current form, we are doomed to continue wasting blood and treasure in the region. It's tragic really, that this nations elite doesn't care much for America, but only what America can do to further their interests abroad.
ZOG is considered to be a conspiracy theory. These days, I'm not so sure it is.
Disqus10021 AlexanderHistory X • 6 hours ago
At least part of the blame should go to the religious conservatives on the US Supreme Court which, with its Citizens United decision in 2010, opened the floodgates for large scale campaign contributions in Federal elections. The five Catholic conservatives voted in favor of Citizens United. The three Jewish members of the court along with the sole liberal Catholic (a woman) voted against it.

If you happened to watch candidate Trump's address to the 2016 AIPAC convention on TV (which I did), you might recall that he promised to be the best president that Israel ever had. It reminds me of that old Chinese proverb "Be careful what you wish for." Trump appears to be more popular in Israel than in the US.

Being on the Supreme Court means that you never have to say that you are sorry.

Osse • 4 hours ago
I couldn't read the article because I don't subscribe to the WSJ, but I was wondering what he meant by solving the Israel- Palestine conflict. I don't think we should " solve" it by supplying the Israelis with weapons and almost unlimited support. We have been pretending to be an honest broker for decades and we aren't. I doubt we could be. A President Sanders might try, but I doubt he would succeed. He would have enough battles to fight on both domestic policy and ( hopefully) pulling back from our endless interventions to put too much effort into the I- P conflict. Most of the other possible Presidents would probably just be Israel's lapdog, as usual.

I think the US government should pull back from Israel. Have relations, but don't treat them like they are the 51st state. In theory I wish we could be an honest broker, but it hasn't happened so far.

Steve Naidamast • 3 hours ago
I have to say that the style of comments being posted as they regard Israel demonstrate that a tide may be changing. I have noticed a slow but increasing negative response by serious commenters on several sites not only toward the US commitment to Israel also to Israeli policies and military capabilities as not being what everyone has promoted them to being.

This could be indicative of a sea change in US opinion, isolating most US politicians...

[Jan 19, 2020] Back in the day when Iran was a pariah state in 1988 (under full embargo from USA and the USSR), they almost sunk the frigate Samuel B Roberts with a very old WWI mine

Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

DFC , Jan 19 2020 11:40 utc | 110

@ Posted by: psychedelicatessen | Jan 19 2020 9:14 utc | 98

You are right one of the pillars of the Iranian asymmetric strategy to counter the USN is using thousands of mines in the Strait of Hormuz and beyond, and probably also around the US bases inside the Persian Gulf.

Back in the day when Iran was a pariah state in 1988 (under full embargo from USA and the USSR), they almost sunk the frigate Samuel B Roberts with a very old WWI mine:

https://news.usni.org/2015/05/22/the-day-frigate-samuel-b-roberts-was-mined

But forget it, they have now thousands of modern mines of Russian, Chinese, north Koreans origin and inverse engineered Iranian mines, even better than those.

To try to clear the mines with wooden minesweepers in the Strait of Hormuz is a joke; to clear the mines they have to move sloooowly and they will be sitting ducks to the Iranian coastal defenses in this narrow pass; good luck using slow moving helicopters also, and using hi-tech subs drones taking one by one will take months or years to clear them, if not detected and destroyed before.

As in the case of the missiles threat, USN has no good solutions to the massive minelaying in the Strait of Hormuz, and without massive resupply of the troops inside the Persian Gulf by sea (of weapons, men, spare parts, evacuate wounded, etc...) they do not have a good prospect to continue the war after few weeks; remember that the Iranians missiles have the capacity to destroy all the airstrips of the US air bases in ME and cut dry the use of them for bombing Iran and re-supply (trying to re-suppy a complete army only with helicopters is not an option)

The iranians even do not need high-tech supersonic anti-ship missiles to close the Strait of Hormuz, but they need them to maintain the US air carriers far enough from the iranians eastern shores that their air wings will sit iddle inside the carriers (the operational range of the F15, F16, F18 is around 700-800 Km), so they cannot support the troops in the opposite side of the Persian Gulf, and even the SCG cannot use their cruise missiles (range 1700 Km) against the western part of Iran where their missile force is allocated pounding the US bases all around the Gulf

For US the only remained option would be to use long range bombers and cruise missiles from subs, but they do not have enough of them to stop the rain of missiles and really destroy the command and control centers, especially if they have not destroyed the huge multilayered aerial defense Iran has (that seems to be much better than the american one)

The US then could think to use nukes, and then call a draft, but I do not recommend it, it is better to ask for a truce

[Jan 19, 2020] Ukrainian Boeing takedown might well be a false flag attack by the US or its allies intended to frame Iran

Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Mike Javaras , Jan 19 2020 5:13 utc | 82

Best explanation I've seen yet of the 752 jet takedown. It was a false flag attack by the US or its allies intended to frame Iran. The Iranian missile hit second after the plane had already been hit by the Stinger and was several seconds from crashing anyway. The rich kids of Tehran were in the housing complex at 6 AM to film the Stinger shootdown by their terrorist buddies. They have properly been arrested. There have been other arrests too. I wonder what they will come up with.

This makes more sense than any other theory I have seen.

https://beyondhighbrow.com/2020/01/18/false-flag-flight-752-in-iran-was-shot-down-by-us-allies-with-a-stinger-missile-not-by-an-iranian-missile/

Jackrabbit , Jan 19 2020 6:00 utc | 86

Mike Javaras @82: The Iranian missile hit second after the plane had already been hit by the Stinger ...

MANPADs like Stingers are heat-seeking. They go after ENGINES. On a big plane like PS732, a MANPADs is unlikely to have stopped the transponder and communications.

Philip Giraldi points a finger at US/Israeli Electronic Warfare:

Who Targeted Ukraine Airlines Flight 752?
Iran Shot It Down But There May Be More to the Story

Giraldi thinks the transponder was hacked. But the article he cites also talks about a device on board that would've allowed for EW. And he notes that Israel probably ALSO has the capability to have been responsible for the EW and/or device on board.

!!

V , Jan 19 2020 6:21 utc | 89
MOSCOW – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated there is unverified information that at least six American F-35 jets were in the Iranian border area at the time when Tehran accidentally downed Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 last week.

www.fortruss.com

[Jan 19, 2020] Now BoneSpurs Opened the Pandora's Box of Open State Level Assassinations Not Ethical - Inhumane and Imbecilic, really. That's why I am voting for Gabbard this Time. A 2nd Gen Navy Vet. Been to War Zones in the Gulf.

Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

IronForge , Jan 18 2020 3:03 utc | 93

The MIC were running about without leashes.

Once they delved into "Conquest and Exploitation", the Military were OverScoped and Few People thought of rebuilding/modernizing Civil Infrastructure and Economy of the Conquered.

Also, IMHO, every Govt-Job that affect the Military and Veterans' Lives should be held by Veterans. Need them to be where the Rubber Meets the Road before sending others into harm's way. I'd go as far to require WH, Congress, Supremes to be Previously Assigned to Combat Units/Hot Zones (FatBoy Pompeo Fails here) - and have Combat Eligible Family be in Active Duty or Drilling Reserves - ready to be sent to the Front Lines should they call for War while running the Republic-turned-Hegemon.

That would include BoneShards' Adult Children and Spouses.

WH have been on a PetroUSD/MIC/PNAC7/AIPAC Bandwagon - which drive down Non-Yielding Nation-States with Sanctions.

Now BoneShards Opened the Pandora's Box of Open State Level Assassinations using Diplomatic Peace Missions as Venues. Worse? Against a Nation-State which can Respond in Kind - AND Develop+Deploy Nuclear WMDs. Not Ethical - Inhumane and Imbecilic, really. That's why I am voting for Gabbard this Time. A 2nd Gen Navy Vet. Been to War Zones in the Gulf.

lysias , Jan 18 2020 3:24 utc | 97

This retired Lieutenant Commander of the U.S. Navy has also been donating to Gabbard.

[Jan 19, 2020] Iran has long been viewed as central for securing US hegemony over Eurasia

Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Paul , Jan 18 2020 0:29 utc | 74

Iran has long been viewed as central for securing US hegemony over Eurasia and the US/UK have not recovered from the 1979 Islamic revolution. Iran has: 1) large reserves of oil and natural gas, 2) key Geo-strategic position- near the convergence of three continents, straddling the Middle East and Central Asia, and abutting the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman, a strategic "choke point" through which circa 25% of the world's energy transits. As summarized by Dan Glazebrook- "The reason for this obsession with destroying Iran – shared by all factions of the Western ruling class, despite their differences over means – is obvious: Iran's very existence as an independent state threatens imperial control of the region – which in turn underpins both US military power and the global role of the dollar."
During the 2016 campaign, then candidate Trump constantly railed against the JCPOA ('Iran nuclear deal'), as the 'worst' treaty the US ever signed. After becoming President, Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 and immediately imposed crippling economic sanctions on Iran, vowing to reduce energy exports to zero, effectively declaring economic war on Iran. I suspect Trump represents a faction in the US ruling establishment committed to regime change in Iran. Trump may have believed that Iran would buckle under the weight of US economic sanctions and capitulate to US demands. These include instillation of a US- friendly government that will: 1) stop supporting Hezbollah, Bashar Assad in Syria and the Houthi-Ansarullah movement in Yemen, and 2) allow US energy firms to loot Iran's energy reserves. As this approach has not worked, Trump is now aggressively pursuing the military arm of this policy.
The New Year started with a proverbial 'bang' with Trump giving the go ahead for the targeted assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi General Abu Madhi al-Muhandis, which had been long in planning. As pointed out by Pepe Escobar- 'It does not matter where the green light for the assassination.... came from....This is an act of war. Unilateral, unprovoked and illegal.' Not surprisingly, Trump's actions have been generally well received by Congress and corporate media. We are now seeing US vassals- UK, France and Germany line up behind Trump to enact the dispute resolution mechanism (DRM) and sanctions snapback provision, resulting in the re-imposition of UN sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Apparently, this action was prodded by Trump's threats to apply 25% tariffs to EU auto exports to the US.
It appears Pentagon war plans for Iran are being put in place. As per a recent piece by William Arkin in Newsweek- prior to Trump's inauguration, the US military carried out an exercise "Global Thunder 17", simulating a nuclear response against Iran in retaliation for the sinking of an American aircraft carrier and use of chemical weapons against US troops. This war scenario was chosen because it "allowed the greatest integration of nuclear weapons, conventional military, missile defense, cyber, and space into what nuclear strategists call '21st Century deterrence.'" The Pentagon now has a 'low yield' nuclear warhead- W76–2, apparently developed for an Iran-type of scenario. These weapons are deliverable by submarine-launched Trident II missiles.
So where do we stand?
It is doubtful that Trump will be convicted by the Republican- controlled Senate. This will only embolden him more. US vassals- UK, France and Germany are lining up behind Trump to enact the dispute resolution mechanism (DRM) and sanctions snapback provision, resulting in the re-imposition of UN sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Apparently, this action was prodded by Trump's threats to apply 25% tariffs to EU auto exports to the US. Canada, Australia and New Zealand have also expressed support for Trump's position. France is deploying her only aircraft carrier to the ME to 'fight ISIS'.
Corporate media is largely on board with Trump's plan.
Over the last two decades, the US has expended (squandered) astronomical sums of taxpayer money (>$6 Trillion) and lives of thousands of troops on ME wars. After committing such large amounts of financial and human capital, the Pentagon has no intention of admitting their mistakes or changing their behavior. Doing so is an acknowledgement of failure and by extension military weakness. Further, the strength and stability of the dollar and more broadly US global power, is contingent on maintaining control of ME energy reserves. The financial elite/directors of US foreign policy are well aware of continuing US economic decline and looming strategic debacles confronting the Pentagon in Afghanistan (longest war in US history), Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. Logic dictates that the US cannot 'win' a war with Iran, but this assumes one is dealing with rational thinking. By exiting the JCPOA, Trump put the US on a collision course with Iran. Alea iacta est (l. 'The die is cast'). Links of potential interest follow.
Notes
1. With a New Weapon in Donald Trump's Hands, the Iran Crisis Risks Going NuclearBy William Arkin Jan 13, 2020; Link: www.newsweek.com/trump-iran-new-nuclear-weapon-increases-risk-crisis-nuclear-1481752
2. Washington continues war buildup against Iran By Bill Van Auken Jan 17, 2020; Link: www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/01/17/iran-j17.html

[Jan 19, 2020] Jim Webb The Iran crisis isn't a failure of the executive branch alone

Jan 19, 2020 | www.washingtonpost.com

Jim Webb: The Iran crisis isn't a failure of the executive branch alone - When did it become acceptable to kill a top leader of a country we aren't even at war with?

Visitors walk around the stairs inside of the Rotunda to the top of the Capitol dome last month in Washington. (Samuel Corum/AFP/Getty Images) By Jim Webb January 9

Jim Webb, a Democrat from Virginia, served in the U.S. Senate from 2007 to 2013 and was secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan from 1987 to 1988.

Strongly held views are unlikely to change regarding the morality and tactical wisdom of President Trump's decision to kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani as he traveled on a road outside the Baghdad airport after having arrived on a commercial flight . But the debate regarding the long-term impact of this act on America's place in the world, and the potential vulnerability of U.S. government officials to similar reprisals, has just begun.

How did it become acceptable to assassinate one of the top military officers of a country with whom we are not formally at war during a public visit to a third country that had no opposition to his presence? And what precedent has this assassination established on the acceptable conduct of nation-states toward military leaders of countries with which we might have strong disagreement short of actual war -- or for their future actions toward our own people?

With respect to Iran, unfortunately, this is hardly a new issue.

In 2007, the Senate passed a non-binding resolution calling on the George W. Bush administration to categorize Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as an international terrorist organization. I opposed this proposal based on the irrefutable fact that the organization was an inseparable arm of the Iranian government. The Revolutionary Guards are not independent actors like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. They are part of the Iranian government's formal military structure, with an estimated strength of more than 150,000 members . It is legally and logically impossible to define one part of a national government as an international terrorist organization without applying the term to that entire government.

Definitions define conduct. If terrorist organizations are actively involved against us, we attack them. But a terrorist organization is by definition a nongovernmental entity that operates along the creases of national sovereignties and international law. The Revolutionary Guards are a part of the Iranian government. If they are attacking us, they are not a terrorist organization. They're an attacking army.

The 2007 proposal did not succeed. But last April the State Department unilaterally designated the Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist entity. Although more than 60 organizations are listed in this category, this is the only time our government has ever identified an element of a nation-state as a terrorist organization. And the designation was by many accounts made despite the opposition of the CIA and the Defense Department.

Which leads us to Soleimani.

The assassination of the most well-known military commander of a country with which we are not formally at war during his visit to a third country that had not opposed his presence invites a lax moral justification for a plethora of retaliatory measures -- and not only from Iran. It also holds the possibility of more deeply entrenching the U.S. military in a region that most Americans would very much prefer to deal with from a more maneuverable distance.

No thinking American would support Soleimani's conduct. But it is also indisputable that his activities were carried out as part of his military duties. His harm to American military units was through his role as an enabler and adviser to third-country forces. This, frankly, is a reality of war.

I fought as a Marine in Vietnam. We had similar problems throughout the Vietnam War because of Vietnam's propinquity to China, which along with the Soviet Union provided continuous support to the North Vietnamese, including most of the weapons used against us on the battlefield. China was then a rogue state with nuclear weapons. Its leaders continually spouted anti-U.S. rhetoric. Yet we did not assassinate its military leaders for rendering tactical advice or logistical assistance. We fought the war that was in front of us, and we created the conditions in which we engaged China aggressively through diplomatic, economic and other means.

Now, despite Trump's previous assertions that he wants to dramatically reduce the United States' footprint in the Middle East, it seems clear that he has been seduced into making unwise announcements similar to the rhetoric used by his immediate predecessors of both parties. Their blunders -- in Iraq, Libya and Syria -- destabilized the region and distracted the United States from its greatest long-term challenge: China's military and economic expansion throughout the world.

At a time when our political debates have come to resemble Kardashian-like ego squabbles, the United States desperately needs common-sense leadership in its foreign policy. This is not a failure of the executive branch alone; it is the result of a breakdown in our entire foreign policy establishment, from the executive branch to the legislative branch and even to many of our once-revered think tanks. If partisanship in foreign policy should end at the water's edge, then such policies should be forged through respectful, bipartisan debate.

The first such debate should focus on the administration's unilateral decision to label an entire element of a foreign government an international terrorist organization. If Congress wishes to hold Iran to such a standard, it should then formally authorize the use of force against Iran's government. The failure of congressional leadership to make these kinds of decisions is an example of why our foreign policy has become so militarized, and of how weak and even irrelevant Congress has allowed itself to become in the eyes of our citizens.

Read more:

[Jan 19, 2020] The Suleimani assassination, imperialist strategy and the crisis of the Iranian regime by Keith Jones

16 January 2020
Notable quotes:
"... In diplomatic terms, the US drive to force Iran into neo-colonial subjugation is expressed in Trump and Pompeo's demand that Tehran negotiate a replacement to the "flawed" Iran nuclear deal -- a "Trump deal" that would severely limit Iran's military, "roll back" its influence across the Middle East, and permanently bar it from a civil nuclear program. ..."
"... it is animated by the calculation that a "grand bargain" more favorable to US imperialism can be extorted from the crisis-ridden and deeply divided Iranian bourgeoisie, under conditions where it is facing not only ever-escalating external pressure, but also massive social opposition, above all from the working class. ..."
"... The Iranian regime was shaken by an explosion of popular anger against austerity and social inequality at the beginning of 2018. Last November, when massive gas price hikes sparked demonstrations in more than 100 cities, some of them violent, the Iranian government again responded with brutal repression, reportedly killing scores of protesters ..."
"... The assassination of Suleimani was itself clearly targeted at more than "just" threatening and destabilizing the Islamic Republic. It was aimed at shifting the internal dynamics of the Iranian regime. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
Jan 19, 2020 | www.wsws.org

As with any sudden turn in world geopolitics, the true purpose and full implications of Washington's criminal assassination of Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Qassem Suleimani are emerging only with the passage of time.

The Trump administration's claims that the assassination was in response to an imminent threat to American lives have been exposed as blatant lies. Suleimani's murder was months in the planning and long advocated by key figures in the US military-foreign policy establishment, including CIA head Gina Haspel, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton.

The killing of the military leader, who was widely viewed as second only to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei in Iran's power structure, constitutes a dramatic escalation of the Trump administration's campaign of "maximum pressure" on Iran. This campaign combines unrelenting diplomatic and military pressure with devastating economic sanctions -- that are themselves tantamount to an act of war -- cyber-warfare and other "special ops."

It is aimed at "turning" Iran and bringing to power -- whether through the reconfiguration or outright overthrow of Iran's Shia clergy-led bourgeois nationalist regime -- a government in Tehran, akin to the Shah's bloody quarter-century-long dictatorship, that will be at American imperialism's beck and call.

Iran has long been viewed by US imperialist strategists as central to its drive to secure hegemony over all Eurasia. This is because of its vast oil wealth and its geo-strategic position, near the convergence of three continents and straddling the Middle East and Central Asia, the world's two most important oil exporting regions.

In diplomatic terms, the US drive to force Iran into neo-colonial subjugation is expressed in Trump and Pompeo's demand that Tehran negotiate a replacement to the "flawed" Iran nuclear deal -- a "Trump deal" that would severely limit Iran's military, "roll back" its influence across the Middle East, and permanently bar it from a civil nuclear program.

Washington's maximum pressure campaign against Iran is predicated on the "credible" threat of all-out war, and is intimately bound up with its preparations for "strategic conflict" with Russia and China. It could rapidly cascade into a catastrophic war with Iran that would engulf the entire Mideast and draw in the other great powers.

But it is animated by the calculation that a "grand bargain" more favorable to US imperialism can be extorted from the crisis-ridden and deeply divided Iranian bourgeoisie, under conditions where it is facing not only ever-escalating external pressure, but also massive social opposition, above all from the working class.

The Iranian regime was shaken by an explosion of popular anger against austerity and social inequality at the beginning of 2018. Last November, when massive gas price hikes sparked demonstrations in more than 100 cities, some of them violent, the Iranian government again responded with brutal repression, reportedly killing scores of protesters .

The assassination of Suleimani was itself clearly targeted at more than "just" threatening and destabilizing the Islamic Republic. It was aimed at shifting the internal dynamics of the Iranian regime. It removed the military leader responsible for overseeing Iran's attempts to counteract US pressure through a network of foreign militia groups, most of them based on Shia populism. Suleimani, moreover, was a leader, as the subsequent mass demonstrations protesting his murder and the US war threats attested, who had a broad base of popular support.

Given the manner in which Suleimani died, including his evident lack of security, it is legitimate to ask whether factional opponents within the Iranian state facilitated his murder.

What is incontrovertible is that in the wake of his assassination and the tumultuous events it precipitated, the factional warfare has intensified, culminating in last week's inadvertent downing of a Ukrainian International Airlines plane by an Iranian Revolutionary Guard missile, its cover-up, and the outbreak of student demonstrations denouncing government negligence and repression.

Yesterday, President Hassan Rouhani, who spearheaded the push for the rapprochement with the European imperialist powers and Washington that resulted in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal, denounced the military for failing to "apologize" for the downing of the passenger jet. He also criticized the recent decision of the Guardian Council to exclude many sitting parliamentarians from standing in the coming elections. He called for "national reconciliation" -- a slogan long raised by supporters of the Greens, a movement based in dissident sections of the bourgeoisie and upper-middle class, which, with imperialist backing, disputed the outcome of the 2009 presidential election.

Meanwhile, on a visit to New Delhi in which he met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Iranian Foreign Minister Javed Zarif declared that the Indian government, a key US ally, could play an important "role in de-escalating tensions in the Gulf."

A major element in the Trump administration's drive to leverage the crisis of the Iranian regime and the longstanding cleavages within it has been the effort to cajole the European imperialist powers -- Germany, France and Britain -- into joining Washington in repudiating the Iran nuclear accord.

On Tuesday, the so-called E-3 took a giant step in this direction by initiating the accord's disputes resolution mechanism, thereby placing themselves on a fast track to join Washington in imposing and policing the sanctions that are strangling Iran's economy.

It is Washington that trashed the nuclear accord and is pursuing "maximum aggression" against Iran. Through its dominance of the world financial system, it has successfully shut down the world's trade with Iran, thereby making the quid pro quo underlying the nuclear accord -- the removal of sanctions in exchange for the dismantling of much of Iran's civil nuclear program -- null and void.

Yet, in what could only be music to Trump and Pompeo's ears, France, Germany and Britain are blaming Iran for violating the agreement, cynically citing Tehran's attempts to gain leverage by exceeding various JCPOA stipulations and accusing it of seeking nuclear weapons.

The European imperialist powers have been rattled by provocative and unilateral US actions that cut across their interests. Suleimani's assassination was just the latest rude shock.

Britain and the EU powers fear Washington's ever-escalating aggression against Iran will spark an all-out war that will redound against their own imperialist interests, even if it doesn't immediately draw in Russia and China. A war would send oil prices soaring, roil the European economy, spark another massive refugee crisis and further radicalize a growing working class counter-offensive.

No doubt Pompeo and others have told the Europeans that if they want to restrain Trump, avert a major conflagration and retain influence in the Middle East, they must rally behind Washington and its maximum pressure campaign.

To these dubious incentives, the Trump administration added a trade war threat, according to a report published yesterday by the Washington Post under the title, "Days before Europeans warned Iran of nuclear deal violations, Trump secretly threatened to impose 25 percent tariff on European autos if they didn't."

That said, as in the case of Washington, a key factor in the Europeans' calculations is the character of Iran's bourgeois regime and its manifest crisis.

The European imperialist powers have clearly been emboldened by the Iranian regime's response to Suleimani's assassination, which was limited to missile strikes of which the Pentagon was given advance warning and which resulted in no casualties, and by its ham-fisted attempt to cover up its responsibility for the downing of Ukraine Air Flight 752.

For all its anti-American bluster, the Iranian regime is a bourgeois national regime. In so far as it has come into conflict with Washington, it has always been from the standpoint of increasing its own possibilities for exploiting the working class and boosting its regional influence.

The growing opposition from the working class impels Iran to intensify what has been a decades-long attempt to effect a rapprochement with every US administration, dating back at least to that of George H.W. Bush.

If it can, the Islamic Republic's elite, or sections of it, will strike a deal with imperialism at the expense of the masses. Even before Rouhani came to power in 2014 on a program that coupled overtures toward Washington and Europe with further privatizations, subsidy cuts and other anti-working class measures, the Iranian regime was involved in behind-the-scenes talks with the Obama administration on removing the sanctions.

Similar talks could happen in the future or even be underway though back channels now. Trump has shown in his dealings with North Korea that he is capable of pursuing such a two-track policy.

As for the so-called Iranian "hardliners," they are no less hostile to the working class than their factional opponents, as evidenced by the implementation of neo-liberal "reform" measures by every Iranian government since the late 1980s, and their readiness to unite with their factional opponents to suppress any challenge from below.

Ultimately, the "hardliners" supported the nuclear deal and the pursuit of closer relations with the US and the EU. Even more importantly, their strategy for opposing Washington--based on seeking close military-strategic ties with Russia and China and the use of Shia populism and religious sectarianism to rally support across the Middle East--is a blind alley that risks plunging the region and the world into a conflagration.

... ... ...

Keith Jones

[Jan 19, 2020] False Flag Fmr CIA Officer Suggests US Hacked Ukrainian Plane Transponder To Provoke Iran Shootdown

Jan 18, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Philip Giraldi, a former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer of the CIA, penned a piece in the American Herald Tribune speculating that the U.S. launched several cyber-attacks, one on an Iranian missile defense system, and another on the transponder of the doomed Ukrainian plane.

Giraldi explains the Iranian missile operator experienced extreme "jamming" and Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752's transponder was switched off several minutes before the two Russian made Tor missiles were launched.

"The shutdown of the transponder, which would have automatically signaled to the operator and Tor electronics that the plane was civilian, instead automatically indicated that it was hostile. The operator, having been particularly briefed on the possibility of incoming American cruise missiles, then fired," he said.

Giraldi said the Tor missile system used by Iran is vulnerable to being hacked or "spoofed," and at the same moment, Flight 752's transponder was taken offline "to create an aviation accident that would be attributed to the Iranian government."

The Pentagon has reportedly developed technologies that can trick enemy radars with false and deceptively moving targets, he said.

"The same technology can, of course, be used to alter or even mask the transponder on a civilian airliner in such a fashion as to send false information about identity and location. The United States has the cyber and electronic warfare capability to both jam and alter signals relating to both airliner transponders and to the Iranian air defenses. Israel presumably has the same ability," Giraldi said.

Iran made the claim Wednesday that "enemy sabotage" cannot be ruled out in the downing of the plane.

Iranian Brigadier General Ali Abdollahi suggested the U.S. hacked missile defense systems to make it appear Flight 752 was an incoming missile.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also accused the U.S. of being responsible for the downing of the plane, saying that:

"The root of all sorrows goes back to America... this cannot be a reason for us not to look into all the root causes."

He added that:

"One cannot believe that a passenger plane is struck near an international airport while flying in a [commercial] flight channel," after previously saying that IRGC commanders were not the only ones involved in the plane downing, noting that "There were others, too."

The Iranian parliament also stated that "we are in powerful confrontation with the criminal U.S. and do not allow a mistake to pave the ground for misusing the issue by the enemies."

Giraldi concludes by saying electronic warfare by the U.S. to bring down a civilian jet and blame it on Iran "suggests a premeditated and carefully planned event" to create a false flag for the next world war.

Pernicious Gold Phallusy , 2 minutes ago link

I would think armed forces near an international airport would be extra careful before flipping some switches.

Dachaguy , 8 minutes ago link

Of course, Iran and the pilot of the plane had nothing to gain and everything to lose by turning off the transponders, which makes it more than likely a third party was involved in the downing of the plane. You don't need to be a genius to figure out who stood to gain by killing all those civilians. Giving the black box to Ukraine, America's puppet state, was probably a mistake.

Minamoto , 13 minutes ago link

Golf of Tonkin incident...

Operation Gladio...

WMD in Iraq...

7 World Trade...

The Pentagon and CIA involvements in the funding, training and arming of Sunni groups in Syria was documented in congressional committees...

The list of false flag operations perpetrated by the US is a long one... and in the past decades Mossad is also involved.

Schacht Mat , 21 minutes ago link

Interesting - I have harbored the same opinion after seeing the nationalities of the passengers and reviewing the 2 missile video. In fact, I believe that the plane was rigged with a unit to turn off both the transponder and the communication system, and then to trigger an explosive in the wing tank after missile launch (triggering mechanisms likely externally enabled). Let's look at this:

1. Nationalities - could not find references to too many American citizens, but lot's of Canadians; ie: no real exposure at home and this gives Trudeau (Trudope..) a headache to deal with that brings him closer to the Neocon camp - a little payback for the hot mike moment at the G7.

2. Iranians may be poorly trained and, at that moment, itchy fingered, but planes were coming and going from that airport all day. What made this one special - no transponder signal. Jamming is too easy to spot; it is much easier to install a remote kill switch on the plane in Ukraine (you know, where the US has lot's of ground assets with access to sensitive facilities like airports) and then turn off the transponder after leaving the Tehran airport.

3. Black box shows that there were no communications from the plane to the airport controllers or anyone else; yet, the crew was over staffed with competent flight crew. Note the time between when the first missile detonates and when the fire is seen on the wing of the plane; there is plenty of time for a competent aircrew to call off the attack, yet there was only radio silence. Somebody also killed the radios, which means this was planned.

3. The Tor system is not that great. Note that they fired one missile, it detonated, and there was no obvious visible effect on the plane. It was at that point that a second missile was fired; again it detonated and again there was no obvious visible effect on the plane. From the video, it appears that while the missiles may have caused damage, they do not appear to have been catastrophic.

4. Because of point 3 above, it appears that the planners had a fail safe; that being an explosive in the right wing (likely in the fuel tank as that is reasonably easy to insert), and that was detonated several seconds after the second missile did not drop the plane, and there was no third missile being launched at the airplane (perhaps the missile ground crew figured out something was wrong because the target was not going evasive, or maybe they had nothing else launch ready - unknown at this time). This would have had to have been detonated remotely (any stealthy drones hiding in that night sky??).

5. Wing burn - This sequence of events would explain the videos of the attack; I have not seen any other explanation for why the wing waited so long to suddenly erupt in flames (the plane just took off - lots of fuel, yet the flight was not that long, so there were plenty of fumes as well for hot shrapnel to ignite) after the second missile detonation. This just does not make sense on a paper thin civilian target. Also, it does not appear (from the flame morphology) that hot jet exhaust subsequently ignited leaking fuel (which could possibly explain the delay between the second missile detonation and the appearance of the fireball).

Finally, why did they do this? I doubt that it was to provoke war; likely it was to keep the Iranians from hitting any further US targets by embarrassing the them internationally, and at the same time setting Ukraine, their regional (and after the last election less than completely compliant) client state against Iran while at the same time getting Canada in line with US policy and giving its "true bearded dope" of a Prime Minister a black eye.

Another interesting note; the US has in depth penetration of both Canadian and Ukrainian institutions, which is important as these two countries have the greatest claim to being an integral part of the investigation, which means that by proxy the US has a ringside seat to manage the obscuring of any unhelpful facts that may be uncovered. This is the mistake they made with MH17, in that many of the passengers were Dutch, and thus the Dutch took the investigative lead. Getting that report properly obscured cost them a lot of gold, and they were not going to make the same mistake twice.

Any of these issues, taken individually, can be dismissed; however, taken together, the package is just too sweet - that many things coming together "coincidentally" is beyond any laws of probability that I have come across.

Pernicious Gold Phallusy , 43 seconds ago link

I suspect every member of the armed forces in Iran has been drilled with the knowledge the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger jet that supposedly had its transponder turned off.

madashellron , 41 minutes ago link

From MOA.

"It is sad that this incident happened and that 176 lost their life. But if one wants to find a person guilty for it one must look for the person who caused the whole situation. That person is not the lowly sergeant who pressed the button. That person is U.S. President Donald Trump."

Max Hunter , 39 minutes ago link

They admitted to shooting it down, the reasons are still unclear and the fact that this plane was shot down while the country itself was expecting an attack from the US or Israel only lends to speculation that there was more involved with this accident. Of course, your mind is made up that the evil Iranians killed a bunch of people because they are moral degenerates as the US and Israhell are forever seated on moral high ground.

MadelynMarie , 52 minutes ago link

https://www.sott.net/article/427443-Iran-Jet-Disaster-Setup-Was-Electronic-Warfare-in-Play

https://www.sott.net/article/427303-Was-Iranian-Missile-Operator-Tricked-Into-Shooting-Down-The-Ukrainian-Airlines-Plane-Over-Tehran

[Jan 19, 2020] Unexplained flight discrepancies by Joseph Nathan

Notable quotes:
"... When framed across the other unknown technologies that are powering the complex avionics on the Boeing 737-800, the US-China trade war and why so many economies are investing big monies in building their own GNSS, there is just a remote possibility that something sinister may be at play. ..."
"... When we examine the final seconds of the Ukrainian PS752 based on known data at this stage of the investigation, it resembles the final seconds of MH370, just before it disappeared from the radar and remains unaccounted for to this day. Could it be just another aviation coincidence? ..."
Jan 19, 2020 | www.asiatimes.com

Originally from: Asia Times Has US overplayed its tech advantage

... ... ...

As more data are being released, there are already some glaring discrepancies that baffle even aviation experts. When the doomed Ukrainian airliner, Flight PS752, switched from Tehran Iman Khomeini International Airport to Mehrabad air traffic control at 2,400 meters, at a position about 20 kilometers from the airport, it lost contact, just minutes before it was shot down. Flight-path records show that the aircraft was making a turn back in the direction of the airport.

Concurrently as this was taking place, the Iranians were firing missiles at Iraqi bases that house US forces in retaliation for the killing of their general.

If the US has the intelligence to pinpoint with such accuracy what was happening to PS752 while its troops were being fired upon, it raises the question as to whether the US has managed to circumvent the Iranians' GPS used for the rocket attacks on their troops and inadvertently set the missiles on a wrong course.

While the Iranians may have the capability to jam or spoof territorial intrusions like in 2011, when they managed to override an American RQ-170 stealth drone and landed it on their territory, it does not have the capability to shield its GPS fully from the US.

Even the Israelis, known for their military strength, do not have the capability to shield their GPS fully from foreign interference. Last June, the Israel Defense Forces suffered such a disruption. They attributed it to the Russians using a combination of jamming and spoofing signal. Known as "smart jamming," this is used to deter drones and incursion risks over very specific airspace. This disruption was detected by the GRID (GNSS Radio Frequency Interference Detection) receiver on the International Space Station owned by the Naval Research Lab, Cornell University, the University of Texas and Aerospace Corp.

Such jamming and spoofing can create hazards for civilian and commercial navigation. It can also block military-grade equipment, as shown by the Russians in 2018 when they disrupted US drones operating in Syria to gather intelligence.

Should the Iranians' GPS be compromised by the US, all its rocket launches will be misguided by false data. Whether the US could deploy such a ruthless tactic against the Iranians begs greater scrutiny by the international community, as this unfortunate incident has just too many coincidences.

When framed across the other unknown technologies that are powering the complex avionics on the Boeing 737-800, the US-China trade war and why so many economies are investing big monies in building their own GNSS, there is just a remote possibility that something sinister may be at play.

When we examine the final seconds of the Ukrainian PS752 based on known data at this stage of the investigation, it resembles the final seconds of MH370, just before it disappeared from the radar and remains unaccounted for to this day. Could it be just another aviation coincidence?

... ... ...

Joseph Nathan has been the principal consultant with several consultancy agencies for 28 years in Singapore. For Malaysia and Indonesia, he undertakes projects via JN Advisory (M) Sdn Bhd, covering real estate and infrastructure, aviation, project and debt financing, and general business review (non-manufacturing). He holds an MBA from Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Australia.

[Jan 19, 2020] Did Washington played on oil price hike threat to achive Genramny, France and GB compliance

Jan 19, 2020 | www.wsws.org

Britain and the EU powers fear Washington's ever-escalating aggression against Iran will spark an all-out war that will redound against their own imperialist interests, even if it doesn't immediately draw in Russia and China. A war would send oil prices soaring, roil the European economy, spark another massive refugee crisis and further radicalize a growing working class counter-offensive.

No doubt Pompeo and others have told the Europeans that if they want to restrain Trump, avert a major conflagration and retain influence in the Middle East, they must rally behind Washington and its maximum pressure campaign.

To these dubious incentives, the Trump administration added a trade war threat, according to a report published yesterday by the Washington Post under the title, "Days before Europeans warned Iran of nuclear deal violations, Trump secretly threatened to impose 25 percent tariff on European autos if they didn't."

[Jan 18, 2020] While the US assassination of Qassem Soleimani was an act of international barbarity, emblematic of the thuggish nature of US foreign policy, it was neither the only de facto act of war the United States has undertaken against Iran, nor the most harmful

Yankistan most potent weapon isn't military, it's economic, and through it the US government controls the world. That weapon is the US Dollar and ever since Nixon took it off the gold standard it has been used to further the Empire's imperial hold on the global economy.
Jan 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
arby , Jan 16 2020 19:16 utc | 19
Stephen Gowans' latest'

https://gowans.blog/


"While the US assassination of Qassem Soleimani was an act of international barbarity, emblematic of the thuggish nature of US foreign policy, it was neither the only de facto act of war the United States has undertaken against Iran, nor the most harmful. Indeed, against the total embargo Washington has imposed on Iran with the intention of starving Iranians into submission or inducing them to overthrow their government, the killing of Soleimani is a act of little consequence, even if its significance in provoking widespread outrage and galvanizing opposition to US aggression is undoubted."

[Jan 18, 2020] events appear to have escalated from the 25 December killing of five PMF guys on the Syria-Iraq border by an unattributed drone or missile strike. Neoliberal MSM try to hide or obscure this fact.

Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com

Swedish Family , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:28 pm GMT

@Oscar Peterson

Significantly, events appear to have escalated from the 25 December killing of five PMF guys on the Syria-Iraq border by an unattributed drone or missile strike. Our media is doing its best to obscure this event as the probable starting point. Two days later on 27 December, the rocket fire near Kirkuk killed the US contractor. Then came the strike on KH troops back out in the West and now the assassination of Soleimani et al.

[ ]

So the trigger was the 25 December attack, and all the timing flows from that, not from any great real estate developer savvy. Frankly, in my view, you give Trump way to much credit for systematic thought. I don't think he really does that at all.

This is also the view of the Middle-East veterans over at Patrick Lang's blog:

Last weekend, in response to a rocket attack on a base outside Kirkuk that left one US contractor dead and four US servicemen wounded, we launched drone strikes on five Iraqi PMU outposts in Iraq and Syria near Abukamal killing 25 members and wounding scores more of the Kata'ib Hezbollah brigades of the PMU.

We blamed Iran and the Kata'ib Hezbollah for the rocket attack near Kirkuk. That may be true, but the Kata'ib Hezbollah is not some rogue militia controlled out of Teheran. It is an integral part of the PMU, its 46th and 47th brigades and has been for years. The PMU is an integral part of the Iraqi military and has been for years. The PMU played a major role in defeating IS in both Iraq and Syria. Our attack on the Kata'ib Hezbollah outposts was an attack on the Iraqi military and government. We informed PM Abdul-Mahdi of our intended attacks. Abdul-Mahadi warned us not to do it, but, of course, we conducted the attacks despite his warning. We were proud of the attacks. The Pentagon even released footage of the attacks. It was supposed to be a clear message to Teheran.

Unfortunately for us, the message was also heard by Iraqis. After the funerals of many of the victims of our attacks on the PMU outposts, a large crowd of protestors headed for the US Embassy in the Green Zone. For weeks prior to this, Iraqi security forces kept protestors from entering the Green Zone and approaching the US Embassy. Not this time. The crowds, including mourners fresh from the funerals of their family members and many PMU soldiers, unarmed but in uniform, poured into the Green Zone right to the gates of the Embassy itself. A reception area was entered and burned. Iraqi security forces of the PrimeMinister's Counter Terrorism Command were among the protestors. I surmise that PM Abdul-Mahdi was sending his own message back to the US.

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2020/01/our-embassy-in-baghdad-ttg.html

The protests at the American embassy, then, were over Iraqi servicemen murdered in American drone strikes

Qasem Soleimani was an Iranian soldier. He lived by the sword and died by the sword. He met a soldier's destiny. It is being said that he was a BAD MAN. Absurd! To say that he was a BAD MAN because he fought us as well as the Sunni jihadis is simply infantile. Were all those who fought the US BAD MEN? How about Gentleman Johhny Burgoyne? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Sitting Bull? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Aguinaldo? Another BAD MAN? Let us not be juvenile.

The Iraqi PMU commander who died with Soleimani was Abu Mahdi al Muhandis. He was a member of a Shia militia that had been integrated into the Iraqi armed forces. IOW, we killed an Iraqi general. We killed him without the authorization of the supposedly sovereign state of Iraq.

We created the present government of Iraq through the farcical "purple thumb" elections. That government holds a seat in the UN General Assembly and is a sovereign entity in international law in spite of Trump's tweet today that said among other things that we have "paid" Iraq billions of US dollars. To the Arabs, this statement that brands them as hirelings of the US is close to the ultimate in insult.

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2020/01/will-trump-welcome-the-ejection-of-the-us-from-iraq-he-should.html

and now the Americans went one better and murdered an Iraqi general.

[Jan 18, 2020] The US is already and has been for the longest time at war with Iran

Jan 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Seer , Jan 18 2020 14:13 utc | 137

Lysander @ 30

Got it right, IMO.

Trump doesn't give a crap about wars killing people. He's about the bottom line. The business of the US is business. Further consider the Belt And Road Initiative (karlof1 briefly mentioned this). There's an underlying strategy of the empire. Only thing is a difference in how to make sure that it achieves it's goal: domination of world currency and business. The strategy is how to break the Russia-China coalition. Some believe that making friends with Russia could have caused them to detach from China (with the target being to tamp down China [again, think Belt and Road Initiative]). I cannot say for sure, but I do kind of think that this was the position that Trump had/has. This suspicion has legs if you consider the Russia-gate crap. And, the wars in the ME that Trump has vocalized against don't necessarily line up with being on the strategy path of using Russia to smack down China. Others believe it's better to go directly against China (and allow Russia to just kind of be isolated). The ME wars are, essentially, taking out the Road in Belt and Road. Having the area in a perpetual war makes business really difficult. This go-after-China-directly approach is seen in the Uyghur and Hong Kong battle fronts. Iran is made common to both strategy paths because, well, because of Israel (its overarching influence over US policies).

It's a left wing or a right wing of the same bird. The mechanism (bird) isn't the issue, it's the strategy (which wing). Chomsky really spells this out:

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/noam-chomsky-america-has-built-a-global-dystopia

Perhaps the US doesn't want China to perfect the same authoritarian system the US is looking to achieve? The attempt to block Huawei from international markets is about who controls information (information flow).

Dave , Jan 18 2020 14:19 utc | 138

"I want to win," he said. "We don't win any wars anymore . . . We spend $7 trillion, everybody else got the oil and we're not winning anymore."

These wars where never intended to be won. If you win a war you have to go home. It's pretty difficult to exploit natural resources and threaten other countries geopolitically without military and covert agency bases all over the region.

I'm not sure Trump even understands this strategy. As disgusting as it may be, the thought of someone actually believing we entered these wars for any other reason than to cripple and control them for the interest of our (not so)leader elite class is astonishing.

But, at the same time we are left with few alternatives due to the coup de 'etat perpetrated by the elite who stack the slate we vote from and use the legacy media to propagandize as many as possible into supporting this sociopathic/psychopathic foreign policy agenda.

All we are ever offered is slight changes in tactics while maintaining the original goal of world domination and total control of everyone in order to keep those on top, on top.

Nothing will change until the enforcers begin to fight back against the people showering them with unlimited budgets and propagandize adoration to the point of military/police worship.

Walter , Jan 18 2020 14:50 utc | 139
Sabine | Jan 18 2020 5:03 utc | 101

"the US is already and has been for the longest time at war with Iran. "

Add to that the fact that in 1946 (or maybe '47?) Truman specifically threatened the Red Army in Northern Iran with the atom bomb. They withdrew. But the point is that Iran was the first defined target after Japan nuked in a display of "Overwhelming Power" (Stimson) deliberately to bring USSR to obey the US, or at least to intimidate Stalin.

Threatening Russians is just plain stupid. Threats are almost always stupid, unless you're trying to force an opponent into an attack-trap. Which "attack-trap" is what the Imperial Wizards are doing. The assumption, a chauvinist and incorrect assumption, is that the opponent is stupider than the attacker. Don't bet on that...it's a sucker bet.

[Jan 18, 2020] Who Targeted Ukraine Airlines Flight 752 Iran Shot It Down But There May Be More to the Story by Philip Giraldi

Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com

What seems to have been a case of bad judgments and human error does, however, include some elements that have yet to be explained. The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched . There were also problems with the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.

The electronic jamming coming from an unknown source meant that the air defense system was placed on manual operation, relying on human intervention to launch. The human role meant that an operator had to make a quick judgment in a pressure situation in which he had only moments to react. The shutdown of the transponder, which would have automatically signaled to the operator and Tor electronics that the plane was civilian, instead automatically indicated that it was hostile. The operator, having been particularly briefed on the possibility of incoming American cruise missiles, then fired.

The two missiles that brought the plane down came from a Russian-made system designated SA-15 by NATO and called Tor by the Russians. Its eight missiles are normally mounted on a tracked vehicle. The system includes both radar to detect and track targets as well as an independent launch system, which includes an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system functionality capable of reading call signs and transponder signals to prevent accidents. Given what happened on that morning in Tehran, it is plausible to assume that something or someone deliberately interfered with both the Iranian air defenses and with the transponder on the airplane, possibly as part of an attempt to create an aviation accident that would be attributed to the Iranian government.

The SA-15 Tor defense system used by Iran has one major vulnerability. It can be hacked or "spoofed," permitting an intruder to impersonate a legitimate user and take control. The United States Navy and Air Force reportedly have developed technologies "that can fool enemy radar systems with false and deceptively moving targets." Fooling the system also means fooling the operator. The Guardian has also reported independently how the United States military has long been developing systems that can from a distance alter the electronics and targeting of Iran's available missiles.

The same technology can, of course, be used to alter or even mask the transponder on a civilian airliner in such a fashion as to send false information about identity and location. The United States has the cyber and electronic warfare capability to both jam and alter signals relating to both airliner transponders and to the Iranian air defenses. Israel presumably has the same ability. Joe Quinn at Sott.net also notes an interested back story to those photos and video footage that have appeared in the New York Times and elsewhere showing the Iranian missile launch, the impact with the plane and the remains after the crash, to include the missile remains. They appeared on January 9 th , in an Instagram account called ' Rich Kids of Tehran '. Quinn asks how the Rich Kids happened to be in "a low-income housing estate on the city's outskirts [near the airport] at 6 a.m. on the morning of January 8 th with cameras pointed at the right part of the sky in time to capture a missile hitting a Ukrainian passenger plane ?"

Put together the Rich Kids and the possibility of electronic warfare and it all suggests a premeditated and carefully planned event of which the Soleimani assassination was only a part. There have been riots in Iran subsequent to the shooting down of the plane, blaming the government for its ineptitude. Some of the people in the street are clearly calling for the goal long sought by the United States and Israel, i.e. "regime change." If nothing else, Iran, which was widely seen as the victim in the killing of Soleimani, is being depicted in much of the international media as little more than another unprincipled actor with blood on its hands. There is much still to explain about the downing of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 15, 2020 at 10:45 pm GMT

Given this news, any impartial observer would at least entertain the possibility of its truth, particularly given the lengthy track record of the United States/Israel in perpetrating such crimes.

It's a good litmus test for determining where one's sentiment lies. Even "alternative media" aren't likely to touch this story.

Bravo to Mr. Giraldi and Mr. Unz.

Sean , says: Show Comment January 15, 2020 at 11:10 pm GMT
The Iranian Ambassador to Britain, Hamid Baeidinejad said in an interview on the UK Channel 4 news hours ago that although Iran had needed time to determine what had happened, it had now accepted responsibility, would pay compensation, and the people who fired on the jet will be put on trial.

If nothing else, Iran, which was widely seen as the victim in the killing of Soleimani, is being depicted in much of the international media as little more than another unprincipled actor with blood on its hands.

Both Trump and the Iranian regime have good domestic disquiet reason to rethink the confrontational policy each are pursuing. Iran and the US could get closer over this. I think the predictable unpredictability of assassination and catastrophic loss of life events makes false flagging them of dubious value.

Why did I rob banks? Because I enjoyed it. I loved it. I was more alive when I was inside a bank, robbing it, than at any other time in my life. I enjoyed everything about it so much that one or two weeks later I'd be out looking for the next job. But to me the money was the chips, that's all.

(Sutton W, Linn E: Where the Money Was: The Memoirs of a Bank Robber. Viking Press (1976), p. 160)

I suppose it is possible there are people who get addicted to false flagging others' deaths. If half of what is said in this site is true, Mossad really needs to set up a 12 step program.

onebornfree , says: Website Show Comment January 15, 2020 at 11:49 pm GMT
" .the big question which many people on social media are asking is: why was this "videographer" standing in a derelict industrial area outside Tehran at around six o'clock in the morning with a mobile phone camera training on a fixed angle to the darkened sky? The airliner is barely visible, yet the sky-watching person has the camera pointed and ready to film a most dramatic event, seconds before it happened. That strongly suggests, foreknowledge."

"Iran Jet Disaster Setup – Who Is the Mysterious Videographer?:"
https://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/iran/3809-jet-disaster-setup.html

And I would add: how do we know the video[s] are even genuine? [Answer: we don't, it is only an unproven assumption at this time].

Regards, onebornfree

anonymous [150] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:36 am GMT
Hmmm, cameras waiting beforehand, transponders not working. Sort of sounds like 9-11, doesn't it?
The Alarmist , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 3:01 am GMT

The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched.

I vaguely recall reports of transponder issues arising during the shootdown of MH-17.

anonymous [405] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 3:49 am GMT

Civilian passenger flights were still departing and arriving in Tehran, almost certainly an error in judgment on the part of the airport authorities. Inexplicably, civilian aircraft continued to take off and land even after Flight 752 was shot down.

The Iranian government is blameworthy for keeping planes in the air either because of diabolical reasons (delays a counter attack) or economic (nearly $1 billion a year in overflight fees).

However, the pilots of the airliners that took over during the morning between the first missile hitting Iraq and the downing of the Ukrainian airliner were dumb and irresponsible.

Anon [230] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 4:10 am GMT

The system includes both radar to detect and track targets as well as an independent launch system, which includes an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system functionality capable of reading call signs and transponder signals to prevent accidents.

Clearly you have no clue how an IFF operates and that no commercial airliner even has an IFF on board. Every commercial aircraft looks like the enemy to this SAM operator.

Also, you need to explain how spoofing a RADAR which creates a false track would cause the shoot down. The missile would simply target the false track instead of the real aircraft.

You also need to explain how an old SAM missile site can be hacked or spoofed to shoot down a civilian airliner. Especially this old one which has no Mode-S or ADS-B capability and only radio communication capability.

As Mark Twain said, it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are an idiot rather than open it and remove all doubt.

Anon [200] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:20 am GMT
Even if this was a clear mistake on Iran's part, the US and Israel still have blood on their hands for the downing of this plane. The missiles were launched in response to a targeted killing of an Iranian general. If that didn't happen, these missiles never would've been launched.

Trump-Pence-Pompeo-Kushner-Netanyahu are ultimately responsible for these 176 lives lost. I suspect MBS is also part of the scheme. It was his fake peace offering that lured Soleimani to Iraq in the first place. I'm with Trudeau on this.

Onlooker , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:22 am GMT
@Anon Before calling someone an idiot it is better to follow Mark Twain's advice yourself. A more careful reading reveals no claim that IFF was onstalled on the airliner. The commenter does speculate that possible spoofing involved a false attribution of a real airliner not the creation of a false airliner and radar track. Perhaps you are familiar with "old" electronic countermeasures and not with the "new", "top secret" and spiffy versions hinted at by the U.S. military?
AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:30 am GMT
@Quartermaster /An Airliner can not legally launch with deadlined transponder, so the claim that it quit transmitting "several" minutes earlier would have placed it on the ground when it quit./

From the SoTT link :

As it climbed and reached 4,600ft above ground level, the plane's transponder suddenly stopped working at about 6.14am, 2 minutes or so after take off . [emphasis added]

The plane was already airborne when the transponder stopped working.

AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:45 am GMT
@Onlooker Less than twenty replies into the thread and we've already got two individuals attempting to distort the facts. Here's the key link that readers should visit:

https://www.sott.net/article/427303-Was-Iranian-Missile-Operator-Tricked-Into-Shooting-Down-The-Ukrainian-Airlines-Plane-Over-Tehran

Compare the information there against what the detractors say here.

Daniel Rich , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:16 am GMT
@Quartermaster

The airliner had not been in the air long at all when it was shot down. An Airliner can not legally launch with deadlined transponder, so the claim that it quit transmitting "several" minutes earlier would have placed it on the ground when it quit.

The flight departed Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport at 02:42 UTC ( 06:12 local time ) and the last ADS-B signal was received by the Flightradar24 network at 02:44 UTC( 06:14 local time) . According to the report the aircraft climbed to 8000 feet and turned right back toward the airport and crashed at 02:48 UTC ( 06:18 local time ) -- four minutes after the last ADS-B signal was received by the Flightradar24 network. – Source Flight Radar 24

Mr. Giraldi's original claim:

The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched. There were also problems with the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.

4 minutes after the transponders were switches off, the plane crashed .

Without [proper] access to the FDR and CVR, it's impossible to determine when the plane was hit and how long it took to crash, exactly.

The plane was only flying at 8,000 feet [its normal {flight} ceiling is 30,000 feet and above], so it's speed relatively low [cruise speed is between about 400 and 500 knots (460 – 575 mph / 740 – 930 kph), but the Ukrainian plane was still climbing] and the fall back to Earth relatively quick.

On the clip where the plane is on fire and finally crashes, the downward angle looked to be about 25 to 30 %, which is relatively steep. Time of downfall can be calculated when the relative data is available.

Therefore, Mr Giraldi's claim " several minutes before the missiles were launched " is technically correct , until proven wrong by data from the FDR and CVR,

utu , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:31 am GMT
The Tor system is too primitive to be hacked. It is a stand alone, autonomous and mostly analog system. The radar signals it generates are shown on analog tube-screens.
Ghali , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:07 am GMT
Interesting theory by P. Giraldi. However, I am very surprised that Israel/Mossad role in these acts of terrorism never mentioned. We know that Trump is a Zionist servant and acts on instructions from his jewish fananciers. We know, Trump is incapable of serious thinking.

Here is a good article with some interesting observations:
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/202001131078026961-iran-jet-disaster-setup/

GMC , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:10 am GMT
The Iranians took the hit because their missiles took out the airliner. And then, they could stop the Western media crying for the next 6 mos. and this gave them time to bring in other neutral investigators to look at the evidence and come up with logical scenarios. There is a reason the black boxes weren't given to any one else to own – because they still remember the scam investigation of MH 17. I f lew planes for over 20 yrs – Every controlled/radared airport would ask me to turn on my transponder if it wasn't on – Everyone of them. This plane not only came from Ukraine but was an easy target for a hack from any of the big Intel countries. The BIG STORY here is that most every plane flying today – can have the same type consequences!!! because of the Western War Machine.
AZ , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 10:08 am GMT
Ask the Israelis. They are experts in these operations. The blood of the innocent on their heads

R D Steele has some interesting thoughts as well:

https://phibetaiota.net/2020/01/robert-steele-world-war-iii-was-ukrainian-flight-ps752-a-western-false-flag-combining-remote-hijacking-and-transponder-disabling-to-trigger-two-tor-m1-missiles/

lavoisier , says: Website Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:01 pm GMT
@Anon

Trump-Pence-Pompeo-Kushner-Netanyahu are ultimately responsible for these 176 lives lost. I suspect MBS is also part of the scheme. It was his fake peace offering that lured Soleimani to Iraq in the first place. I'm with Trudeau on this.

Trudeau showed some real courage criticizing Trump and his terrible decisions.

More Western allies have to stand up to the Zionist stooge and call him out on his treachery and stupidity.

UncommonGround , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:23 pm GMT
@bobhammer

The Democrats have gone too far.

I believe that P.G. has supported Trump until recently.

Besides, you could get some general information about such themes if you read articles like the following:

There's No Evidence Iran Is Responsible for the Deaths of Hundreds of Americans
by Stephen Zunes

https://progressive.org/dispatches/-no-evidence-iran-is-responsible-for-the-deaths-of-hundreds-of-americans-zunes-200107/

How the President Became a Drone Operator
by Allegra Harpootlian

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/16/how-the-president-became-a-drone-operator/

lavoisier , says: Website Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:32 pm GMT
@bobhammer Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Turn off Fox News now.

We are not always the good guys and we are up to our necks in deceit, plunder, and evil. Our actions have harmed millions of people around the world and it has to stop.

It is time for more self-reflection as individuals and as a nation; and it is long past time for us to be comfortable with lies.

Anonymous [401] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 2:22 pm GMT
@bobhammer The "uninterruptible" autopilot can be activated – either by pilots or by on-board sensors, or by radio or satellite link<= connected to controls at the remote end. Government agencies, quasi government agencies, military brats and probably the entire group of privately operated NGOs and private party mobsters (bankers, corporations and private military armies and privateers) at the remote end, can take over control of in-flight Aircraft, and fly it, land it, take it off, whatever, even if the pilot sitting in the cockpit objects. and does all he can to retrieve control from the remote operator.

Several comments report says interrupt able remote control, allows, persons on the ground, to take from the pilot in a flying airplane, control of the airplane the pilot is suppose to be flying, in situations for example when terrorist are in the cockpit. I have not read the manufacture's literature nor do I have personal knowledge abut the equipment list of any of these aircraft, the list suggest they are all aircraft, not only equipped with the UAP but that they were all aircraft made by the same manufacturer. I am merely repeating what was on stated as fact on a website I visited.

Many are looking for proof that remotely equipped uninterruptible autopilots are being used as Remote Control weaponized drones . Imagine an pilot, located on the ground in London or somewhere parks his /her remote ground to air control vehicle and takes over flight control including turns on/off the transponder [<=which tells everyone where the plane is during its flight] on a plane that is flying, landing or taking off from say the Tehran airport in Iran?

My personal experience is that it generally takes less than 2 minutes after a transponder is turned off during a planes flight, before fighter jets arrive to escort the transponder disabled plane; so the whole system that protects civilian aircraft, and allows the military to know the aircraft is civilian, is dependent on the Transponder, installed in the airplane, to continuously squawk during flight, its exact position so that everyone can identify the flight, and track the aircraft during its flight. Every land based control tower, ATC control system center and military installation depends on that airborne squawking transponder to track the en-route progress of commercial and private aircraft flights from take off to landing.

Another comment made on that list referred to above claimed Uninterruptible Auto Pilot [UAP] equipped aircraft have been involved in unexplained flight accident/disappearance events (I have no personal knowledge about the equipment in these aircraft, I just repeated here what someone else said elsewhere, please verify these claims yourself or provide verification ) .

(4 @911) <=UAP allows pilot-less flights, no pilot need board the plane for its flight.
(PS752) (transponder turned off, destroyed by confused ground defense crews)
MH370 (vanished into thin air)
MH17 (had its flight path altered.)
Eyes focus on Uninterruptible Auto Pilot (UAP) .. to explain recent Tehran 160 person disaster?

This is really something to think about? Always the question has been how did four military officers from Iran, trained a few weeks in Florida to fly jets, manage to get through four differently located pilot screening TSA gates to fly the aircraft and passenger into the 9/11 events. Conspiracy theories suggest since no pilot is needed, there were no pilots for TSA to screening. Remote control on the ground flew the aircraft to their destinations.

Trinity , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 2:51 pm GMT
"By way of deception thou shalt do war."

Just about says it all doesn't it? What kind of people are we dealing with here? Of course only the morons out there are still being fooled by these kind of false flags. Even in the year 2020 these same morons still believe ZOG's 9-11 fairy tale and label any other theory as a "conspiracy." Speaking of conspiracies the biggest idiots out there, even bigger than the ones who believe ZOG's narrative or those type who believe the total wacktard stuff put out by ZIO controlled disinfo puppets like Alex Jones.

Ukrainian commercial airline? What other nation besides Iran does ZOG have it in for? Is it Russia?

War by deception? HARDLY to anyone with two brain cells left. These fools have been caught before, they aren't that clever. What they are is protected by a syndicate of bought and paid for politicians. They were caught attacking the USS Liberty, they were caught bombing American and British installations in Egypt, the Rosenbergs and Pollard were nailed, but of course despite all of this, America and her leaders continued the value Israel as a friend and an ally. With a friend like Israel, who needs enemies. Then of course we have the story of our 5 little dancing Israelis apprehended in NYC after being observed dancing and celebrating the WTC towers collapsing. So you mean a group of Israelis from Israel, nation that is ALLEGEDLY "friends" with America and America think it is hilarious and worth celebrating when America is attacked and thousands are burned alive or jump to their death from hundreds of feet above the street?? Of course "our" media quickly exonerated the celebrating Israelis and buried that story faster than your average house cat buries his own turds.

ZOG really thinks the average American has the IQ of a monkey. Even after the WMD caca they still think you people will believe anything they tell you to believe. The sad part is they are right about that with the majority of the population.

Pindos , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 4:01 pm GMT
@Anon Wrong anon

Identification, friend or foe (IFF) is a radar-based identification system designed for command and control. It uses a transponder that listens for an interrogation signal and then sends a response that identifies the broadcaster. It enables military and civilian air traffic control interrogation systems to identify aircraft, vehicles or forces as friendly and to determine their bearing and range from the interrogator. IFF may be used by both military and civilian aircraft.

unit472 , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 4:37 pm GMT
If such a capability exists would the US reveal and use it in such a minor circumstance. Occam's razor suggests this was just another case of 'better safe than sorry' during a time of military tensions. Not a whole lot different than the Vincennes shootdown of an Iranian airliner that came too close during a military confrontation in the Gulf.

I would hate to know how many 'friendly' aircraft were shot down by over zealous AAA gunners in WW2 but it wasn't just a handful.

scrub , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:24 pm GMT
Anybody who thinks that US-Israel wouldn't have been capable of staging such a horrific event as the shooting down of the airliner by Iran hasn't been following Whitney Webb's continuing articles which are available right here on UNZ. Israel seems to have insinuated itself into about every computer security program worldwide.

Webb's article mentions large scale defense contractor Dell Computer's close connection to the Israeli government. Dell computer head Michael Dell has personally made large contributions to that curious "charity" called The Friends of The Israeli Defense Forces as has Larry Ellison, head or Oracle Software. Interestingly enough, neither of them have made correspondingly large contributions to American veterans however.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Israel_Defense_Forces

Michael Dell is probably one of the biggest (or the biggest) single contributors to the Republicans from Texas, home of Dell computer. Larry Ellison (also a large government computer contractor) is also one of the Republican Party's biggest contributors.

Ellison's $5.5 million dollar contribution to the Republican is dwarfed however, by his recent contributions to The Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces which seem to total (as of today) $31 million (or more).

https://www.timesofisrael.com/record-53-8-million-raised-for-idf-soldiers-at-beverly-hills-gala/

Are both men and their companies security risks? Is there any doubt of this or are contribution to charity connected to a foreign army now simply to be considered as being benign and innocent.

anon [230] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:35 pm GMT
@Pindos Wrong anon

Identification, friend or foe (IFF) is a radar-based identification system designed for command and control. It uses a transponder that listens for an interrogation signal and then sends a response that identifies the broadcaster. It enables military and civilian air traffic control interrogation systems to identify aircraft, vehicles or forces as friendly and to determine their bearing and range from the interrogator. IFF may be used by both military and civilian aircraft.

Your Wikipedia snippet is absolutely incorrect . IFF is only used for Military Aircraft. If you want to prove me wrong:

Provide a link to any civilian transponder with IFF capability
Provide a link to any civilian aircraft Minimum Equipment List that requires an IFF

Rurik , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:38 pm GMT
@unit472

Vincennes shootdown of an Iranian airliner that came too close during a military confrontation in the Gulf.

Doesn't it rile you, as a U.S. veteran, that American soldiers are dying in treasonous service to an enemy nation?

Doesn't it bother you in the least, that Americans are on the hook for untold trillions of dollars, so they can slaughter innocent people, thousands of miles away, whose only "crime" is that a certain shitty little country, wants to see them all sent reeling into the stone age, (which is exactly what they want for you too).

Have y0u ever bothered to notice just exactly whom it is that is driving all the liberal-progressive shit we all see daily, with the ubiquitous homomania and Hollywood sewage force-injected into America's culture?

I see you occasionally speak against that stuff, but then when it comes to American soldiers dying on behalf of those rats, there you are, defending the narrative of Iran as bad guys.

How many Iranians do you see pumping Hollywood sewage into America's veins?

How many Iranians do you see on Capital Hill, demanding Trump and all his Deplorables are irredeemably racists? And need to have their guns taken away?

How many Iranians do you see at Goldman Sachs, (and the other 'Too big to fail Banksters) looting the country dry?

How many Iranians do you see in our universities, force-feeding America's youth the progressive-liberal monkey shit, they're paying to consume daily?

You'd have to be very myopic not to notice who it is behind America's depraved descent into cultural and spiritual guano. (not to mention the Eternal Wars, that only an imbecile could pretend not to notice ((who)) are behind them).

And I have a clue for you, it isn't the Iranians. In fact, they had a nice good taste of ((Western)) culture under the Shah, and they decided they'd rather not see their women whored out, and their children spiritually dead husks.

It'd be good if people could lift the veils they willfully allow to cover their own eyes, in some kind of misguided machismo about how tough "our" military are, as they're killing and dying on behalf of their worst enemy.

barr , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:48 pm GMT
@JimDandy Hpw did the instruction to "Fly direct" prove fatal to MH 17

MUMBAI: The ministry of civil aviation's claim that there was no Air India flight near the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 when it was shot down over Ukraine on Thursday appears misleading.
An Air India Dreamliner flight going from Delhi to Birmingham was in fact less than 25km away from the Malaysian aircraft,

Minutes before the crash caused by a missile strike, the AI pilots had also heard the controller give the Malaysian aircraft MH17 what is called "a direct routing". This permits an aircraft to fly straight, instead of tracking the regular route which is generally a zig-zag track that goes from one ground-based navigation aid or way point to another. "Direct routing saves fuel and time and is preferred by pilots. In this case, it proved fatal," said an airline source.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Air-India-flight-was-90-seconds-away-when-missile-struck-Malaysia-Airlines-Flight-MH17/articleshowprint/38702536.cms

1 Was India pressurized to deny the close proximity and 2 was it under pressure to deny that it heard the controller giving the instruction to MH 17????

Saggy , says: Website Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:09 pm GMT
@Anon http://www.dean-boys.com/extras/iff/iffqa.html

FAA regulations require that all aircraft, military or civilian, flying at an altitude of 10,000 feet or higher in U.S. controlled airspace, must be equipped with an operating IFF transponder system capable of automatic altitude reporting (this is the reason that two of the modes are used by both military and civilian aircraft).

So, did the Ukrainian plane have an IFF transponder or not? Ref?

Marvin Sandnes , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:52 pm GMT
The guy with the camera aimed up into a dark sky on that morning worked for a Saudi Arabia news service. From the "grayzone" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBGw5GMXb4c&feature=em-uploademail
wdg , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:58 pm GMT
Cui bono? Israel and its NeoCon fifth column operating in the US and throughout the western world.
Iris , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:01 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

what Giraldi has published doesn't even rise to the level of the most idiotic conspiracy theory one can concoct.

It happened only a few months ago that an Israeli jet violated Syria's airspace and deliberately sheltered behind a Russian Iliouchine IL-20 to get it shot down by Syrian air defence.

It was so very clearly and simply explained by the Russian Chief of Staff than any imbecile could understand it; the idiot is definitely you.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45556290

A123 , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:02 pm GMT
@Saggy I believe you are correct.

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/iff

My understanding is:

A civilian transponder will respond to almost any inquiry (or even a non-coded radar pulse):
-- Standard civilian transponder code = USA military Mode 3.
-- Standard civilian transponder altitude reporting = USA military Mode C.

To reduce detectability in combat, the pilot can change the setting on a Military IFF system to only squawk when a correctly coded interrogation signal is recieved.

Saggy , says: Website Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:28 pm GMT
@Saggy Moon Of Alabama has the story –

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/01/was-the-shootdown-of-the-ukrainian-airplane-near-tehran-really-a-mistake.html

The Boeing jet broadcast the usual civil ADS-B signal but one has to expect that a U.S. cruise missile can and would do the same.

although 'one can expect ' seems like one hell of an assumption.

Frederick V. Reed , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:30 pm GMT
Transponders are turned on and off with switches in the cockpit. Is Giraldi suggesting that this transponder was equipped to be controlled from outside? Source of assertion that transponder was turned off? Can he name any commercial transponder with this feature? Does he know anythng about elctroic warfare? This sounds like the birthing of a conspiracy theory.
Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:07 pm GMT
@DaveE The hilarious thing in Britain is that many people on the comments sections of MSM will talk about 'Asian' or more specifically 'Muslim' child rape gangs, because these gangs were heavily Muslim they can be referred to using the adjective 'Muslim'.

But when you point out that the ones beating the drums for war in Iran and who successfully plunged America and UK into a long a protracted war in the Middle East are mostly Jewish, as evidenced by this article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz

they start getting all pissy, because of the Holocaust legend, Jews are now above scrutiny and Jewish power cannot be talked about. It is the slipperly slope fallacy, what is merely being advocated for here is not to trust a single thing that comes out of the mouth of a Jew regarding the Middle East as there is a clear conflict of interest, not genocide.

I also suspect that peoples understandable antagonism towards Muslims has somehow made them more sympathetic to Israel. Tommy Robinson is for example funded by rich Jews like Ezra Levant of Rebel Media and Robert J. Shillman – who sits on the board of Friends of Israel Defence Forces – shills for Israel. Now the Western goyim start frothing at the mouth when they hear Muslim and so think countries like Iran are evil and out to destory the West, a laughable claim.

Iris , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:11 pm GMT
@Z-man

stupid Christian Zionist dogma

You don't have to apologise. Christian Zionists are no Christians; they are uncultured, criminal country-bumpkins utilised by their Zionist handlers to justify the destruction of the twice-millenary Christian Arab community.

Here is what real Christians think:
Mor Maurice Amsih, Syrian Orthodox Bishop of Euphrates, demonstrating against the murder of General Soleimani, calling Soleimani and his companions " martyrs " who are now " Saints in the Heavenly Kingdom" for their blood shed freeing the Syrian people from Zio-sponsored terrorists. [@ 0:25]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/1eH4djCP2mI?feature=oembed

Anonymous [230] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:18 pm GMT
@Saggy

Moon Of Alabama has the story –

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/01/was-the-shootdown-of-the-ukrainian-airplane-near-tehran-really-a-mistake.html

The Boeing jet broadcast the usual civil ADS-B signal but one has to expect that a U.S. cruise missile can and would do the same.

although 'one can expect ' seems like one hell of an assumption.

This is absolutely irrelevant since the Iranian SAM missile launcher is so old it can not even detect and decode ADS-B signals. Note that the requirement for ADS-B transponders only came into effect this year .

AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:22 pm GMT
Some additional information to consider:

IRGC Releases Details of Accidental Downing of Ukrainian Plane

https://ifpnews.com/irgc-releases-details-of-accidental-downing-of-ukrainian-plane

By the account of Brigadier General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh:

1. Prior to the downing of the aircraft, Americans had threatened to hit 52 sites in Iran.
2. These threats placed Iran's air defense systems on the highest alert level.
3. There were reports that cruise missles had been fired at Iran.
4. In spite of IRGC requests that airspace be cleared of commercial flights, those requests were not met.
5. The air defense unit recognized Flight 752 as a cruise missle from a distance of 19 kilometers, but is still required to get approval to fire upon it.
6. When the operator attempts to get approval, he can not do so due to "disruption" of his communication system.
7. The operator is forced to make an independent decision in a 10 second window of time and fires upon the plane.

Russell Bentley , however, states that

1. the SA-15 system has an IFF interrogator built into its radar system,
2. Boeing 737 aircraft are equipped with two IFF transponders, which are set and activated prior to take off, and
3. it is possible for a plane to take off without an IFF transponder operating.
4. In spite of all this, the flight's recording on FLIGHTRADAR24.COM , proves that the transponder was on and working.
5. Even if there was no IFF signal, a SA-15/TOR M-1 operator could still determine the location, bearing, speed and size of the potential target.
6. The SA-15 also has an automatic all weather day/night NV/IR Electro Optical Targeting System (EOTS) used for target engagement and fire control by which the plane would have been easily identified.
7. Flight 752 should have been identifiable as a commercial airliner by its external lights alone.

From this information, he concludes that either there are traitors within Iran seeking to facilitate regime change or that the downing of Flight 752 was a false flag operation perpetrated by the usual suspects.

I'd like to see more information about this topic from those qualified to speak about it.

A123 , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 9:29 pm GMT
@AnonStarter

2. These threats placed Iran's air defense systems on the highest alert level
7. The operator is forced to make an independent decision in a 10 second window of time and fires upon the plane.

How long were the operators on alert? Tension and sleep deprivation are a bad mix. This looks like the crew on the ground had seconds to make a decision, and in the rush got it wrong.

I'm not sure how anyone on the outside could tell if the operator made the launch by mistake or from ill intent. No doubt the crew will be given the Richard Jewell treatment in an attempt to deflect blame from the religious hierarchy.

anonymous [393] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 9:40 pm GMT
@AnonStarter

1. the SA-15 system has an IFF interrogator built into its radar system,

Correct

2. Boeing 737 aircraft are equipped with two IFF transponders, which are set and activated prior to take off, and

Incorrect The Boeing 737 aircrfat has two ATC Transponders only one of which is activated prior to takeoff. The second ATC transponder is only activated if the first one fails. An ATC Transponder is NOT an IFF transponder.

3. it is possible for a plane to take off without an IFF transponder operating.

Incorrect . A functioning ATC transponder is part the Boeing 737 Minimum Equipment List which is available here . The only way the Ukraine Air crew could have gotten around this requirement was to get prior permission from the Iranian Civil Aviation Authority and EVERY other country's Cicil Aviation Authority in its flight path which I can guarantee you would not be forthcoming.

5. Even if there was no IFF signal, a SA-15/TOR M-1 operator could still determine the location, bearing, speed and size of the potential target.

Incorrect The operator could determine range, range rate. and bearing if the transponder was not function.

6. The SA-15 also has an automatic all weather day/night NV/IR Electro Optical Targeting System (EOTS) used for target engagement and fire control by which the plane would have been easily identified.

The plane was at least 1.5 miles away (8000 ft altitude). You go get yourself a pair of Night Vision/Infra Red scopes and see how well you do identifying different aircraft from that distance

Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 10:12 pm GMT
@Ron Unz One good article to show people in relation to the Israel Lobby's influence on America's decision to go to war in Iraq is an article in Israeli newspaper Haaretz titled White Man's Burden which carries the following subheading;

The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical.

This comes from a reputable newspaper from Israel so cannot be dismissed as the ravings of some neo-Nazis. I have found this to have the most success in getting people online to think about the Iraq War more, it is impossible for detractors to label a link to an Israeli newspaper article as "anti-Semitic" without looking absurd.

I would find the UN's review kind of hard to recommend to people in real life simple because of the provocative nature of the stories it runs. The American Pravda series is of course very informative but the articles require quite a bit of time to read through and check the hyperlinks within the article itself. Without sounding like someone with a superiority complex, most people cannot read this much information and grasp it. Many will not touch articles relating to Holocaust Denial or race.

But anyway, you sir are doing great work with the maintenance and story selection on this website and I wish you the best of luck in the future. It certainly has armed me with lots of information that I can use to counter mainstream narratives in a whole host of issues. Although my efforts in real life have not been very successful, I do seem to be getting some success in my cyber-activism on mainstream news websites, where I am able to provide a clear and cogent narrative with links to reputable websites and not come across as a nutjob who raves about da jooz .

Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 10:19 pm GMT
@Anon Sharpen your reading skills. Civilian aircraft have different frequency transponders than military aircraft. Flight plans are filed, and the transponder signals correspond to filed flight plans. When attacking, military craft turn off their transponders. No transponder signal = no corresponding flight plan = unfriendly aircraft.
There is no need to "spoof" anything, once the transponder stops signalling. That aside, I found it curious that this particular airplane was on its first flight after major maintenance. Who knows what was done in servicing. If the computer in the car you drive can be hijacked to cause sudden acceleration or brake failurs, an airplane's certainly can.
Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 10:22 pm GMT
@lavoisier Unfortunately, Trudeau is just a different sort of Zionist stooge. His mentor, Irwin Cotler, is popular enough in Israel to be President.

[Jan 18, 2020] Actually Boeing has an uninterruptable autopilot system that can result in remote control of the plane.

Jan 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

lgfocus , Jan 16 2020 20:10 utc | 25

A P @5

Actually Boeing has an uninterruptable autopilot system that can result in remote control of the plane.
FLIGHT CONTROL: Boeing's 'Uninterruptible Autopilot System', Drones & Remote Hijacking
https://21stcenturywire.com/2014/08/07/flight-control-boeings-uninterruptible-autopilot-system-drones-remote-hijacking/
This article is about the lost MH370.

Abel Danger went into quite a discussion of this during the 9/11 event that had 2 planes crashing into the towers. I can't find it on youtube any longer. A lot of their YTubes have been deleted.


[Jan 18, 2020] Open Thread 2020-04

Jan 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

zarathustra , Jan 16 2020 17:23 utc | 2

I saw in the Jan. 15 @2130 Teheran Times that, "TEHRAN – A possible disruption in Iran's radar network by the U.S. may have caused the operator mistake the Ukrainian passenger plan for an incoming American cruise missile, at top Iranian military official said late on Tuesday."

Read article at https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/444219/Iran-probing-possible-U-S-disruption-in-radar-system-that-caused

It wouldn't be at all surprising.

psychohistorian , Jan 16 2020 17:46 utc | 4

@ zarathustra and james about the Ukrainian plane downing

Here is another link saying similar things

Iranian Military Now Claims US 'Cyberattack' Brought Down Passenger Plane

A P , Jan 16 2020 18:09 utc | 5
A Canadian here... The yappy-lapdog Canadian gov't is "demanding" a whole lot of control over the investigation, yet in the same breath demands "impartial" analysis and prosecution of the perps... by definition, the Cdn gov't is not impartial, it is a vassal administration of the US/ZATO/5Eyes MIC.

More importantly, will the black box show what happened regarding reports that the plane's transponder had been shut off shortly after take-off and before the missiles were launched. It is known from the MH370 investigation that Boeing planes automatically report back to Boeing head office with various bits of telemetry. Is it such a stretch that Boeing has various "backdoors" in the 737 flight computers which could allow the transponders to be shut off remotely? The CIA/Mossad surely would know about such backdoors, being Boeing is part and parcel of the US MIC.

The Canadian rabid response smacks of trying to hide or get ahead of any proof of the above.

John Merryman. , Jan 16 2020 18:13 utc | 6
Looking at all the stories coming out, the deep state is getting pretty serious about getting rid of Trump.
What if they get Biden as the democratic nominee too and we have a Pence/Biden matchup?
Top that with everything the Fed is doing to keep the market bubble from bursting and it raises interesting possibilities.
Trump laughing it up from the sidelines, for one thing.
Hausmeister , Jan 16 2020 18:14 utc | 7
psychohistorian | Jan 16 2020 17:46 utc | 4

This Nariman Gharib or his commanders are straightout stupid. With this behaviour they confirm the suspicion that the incident was staged. While proof of electronic warfare to create the havoc may never come or is impossible to obtain the main weakness of the effort is the fact that filming the event in the middle of the night from a rooftop is explainable only if the camera guy has known what would happen where. - Staged to overshadow the impressive triumph the Iranians had with the attack on the Iraqi US base.

[Jan 16, 2020] "Ruptured" Pompeo delivers: we just entered a new and far more dangerous era

Jan 16, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

V , Jan 15 2020 1:32 utc | 104

Some rather alarming news this morning (here); Pompeo now says the assassination of Soleimani was deterrence.

Not stopping there, he went on to say that U.S. deterrence also applies to Russia and China!

I'd say the gauntlet has been thrown down; just how far behind can war be now?

The U.S. has been pushing the limits of international crime for decades; and I think they're so used to being not challenged, that they forget (or stupidly think they're invincible) Russia and China will fight rather than cow tow to any U.S. coercion...

IMO, we just entered a new and far more dangerous era...

[Jan 16, 2020] https://iadllaw.org/2020/01/iadl-condemns-us-assassination-of-gen-qassem-soleimani-as-an-illegal-act-of-aggression/

Jan 16, 2020 | iadllaw.org

In this sense Soleimani assassination opened such a huge can of worms that the results can be judged only in several years.

It exposes Trump and his cronies as one trick ponies who does not think strategically or are manipulated (for all practical purposes the hypothesis that Trump is a puppet is stronger that then the hypothesis that he is an independent player)

In some way It might well be that Trump put the final nail into the global, led by the USA,neoliberal empire and legitimized the existence of two competing economic blocks. That's a huge change, if true (the fact that China folded contracts that)

He also implicitly acknowledged that the USA no longer can attack on Iran military without the danger of suffering large losses and profound negative consequences itself. Including Russia and China support for Iran in such a war, which would make it the second Vietnam. That's another huge change -- the end of "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine as we know it. .

Now we known that Trump bullied EU threating auto-tariff to support him. That a clear return to the Wild West in international relations and it another nail into the empire coffin. Esper recently blabbed that the US has the right under Article II of its Constitution to attack Iranian territory in response to offensive action by Iranian-backed militia in Iraq. So UN does not matter, right ? The UN Charter was created to stop WWIII. Under Trump, it again became a real possibility with the USA taking the central the role in creating the conditions for unleashing it.

Here is an interesting quote from yesterday (Jan 15, 2020) article by Pepe Escobar in Asia Times (

https://www.asiatimes.com/2020/01/article/battle-of-the-ages-to-stop-eurasian-integration/

Retired US Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff from 2001 to 2005, cuts to the chase: "America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is. We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as Pompeo is doing right now, as Trump is doing right now, as Esper is doing right now and a host of other members of my political party, the Republicans, are doing right now. We are going to lie, cheat and steal to do whatever it is we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it. And that's the agony of it."

Moscow, Beijing and Tehran are fully aware of the stakes. Diplomats and analysts are working on the trend, for the trio, to evolve a concerted effort to protect one another from all forms of hybrid war – sanctions included – launched against each of them.

For the US, this is indeed an existential battle – against the whole Eurasia integration process, the New Silk Roads, the Russia-China strategic partnership, those Russian hypersonic weapons mixed with supple diplomacy, the profound disgust and revolt against US policies all across the Global South, the nearly inevitable collapse of the US dollar. What's certain is that the Empire won't go quietly into the night. We should all be ready for the battle of the ages.

.P.S. To me it looks that Trump lost all antiwar republicans and independents , as well as a part of military who voted for him in 2016 (and who now are Tulsi supporters)

The Senate trial, if it materializes, now can become the leverage point to drive a wedge between moderate Republicans and Trump via his Iran policies.

[Jan 16, 2020] Impeachment, Soleimani and the Pull of the Swamp

Jan 16, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Likklemore , Jan 15 2020 17:53 utc | 172

@ Carciofi 158

Observe how the West dances with Kim?

Pakistan should slip one across the border in a rail car of elephants.

We now shift the focus unto the Impeachment Trial. Shifty Schiff leads the prosecution. Should be interesting spectator sport. Never be too certain of the outcome. Some are positing Trump could be removed. Many Republicans are uneasy. The guy is unfit to have the nuclear codes, displays impaired emotion - schizophrenia. Others, Independent and Republican turncoats consider Trump embarrassing. Over the last days Trump's Sec. of Defense, Esper threw him under the bus.


This opinion piece should not be dismissed.

Impeachment, Soleimani and the Pull of the Swamp

[Because] Trump is going to be taken out.

The events of the past twelve days since Trump murdered IRGC General Qassem Soleimani prove this beyond any doubt. Impeachment was the leverage point to drive open a wedge between Republicans and Trump through Iran.

Pelosi slow-walking the articles of impeachment to the Senate was all part of the pantomime, folks. She gets what she wants: Congress asserting more power and the Democrats shoring up their base by taking out an eyesore in Trump.

She waits just long enough for Trump to do something questionable and for it to be made known publicly.[.]

The Swamp Strikes Back and puts Trump in a no-win situation.

The Wall St. Journal article from this weekend which intimated that Trump made the decision to kill Soleimani was motivated by shoring up his support in the Israeli Occupied Senate is further proof.

"Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said," the newspaper reported.[.]

kooshy , Jan 15 2020 18:22 utc | 173

@Lysander | Jan 15 2020 2:04 utc | 111

"That is why Trump's presidency is a blessing for Iran. "
It's real blessing to the entire world, otherwise how else the world would have come to see the real ugly face of Americans

@Rd | Jan 15 2020 1:01 utc | 98
This is now beyond government and oligarchy , and laws, this is now about a national/religious demand for revenge, on killing a true national shia muslim hero away from any political or difference in opinion.
IMO, the demand for revenge can not be even controlled by military and it's leaders, the order for revenge can even be sanctioned by a relative unknown cleric in a shia village.

@moon | Jan 15 2020 7:52 utc | 136
Thanks, PL banned me over a year ago , for calling US military (yeman) a mercenary force, Now Trump is proud he sold 3000 US trops to Bone saw for 1 billion.
I also believe that Iranian military has understood for some time now, that US (Military) is not willing to enter a war with Iran at this time, which makes me believe that a low intensity, long, covert attritional war across the western Asia will finally make US to leave. IMO pre announced without casualty attack on AalA US base by Iran Military was to allow any future covert low intensity attack by Iranian regional allies on US forces as non-sanctioned or related by Iranian government or military.
Which makes it hard to fight directly.

[Jan 16, 2020] Angry Bear " Further Followup On The Soleimani Assassination

Jan 16, 2020 | angrybearblog.com

Further Followup On The Soleimani Assassination

Barkley Rosser | January 15, 2020 6:13 am

Journalism Politics Further Followup On The Soleimani Assassination I wish to point out some matters not getting a lot of attention in the US media.

An important one of those was reported two days ago by Juan Cole . It is that apparently it has not been determined for certain that the initial attack that set off this current round of deaths when a militia in Iraq attacked an Iraqi military base in Kirkuk in which an American contractor was killed, almost certainly a matter of collateral damage although not recognized as such, was actually done by Kata'b Hezbollah, the group reported to have done it. That group was commanded by al-Mushani, who was also assassinated with Soleimani, with whom he was allied. But it is not certain that they did it. As it is, the Kirkuk base is dominated by Kurdish Pesh Merga, with whom it is not at all obvious the pro-Iranian militias like the Kat'b Hezbollah have hostile differences. This may have been cooked up to create an excuse for assassinating Soleimani.

Indeed, it has now been reported that seven months ago Trump had approved killing Soleimani essentially at the first instance there would be a good excuse for doing so. In fact it is now reported that although Trump had not heard of Soleimani during th 2016 election, within five minutes of his inauguration he suggested killing Soleimani. SecState Pompeo been encouraging and pushing this action, but it has been something Trump has been hot to do for some time. Going up for an impeachment trial looks like a really good time.

We have now seen quite a dance around reasons to justify this. We must keep clear that it is a matter of both US and international law that this sort of killing of a foreign national official such as General Soleimani is that there be an "imminent threat." I shall not drag through the various versions of what was supposedly the imminent threat was here, but it has finally become clear that there was none. And as of today both Pompeo and AG Barr have now pivoted to saying that it was done for "deterrence," but that leaves this assassination as illegal, with US troops in Iraq now declared to be"terrorists."

Now indeed the further followup has become quite a mess, although hopefully the escalation has stopped and war will not happen, despite getting very close to the brink. So Iran made its strike on two bases with US troops in Iraq. While it initially looked like the Iranians were going out of their way to avoid killing any Americans, local US commanders now say that it appears that the strikes were in fact aimed at killing some Americans, and some were in fact injured. I do not know if this is true or not, but it is disturbing and shows how close we have gotten to heightened war.

Then we had this disaster of the Iranians themselves shooting down a commercial Ukrainian airplane (oh, the irony), killing 176 civilians, mostly Iranians, Canadians, and Ukrainians, plus some others. With the admission by the regime, anti-government demonstrations have broken out at universities especially in Tehran where many of the Iranians on the plane were from, and many of the university students heading to Canada. Those demos have gone on for three days bringing forth a harsh put down from the government, but with news people quitting their jobs out of disgust. The government has now arrested some supposedly responsible for the erroneous shootdown under heightened alert status, which would not have come to pass without the illegal assassination. It is unclear if these arrests will bring an end to the demonstrations, but it should be kept in mind that these involve much smaller numbers of people than turned out in the aftermath of Soleimani's assassination.

Underlying this most recent uprising is the fact that Iran is suffering serious econoimic problems. Much of this is due to the Trump sanctions, but they also reflect entrenched corruption and spending on foreign adventures, such as support for foreign militias. These are difficult times, and let us hope that all sides step back and reduce the heightened tensions.

Barkley

  1. run75441 , January 15, 2020 12:23 pm

    Barkley:

    Good post and thanks for the follow-up.

    Normally when something happens in the Middle East, I head over to Informed Comment to see what Juan is saying about the situation. You have added information I was not aware of as I had not been over to Juan Cole's Informed Comment in several days. Also from a January 11th column of his:

    "Lest the Trumpies imply that only Obama de facto allied with Soleimani and his Iraqi Shiite militias, it should be pointed out that they played an important role in the defeat of ISIL at Mosul during Trump's presidency. Although they did not fight their way into the city, they fanned out to the west and north to prevent ISIL terrorists from escaping to Raqqa in Syria. That was why Kata'ib Hizbullah had a base at Qa'im, a checkpoint between Iraq and Syria, where they were preventing ISIL agents from going back and forth. Trump kicked off the current crisis by bombing his allies at Qa'im, killing some 26 militiamen. And then he droned his sometime ally Soleimani to death at Baghdad airport as Soleimani was about to begin covert peace talks with Saudi Arabia."

    All the Times the US allied with Gen. Soleimani against Common Enemies, giving him Air Support at Tikrit

Barkley Rosser , January 15, 2020 8:12 pm

I must walk back one speculation I made in this post. It is not the case that the base attacked near Kirkuk held Kurdish Pesh Merga. It indeed houses US and Iraqi national troops dedicated to fighting ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. Four US service people were injured along with two national Iraqi troops. The US citizwn killed was naturalized and born in Iraq.

It remains possible that it was IAIA/ISIL/Daesh carried out the attack as they are active in that area. However, most think it was Kata'b Hezbollah, enocuraged and suppliled by Soleimani.

run75441 , January 15, 2020 8:21 pm

Barkley:

Ok, so you missed some detail. The drone attack on Soleimani and others did not have to occur. Furthermore, it appears this was planned months earlier and just never carried through. To me, it is just another Trump distraction away from his impeachment.

[Jan 16, 2020] The problem is that Trump appears to be morphing from the mad negotiator into someone who really is mad. I think he knows he screwed up with Soleimani and there's no taking it back, only doubling down

Jan 16, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Carolinian , , January 14, 2020 at 10:08 am

Thanks for the shrewd analysis. The problem is that Trump appears to be morphing from the mad negotiator into someone who really is mad. I think he knows he screwed up with Soleimani and there's no taking it back, only doubling down . You can't talk your way out of some mistakes. Trump is shrewd, but not very smart and like most bullies he's also weak. He gets by being such an obvious bluffer and blowhard but when you start assassinating people and expect to be praised for it it's no longer a game.

Carolinian , , January 14, 2020 at 4:59 pm

I'd say the solution is to give Trump the heave ho this November and not play his game of me me me. Indeed the Iranians seem to be biding their time to see what happens.

Trump was always only tolerable as long as he spent his time shooting off his mouth rather than playing the imperial chess master. This reality show has gone on long enough.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , , January 14, 2020 at 5:10 pm

And to give Trump the heave-ho, we have to know how to play the man. (Then, Iran doesn't have to.)

But if we don't fully know -- if he is unpredictable in how he starts out at the beginning -- it makes the venture harder (but not impossible).

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , , January 14, 2020 at 7:39 pm

Not sure he "screwed up" with Suleimani. He now has something to point to when Adelson and the Israel Firsters ring up. He has red meat for his base ("look what a tough guy I am"). He can tell the Saudis they now owe him one.

He added slightly to the fund of hatred for America in the hearts of Sunnis but that fund is already pretty full. If they respond with a terror attack Trump wins because people will rally around the national leader and partisan differences will be put aside. Notice how fast de-escalation happened, certainly feels alot like pre-orchestrated kayfabe.

[Jan 16, 2020] Who Targeted Ukraine Airlines Flight 752 Iran Shot It Down But There May Be More to the Story by Philip Giraldi

Jan 16, 2020 | www.unz.com

What seems to have been a case of bad judgments and human error does, however, include some elements that have yet to be explained. The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched . There were also problems with the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.

The electronic jamming coming from an unknown source meant that the air defense system was placed on manual operation, relying on human intervention to launch. The human role meant that an operator had to make a quick judgment in a pressure situation in which he had only moments to react. The shutdown of the transponder, which would have automatically signaled to the operator and Tor electronics that the plane was civilian, instead automatically indicated that it was hostile. The operator, having been particularly briefed on the possibility of incoming American cruise missiles, then fired.

The two missiles that brought the plane down came from a Russian-made system designated SA-15 by NATO and called Tor by the Russians. Its eight missiles are normally mounted on a tracked vehicle. The system includes both radar to detect and track targets as well as an independent launch system, which includes an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system functionality capable of reading call signs and transponder signals to prevent accidents. Given what happened on that morning in Tehran, it is plausible to assume that something or someone deliberately interfered with both the Iranian air defenses and with the transponder on the airplane, possibly as part of an attempt to create an aviation accident that would be attributed to the Iranian government.

The SA-15 Tor defense system used by Iran has one major vulnerability. It can be hacked or "spoofed," permitting an intruder to impersonate a legitimate user and take control. The United States Navy and Air Force reportedly have developed technologies "that can fool enemy radar systems with false and deceptively moving targets." Fooling the system also means fooling the operator. The Guardian has also reported independently how the United States military has long been developing systems that can from a distance alter the electronics and targeting of Iran's available missiles.

The same technology can, of course, be used to alter or even mask the transponder on a civilian airliner in such a fashion as to send false information about identity and location. The United States has the cyber and electronic warfare capability to both jam and alter signals relating to both airliner transponders and to the Iranian air defenses. Israel presumably has the same ability. Joe Quinn at Sott.net also notes an interested back story to those photos and video footage that have appeared in the New York Times and elsewhere showing the Iranian missile launch, the impact with the plane and the remains after the crash, to include the missile remains. They appeared on January 9 th , in an Instagram account called ' Rich Kids of Tehran '. Quinn asks how the Rich Kids happened to be in "a low-income housing estate on the city's outskirts [near the airport] at 6 a.m. on the morning of January 8 th with cameras pointed at the right part of the sky in time to capture a missile hitting a Ukrainian passenger plane ?"

Put together the Rich Kids and the possibility of electronic warfare and it all suggests a premeditated and carefully planned event of which the Soleimani assassination was only a part. There have been riots in Iran subsequent to the shooting down of the plane, blaming the government for its ineptitude. Some of the people in the street are clearly calling for the goal long sought by the United States and Israel, i.e. "regime change." If nothing else, Iran, which was widely seen as the victim in the killing of Soleimani, is being depicted in much of the international media as little more than another unprincipled actor with blood on its hands. There is much still to explain about the downing of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 15, 2020 at 10:45 pm GMT

Given this news, any impartial observer would at least entertain the possibility of its truth, particularly given the lengthy track record of the United States/Israel in perpetrating such crimes.

It's a good litmus test for determining where one's sentiment lies. Even "alternative media" aren't likely to touch this story.

Bravo to Mr. Giraldi and Mr. Unz.

Sean , says: Show Comment January 15, 2020 at 11:10 pm GMT
The Iranian Ambassador to Britain, Hamid Baeidinejad said in an interview on the UK Channel 4 news hours ago that although Iran had needed time to determine what had happened, it had now accepted responsibility, would pay compensation, and the people who fired on the jet will be put on trial.

If nothing else, Iran, which was widely seen as the victim in the killing of Soleimani, is being depicted in much of the international media as little more than another unprincipled actor with blood on its hands.

Both Trump and the Iranian regime have good domestic disquiet reason to rethink the confrontational policy each are pursuing. Iran and the US could get closer over this. I think the predictable unpredictability of assassination and catastrophic loss of life events makes false flagging them of dubious value.

Why did I rob banks? Because I enjoyed it. I loved it. I was more alive when I was inside a bank, robbing it, than at any other time in my life. I enjoyed everything about it so much that one or two weeks later I'd be out looking for the next job. But to me the money was the chips, that's all.

(Sutton W, Linn E: Where the Money Was: The Memoirs of a Bank Robber. Viking Press (1976), p. 160)

I suppose it is possible there are people who get addicted to false flagging others' deaths. If half of what is said in this site is true, Mossad really needs to set up a 12 step program.

onebornfree , says: Website Show Comment January 15, 2020 at 11:49 pm GMT
" .the big question which many people on social media are asking is: why was this "videographer" standing in a derelict industrial area outside Tehran at around six o'clock in the morning with a mobile phone camera training on a fixed angle to the darkened sky? The airliner is barely visible, yet the sky-watching person has the camera pointed and ready to film a most dramatic event, seconds before it happened. That strongly suggests, foreknowledge."

"Iran Jet Disaster Setup – Who Is the Mysterious Videographer?:"
https://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/iran/3809-jet-disaster-setup.html

And I would add: how do we know the video[s] are even genuine? [Answer: we don't, it is only an unproven assumption at this time].

Regards, onebornfree

anonymous [150] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:36 am GMT
Hmmm, cameras waiting beforehand, transponders not working. Sort of sounds like 9-11, doesn't it?
The Alarmist , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 3:01 am GMT

The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched.

I vaguely recall reports of transponder issues arising during the shootdown of MH-17.

anonymous [405] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 3:49 am GMT

Civilian passenger flights were still departing and arriving in Tehran, almost certainly an error in judgment on the part of the airport authorities. Inexplicably, civilian aircraft continued to take off and land even after Flight 752 was shot down.

The Iranian government is blameworthy for keeping planes in the air either because of diabolical reasons (delays a counter attack) or economic (nearly $1 billion a year in overflight fees).

However, the pilots of the airliners that took over during the morning between the first missile hitting Iraq and the downing of the Ukrainian airliner were dumb and irresponsible.

Anon [230] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 4:10 am GMT

The system includes both radar to detect and track targets as well as an independent launch system, which includes an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system functionality capable of reading call signs and transponder signals to prevent accidents.

Clearly you have no clue how an IFF operates and that no commercial airliner even has an IFF on board. Every commercial aircraft looks like the enemy to this SAM operator.

Also, you need to explain how spoofing a RADAR which creates a false track would cause the shoot down. The missile would simply target the false track instead of the real aircraft.

You also need to explain how an old SAM missile site can be hacked or spoofed to shoot down a civilian airliner. Especially this old one which has no Mode-S or ADS-B capability and only radio communication capability.

As Mark Twain said, it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are an idiot rather than open it and remove all doubt.

Anon [200] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:20 am GMT
Even if this was a clear mistake on Iran's part, the US and Israel still have blood on their hands for the downing of this plane. The missiles were launched in response to a targeted killing of an Iranian general. If that didn't happen, these missiles never would've been launched.

Trump-Pence-Pompeo-Kushner-Netanyahu are ultimately responsible for these 176 lives lost. I suspect MBS is also part of the scheme. It was his fake peace offering that lured Soleimani to Iraq in the first place. I'm with Trudeau on this.

Onlooker , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:22 am GMT
@Anon Before calling someone an idiot it is better to follow Mark Twain's advice yourself. A more careful reading reveals no claim that IFF was onstalled on the airliner. The commenter does speculate that possible spoofing involved a false attribution of a real airliner not the creation of a false airliner and radar track. Perhaps you are familiar with "old" electronic countermeasures and not with the "new", "top secret" and spiffy versions hinted at by the U.S. military?
AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:30 am GMT
@Quartermaster /An Airliner can not legally launch with deadlined transponder, so the claim that it quit transmitting "several" minutes earlier would have placed it on the ground when it quit./

From the SoTT link :

As it climbed and reached 4,600ft above ground level, the plane's transponder suddenly stopped working at about 6.14am, 2 minutes or so after take off . [emphasis added]

The plane was already airborne when the transponder stopped working.

AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:45 am GMT
@Onlooker Less than twenty replies into the thread and we've already got two individuals attempting to distort the facts. Here's the key link that readers should visit:

https://www.sott.net/article/427303-Was-Iranian-Missile-Operator-Tricked-Into-Shooting-Down-The-Ukrainian-Airlines-Plane-Over-Tehran

Compare the information there against what the detractors say here.

Daniel Rich , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:16 am GMT
@Quartermaster

The airliner had not been in the air long at all when it was shot down. An Airliner can not legally launch with deadlined transponder, so the claim that it quit transmitting "several" minutes earlier would have placed it on the ground when it quit.

The flight departed Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport at 02:42 UTC ( 06:12 local time ) and the last ADS-B signal was received by the Flightradar24 network at 02:44 UTC( 06:14 local time) . According to the report the aircraft climbed to 8000 feet and turned right back toward the airport and crashed at 02:48 UTC ( 06:18 local time ) -- four minutes after the last ADS-B signal was received by the Flightradar24 network. – Source Flight Radar 24

Mr. Giraldi's original claim:

The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched. There were also problems with the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.

4 minutes after the transponders were switches off, the plane crashed .

Without [proper] access to the FDR and CVR, it's impossible to determine when the plane was hit and how long it took to crash, exactly.

The plane was only flying at 8,000 feet [its normal {flight} ceiling is 30,000 feet and above], so it's speed relatively low [cruise speed is between about 400 and 500 knots (460 – 575 mph / 740 – 930 kph), but the Ukrainian plane was still climbing] and the fall back to Earth relatively quick.

On the clip where the plane is on fire and finally crashes, the downward angle looked to be about 25 to 30 %, which is relatively steep. Time of downfall can be calculated when the relative data is available.

Therefore, Mr Giraldi's claim " several minutes before the missiles were launched " is technically correct , until proven wrong by data from the FDR and CVR,

utu , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:31 am GMT
The Tor system is too primitive to be hacked. It is a stand alone, autonomous and mostly analog system. The radar signals it generates are shown on analog tube-screens.
Ghali , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:07 am GMT
Interesting theory by P. Giraldi. However, I am very surprised that Israel/Mossad role in these acts of terrorism never mentioned. We know that Trump is a Zionist servant and acts on instructions from his jewish fananciers. We know, Trump is incapable of serious thinking.

Here is a good article with some interesting observations:
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/202001131078026961-iran-jet-disaster-setup/

GMC , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:10 am GMT
The Iranians took the hit because their missiles took out the airliner. And then, they could stop the Western media crying for the next 6 mos. and this gave them time to bring in other neutral investigators to look at the evidence and come up with logical scenarios. There is a reason the black boxes weren't given to any one else to own – because they still remember the scam investigation of MH 17. I f lew planes for over 20 yrs – Every controlled/radared airport would ask me to turn on my transponder if it wasn't on – Everyone of them. This plane not only came from Ukraine but was an easy target for a hack from any of the big Intel countries. The BIG STORY here is that most every plane flying today – can have the same type consequences!!! because of the Western War Machine.
AZ , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 10:08 am GMT
Ask the Israelis. They are experts in these operations. The blood of the innocent on their heads

R D Steele has some interesting thoughts as well:

https://phibetaiota.net/2020/01/robert-steele-world-war-iii-was-ukrainian-flight-ps752-a-western-false-flag-combining-remote-hijacking-and-transponder-disabling-to-trigger-two-tor-m1-missiles/

lavoisier , says: Website Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:01 pm GMT
@Anon

Trump-Pence-Pompeo-Kushner-Netanyahu are ultimately responsible for these 176 lives lost. I suspect MBS is also part of the scheme. It was his fake peace offering that lured Soleimani to Iraq in the first place. I'm with Trudeau on this.

Trudeau showed some real courage criticizing Trump and his terrible decisions.

More Western allies have to stand up to the Zionist stooge and call him out on his treachery and stupidity.

UncommonGround , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:23 pm GMT
@bobhammer

The Democrats have gone too far.

I believe that P.G. has supported Trump until recently.

Besides, you could get some general information about such themes if you read articles like the following:

There's No Evidence Iran Is Responsible for the Deaths of Hundreds of Americans
by Stephen Zunes

https://progressive.org/dispatches/-no-evidence-iran-is-responsible-for-the-deaths-of-hundreds-of-americans-zunes-200107/

How the President Became a Drone Operator
by Allegra Harpootlian

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/16/how-the-president-became-a-drone-operator/

lavoisier , says: Website Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:32 pm GMT
@bobhammer Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Turn off Fox News now.

We are not always the good guys and we are up to our necks in deceit, plunder, and evil. Our actions have harmed millions of people around the world and it has to stop.

It is time for more self-reflection as individuals and as a nation; and it is long past time for us to be comfortable with lies.

Anonymous [401] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 2:22 pm GMT
@bobhammer The "uninterruptible" autopilot can be activated – either by pilots or by on-board sensors, or by radio or satellite link<= connected to controls at the remote end. Government agencies, quasi government agencies, military brats and probably the entire group of privately operated NGOs and private party mobsters (bankers, corporations and private military armies and privateers) at the remote end, can take over control of in-flight Aircraft, and fly it, land it, take it off, whatever, even if the pilot sitting in the cockpit objects. and does all he can to retrieve control from the remote operator.

Several comments report says interrupt able remote control, allows, persons on the ground, to take from the pilot in a flying airplane, control of the airplane the pilot is suppose to be flying, in situations for example when terrorist are in the cockpit. I have not read the manufacture's literature nor do I have personal knowledge abut the equipment list of any of these aircraft, the list suggest they are all aircraft, not only equipped with the UAP but that they were all aircraft made by the same manufacturer. I am merely repeating what was on stated as fact on a website I visited.

Many are looking for proof that remotely equipped uninterruptible autopilots are being used as Remote Control weaponized drones . Imagine an pilot, located on the ground in London or somewhere parks his /her remote ground to air control vehicle and takes over flight control including turns on/off the transponder [<=which tells everyone where the plane is during its flight] on a plane that is flying, landing or taking off from say the Tehran airport in Iran?

My personal experience is that it generally takes less than 2 minutes after a transponder is turned off during a planes flight, before fighter jets arrive to escort the transponder disabled plane; so the whole system that protects civilian aircraft, and allows the military to know the aircraft is civilian, is dependent on the Transponder, installed in the airplane, to continuously squawk during flight, its exact position so that everyone can identify the flight, and track the aircraft during its flight. Every land based control tower, ATC control system center and military installation depends on that airborne squawking transponder to track the en-route progress of commercial and private aircraft flights from take off to landing.

Another comment made on that list referred to above claimed Uninterruptible Auto Pilot [UAP] equipped aircraft have been involved in unexplained flight accident/disappearance events (I have no personal knowledge about the equipment in these aircraft, I just repeated here what someone else said elsewhere, please verify these claims yourself or provide verification ) .

(4 @911) <=UAP allows pilot-less flights, no pilot need board the plane for its flight.
(PS752) (transponder turned off, destroyed by confused ground defense crews)
MH370 (vanished into thin air)
MH17 (had its flight path altered.)
Eyes focus on Uninterruptible Auto Pilot (UAP) .. to explain recent Tehran 160 person disaster?

This is really something to think about? Always the question has been how did four military officers from Iran, trained a few weeks in Florida to fly jets, manage to get through four differently located pilot screening TSA gates to fly the aircraft and passenger into the 9/11 events. Conspiracy theories suggest since no pilot is needed, there were no pilots for TSA to screening. Remote control on the ground flew the aircraft to their destinations.

Trinity , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 2:51 pm GMT
"By way of deception thou shalt do war."

Just about says it all doesn't it? What kind of people are we dealing with here? Of course only the morons out there are still being fooled by these kind of false flags. Even in the year 2020 these same morons still believe ZOG's 9-11 fairy tale and label any other theory as a "conspiracy." Speaking of conspiracies the biggest idiots out there, even bigger than the ones who believe ZOG's narrative or those type who believe the total wacktard stuff put out by ZIO controlled disinfo puppets like Alex Jones.

Ukrainian commercial airline? What other nation besides Iran does ZOG have it in for? Is it Russia?

War by deception? HARDLY to anyone with two brain cells left. These fools have been caught before, they aren't that clever. What they are is protected by a syndicate of bought and paid for politicians. They were caught attacking the USS Liberty, they were caught bombing American and British installations in Egypt, the Rosenbergs and Pollard were nailed, but of course despite all of this, America and her leaders continued the value Israel as a friend and an ally. With a friend like Israel, who needs enemies. Then of course we have the story of our 5 little dancing Israelis apprehended in NYC after being observed dancing and celebrating the WTC towers collapsing. So you mean a group of Israelis from Israel, nation that is ALLEGEDLY "friends" with America and America think it is hilarious and worth celebrating when America is attacked and thousands are burned alive or jump to their death from hundreds of feet above the street?? Of course "our" media quickly exonerated the celebrating Israelis and buried that story faster than your average house cat buries his own turds.

ZOG really thinks the average American has the IQ of a monkey. Even after the WMD caca they still think you people will believe anything they tell you to believe. The sad part is they are right about that with the majority of the population.

[Jan 16, 2020] Trump's fits the pattern the Russians have used to depict the USA: "not agreement capable".

One of the strongest predictive sign that you have a sociopathic boss is that he/she is not agreement capable.
The maintenance of fear, chaos and blowback are exACTLY the desired result. Deliberately and on purpose.
Notable quotes:
"... I would put it a bit differently. Trump's erraticness is a strong signal he fits to a pattern the Russians have used to depict the US: "not agreement capable". ..."
Jan 16, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Yves Smith Post author , , January 14, 2020 at 12:31 pm

I would put it a bit differently. Trump's erraticness is a strong signal he fits to a pattern the Russians have used to depict the US: "not agreement capable". That's what I meant by he selects for weak partners. His negotiating style signals that he is a bad faith actor. Who would put up with that unless you had to, or you could somehow build that into your price?

barnaby33 , , January 14, 2020 at 11:53 pm

Considering I doubt the Russians have ever honored a single deal they made, that's maybe not a good example!

Yves Smith Post author , , January 15, 2020 at 12:16 am

I have no idea who your mythical Russians are. I know two people who did business in Russia before things got stupid and they never had problems with getting paid. Did you also miss that "Russians" have bought so much real estate in London that they mainly don't live in that you could drop a neutron bomb in the better parts of Chelsea and South Kensington and not kill anyone?

Pray tell, how could they acquire high end property if they are such cheats?

Boomka , , January 15, 2020 at 6:38 am

somebody was eating too much US propaganda? how about this for starters:
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/26-years-on-russia-set-to-repay-all-soviet-unions-foreign-debt

"It is politically important: Russia has paid off the USSR's debt to a country that no longer exists," said Mr Yuri Yudenkov, a professor at the Russian University of Economics and Public Administration. "This is very important in terms of reputation: the ability to repay on time, the responsibility," he told AFP.

It would have been very easy for Russia to say it cannot be held responsible for USSR's debts, especially in this case where debt is to a non-existent entity.

[Jan 16, 2020] US Attack on Soleimani is a Signal to Russia-Iran-China Triumvirate to Cease Cooperation by Ekaterina Blinova

Jan 07, 2020 | sputniknews.com

The US is trying to stop Eurasia's economic and political integration in order to delay its own demise, say international observers, explaining what message the US sent to the Russia-China-Iran "triumvirate" by killing Quds Commander Qasem Soleimani. The assassination of Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian major general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and commander of the Quds Force, in a targeted US air strike on 3 January came on the heels of joint naval exercise launched by Russia, Iran and China in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Oman.

The "growing Russia-China-Iran trilateral convergence", as The Diplomat dubbed it in late December, is seemingly hitting a raw nerve in Washington : speaking to Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) on 2 January, Rear Admiral Khanzadi, the Iranian navy commander, said that Washington and its allies had held an emergency meeting aimed at disrupting the drills.

US Opposes Rapprochement of Russia, China and Iran Amid Policy of 'Maximum Pressure'
"Recent violent US attacks against Iranian allies in Iraq and Syria, culminating in the killing of Iran's Major General Qasem Soleimani, are, in the wider geopolitical sense, meant to send signals to the building Eurasian triumvirate to cease their collaborative activities, let alone longer-term strategic and Belt and Road Initiative-linked designs," says Pye Ian, an American economic analyst and private equity executive.

According to Ian, the US decision to step up pressure on Tehran might be stemming from Washington's apparent belief that Iran is "the 'weakest link' in the strengthening Eurasian alliance".

However, "Russia, China and Iran cannot be attacked overtly, let alone invaded, occupied or 'regime changed'," the economic analyst highlights.

Christopher C. Black, a Toronto-based international criminal lawyer with 20 years of experience in war crimes and international relations, echoes the American economist.

"It is in response to the close relationship between Russia, Iran and China and it is no coincidence that this murder took place just as the joint naval exercises in the Persian Gulf came to an end," he said. "Further, it is a threat to Russian strategic interests in Syria and to Syria itself."

Apart from this, the move indicates that "one of the reasons for US pressure on Iran is to control the oil supply to China in order to cripple China's development," Black suggests.

Russia and its military successes in the region have become yet another irritant for Washington, according to Max Parry, an independent American journalist and geopolitical analyst.

"The US likely feels the need to re-assert itself as a hegemonic power in the region, considering it is Moscow that emerged as the new honest peace broker in the Middle East with the Syrian conflict," Parry notes. "Russia completely outmanoeuvred Washington and by the end of the war, Turkey was practically in Moscow's camp. Trump has reset US foreign policy with the withdrawal from Syria and the targeting of Iran."

By killing Soleimani, the US "has completely overplayed its hand and this could be the beginning of the end for Washington because a war with Iran would be no cakewalk", he emphasises.

© AFP 2019 / ALY SONG / POOL Russian President Vladimir Putin (L), Chinese President Xi Jinping (C) and Iran's President Hassan Rouhani attend the Expo Center before the opening ceremony at the Expo Center at the fourth Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) summit in Shanghai on May 21, 2014 Eurasian 'Triumvirate' is Moving Away From the US Dollar

According to Ian, in addition to being a thorn in Washington's flesh, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran have something else in common: the three nations have increasingly been drifting away from the US dollar.

The trend followed the Trump administration's:

· unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Actions (JCPOA) in May 2018;

· trade war waged against the People's Republic of China by Washington since March 2018;

· series of anti-Russian sanctions imposed against Moscow under the pretext of the latter's interference in the US 2016 presidential elections, something that Russia resolutely denies.

The economic analyst explains that "the dollar's universal confidence trick requires uniform adherence, by natural adoption or by force". While the US allies remain obedient to the dollar- dominated system, those who resisted it such as Iraq under Saddam, Libya under Gaddafi and Venezuela under Chavez "triggered some Atlanticist force, either overtly or clandestinely, in order to try and put those nations back on a compliant page."

However, "the current state of dollar printing by the US Fed ad infinitum cannot last forever," Ian stresses.

"The global East and South are already ahead of Transatlantic banking, in a sense, by shifting further out of the dollar and Treasury securities into their own, or bilateral, currency exchanges, gold, and/or domestic or collaborative cryptocurrency endeavours," he says.

Russia, China, Iran, as well as India and some other Eurasian nations are switching to trading in local currencies and continuing to amass gold at a steady pace . Thus, for instance, Russia produced over 185.1 tonnes of gold in the first six months of 2019; the country's bullion reserves reached 72.7 million troy ounces (2,261 tonnes) as of 1 December 2019. For its part, the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has accumulated 1,948.3 tonnes of the precious metal as of December 2019, according to World Gold Council.

Ian foresees that if the world's nations continue to shift out of US Treasury obligations and choose alternative currencies for energy pricing, trading and reserves recycling, it may "cause US interest rates to fly higher, cratering consumer, institutional and public debt obligations and re-importing an obscene level of inflation back into the US".

The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.

[Jan 15, 2020] Just Trust Us, Says the Most Dishonest Administration Ever

Notable quotes:
"... On Sunday, the Washington Post, citing a senior U.S official, reported that "Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Suleimani months ago but neither the president nor Pentagon officials were willing to countenance such an operation." On Thursday, CNN's Nicole Gaouette and Jamie Gangel reported that "Pompeo was a driving force behind President Donald Trump's decision to kill" the Iranian general. The CNN story said that Pompeo, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Trump before he moved to the State Department, viewed Suleimani as the mastermind of myriad operations targeting Americans and U.S interests. It also quoted an unnamed source close to Pompeo, who recalled the Secretary of State telling friends, "I will not retire from public service until Suleimani is off the battlefield." ..."
theamericanconservative.com
One of the new bogus explanations that the administration has been offering up is that there was a threat to one or more U.S. embassies that led to the assassination. Rep. Justin Amash notes this morning that they have presented no evidence to Congress to back up any of this or their original claim of an "imminent" attack:
The administration didn't present evidence to Congress regarding even one embassy. The four embassies claim seems to be totally made up. And they have never presented evidence of imminence -- a necessary condition to act without congressional approval -- with respect to any of this. The administration didn't present evidence to Congress regarding even one embassy. The four embassies claim seems to be totally made up. And they have never presented evidence of imminence -- a necessary condition to act without congressional approval -- with respect to any of this. https://t.co/Eg0vaCnqFd -- Justin Amash (@justinamash) -- Justin Amash (@justinamash) -- Justin Amash (@justinamash) January 12, 2020
The administration's story keeps changing, because they are just making up unconvincing justifications for what they did. The president invents new excuses for the illegal assassination, and his subordinates feel obliged to follow his lead because they are implicated in his decision. The strange thing is that this administration still expects to be believed on something as important as this despite their constant lying to Congress and the public about everything else. The president and Secretary of State have trashed their credibility long ago, so there is no chance that we would give them the benefit of the doubt now. As a result, there is much more healthy and appropriate skepticism about the administration's claims since January 2nd than there usually is. We are still piecing together what happened at the start of this year in the days leading up to the assassination, but the picture we are getting is one of a push by determined hard-line ideologues to take military action against a government they hate. Pompeo was the leading advocate for doing this. John Cassidy The administration's story keeps changing, because they are just making up unconvincing justifications for what they did. The president invents new excuses for the illegal assassination, and his subordinates feel obliged to follow his lead because they are implicated in his decision. The strange thing is that this administration still expects to be believed on something as important as this despite their constant lying to Congress and the public about everything else. The president and Secretary of State have trashed their credibility long ago, so there is no chance that we would give them the benefit of the doubt now. As a result, there is much more healthy and appropriate skepticism about the administration's claims since January 2nd than there usually is. We are still piecing together what happened at the start of this year in the days leading up to the assassination, but the picture we are getting is one of a push by determined hard-line ideologues to take military action against a government they hate. Pompeo was the leading advocate for doing this. John Cassidy We are still piecing together what happened at the start of this year in the days leading up to the assassination, but the picture we are getting is one of a push by determined hard-line ideologues to take military action against a government they hate. Pompeo was the leading advocate for doing this. John Cassidy We are still piecing together what happened at the start of this year in the days leading up to the assassination, but the picture we are getting is one of a push by determined hard-line ideologues to take military action against a government they hate. Pompeo was the leading advocate for doing this. John Cassidy reports :
On Sunday, the Washington Post, citing a senior U.S official, reported that "Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Suleimani months ago but neither the president nor Pentagon officials were willing to countenance such an operation." On Thursday, CNN's Nicole Gaouette and Jamie Gangel reported that "Pompeo was a driving force behind President Donald Trump's decision to kill" the Iranian general. The CNN story said that Pompeo, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Trump before he moved to the State Department, viewed Suleimani as the mastermind of myriad operations targeting Americans and U.S interests. It also quoted an unnamed source close to Pompeo, who recalled the Secretary of State telling friends, "I will not retire from public service until Suleimani is off the battlefield."
Pompeo has Pompeo has lied constantly about Iran and the nuclear deal before and after he became Secretary of State, so it is not surprising that he has been the administration's public face as they lie to Congress and the public about this illegal assassination. No wonder he doesn't want to appear before Congress to testify.

kouroi • 32 minutes ago

Add to this the concomitant attempt made in Yemen, where there is no American presence other than the bombs dropping from the sky, against an Iranian operative, and it shows the push of the administration to go for the kill as the main factor. The US is becoming more and more like Israel: kill first, no excuses, we are the chosen ones - The "revenge" of Dinah's brothers, Genesis 34:25. This is The US of A's diplomacy nowadays. The world has really been put on notice. And the world will be reacting, see the visit of Chancellor Merkel to Moscow immediately after that.

The question is what the American citizens are going to do? What are they going to vote for?

JSC2397 • 18 minutes ago • edited
Why shouldn't Trump and his Administration's creatures "expect to be believed"? He and his toadies have misstated, misled, BS-ed and outright lied to the public for three years now; and - despite a "credibility gap" of Vallis Marineris proportions - have gotten no appreciable pushback from the media.
The right-wing media simply cheerlead him, as usual: and everybody else just sort of nods, grunts, and moves on.

[Jan 15, 2020] Is the US Now at War Against Iraq AND Iran – OffGuardian

Jan 15, 2020 | off-guardian.org

Search Jan 12, 2020 40 Is the US Now at War Against Iraq AND Iran? Editor Eric Zuesse

Iraqi Parliament – recently voted unanimously to expel US troops from their country.

On January 9th, Iraq's Prime Minister and Parliament again ordered all American troops out , but on January 10th the AP headlined "US dismisses Iraq request to work on a troop withdrawal plan" and reported that the U.S. State Department "bluntly rejected the request, saying the two sides should instead talk about how to 'recommit' to their partnership."

It was not a "request" from Iraq; it was a command from them; and the U.S. and Iraq relate as conqueror and conquered, not as "partners." Consequently: the U.S. Government, now that it has been so unequivocally ordered to leave, is back again, unequivocally, to its invader-occupier role in Iraq.

The AP report went on to say that, "The request from Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi pointed to his determination to push ahead with demands for U.S. troops to leave Iraq."

Again there was that false word "request."

The AP report said that U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asserted, in reply:

"Our mission set there is very clear. We've been there to perform a training mission to help the Iraqi security forces be successful and to continue the campaign against ISIS, to continue the counter-Daesh campaign."

Though that's the invader-occupier's excuse, the reality is that the US needs Iraq in order to invade Iran, which is the US Government's objective, though not overtly stated.

Already, America's assassination in Iraq of Iran's top general Qasem Soleimani on January 3rd is an enormous act of war against Iran.

It is intended to obliterate Iran's main strategist, and this successful attack against Iran inside Iraq is a devastating first strike, by the U.S. Government against Iran.

So: now, the U.S. is at war against both Iraq and Iran.

Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest WhatsApp vKontakte Email Filed under: conflict zones , Iran , Iraq , latest Tagged with: Eric Zuesse , Iran , Iraq , Middle East , Qassem Soleimani , united states can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

Connect with Connect with Subscribe newest oldest most voted Notify of

Harry Stotle ,

I see Tony is inconsolable after the death of a dictator who failed to hold an election for 50 years?

Britains foremost war criminal said, "I heard the news about His Majesty Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Oman with great sadness. He was a leader of vision and purpose who took over the leadership of his country at a difficult time and raised it to an entirely new level of development and prosperity. He was a man of culture, humanity and deep conviction who strove to make his nation and the world better and more peaceful. He was kind, thoughtful and with a big heart. He had great wisdom and insight from which I benefited often as did so many others. My deepest sympathy, prayers and condolences are with the people of Oman. He will be sorely missed. – Tony Blair.
https://twitter.com/InstituteGC/status/1215920898966020096

Yes, I'm sure you did 'benefit', Tony – blood money I think they call it, you amoral scumbag.

Frank Speaker ,

I'm really disappointed to read yet another article on OffG about Iran. It's getting really boring and those backward desert dwellers deserve all they get anyway. Let's get it over and done with and takeover their oilfields and make lots of money. What I really want to see here instead are lots of articles about Meghan and Harry.

(note to non-British readers, it's called irony)

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

The ever cowardly United States of America is officially at war with everyone in the world except the uneducated dolts & imbeciles that support the Imbecile-in-Chief narcissist whackjob nutbar effin' retard run amok.

Fuck America & the Republican Party that lives on forever war with everyone in the world including American taxpayers.

Screw the imbecile-in-Chief to a wall of his making.

Death to America!

MOU

Harry Stotle ,

Oh, you are a wag, Eric – is the US killing machine that just incinerated the Quds foremost military strategist 'now at War Against Iraq AND Iran' – well its hardly an act of peace, is it?

By the way, has anyone been listening to Raab pontificate about 'international law' – apparently the minister for Tory lies appears to be oblivious to the fact that Soleimani's execution was almost certainly illegal, and was only possible because Britain and American actions are always placed above the law.

Lets just remind Raab, and murder apologists like him that, "Outside of an on-going armed conflict, the first use of military force is regulated under the jus ad bellum. The first principle of the jus ad bellum is the prohibition on the use of force, a peremptory norm codified in United Nations Charter Article 2(4). The only possible exception to the prohibition applicable in this case is self-defense. The exception is narrow. Some restrictions are provided in UN Charter Article 51; others in the general principles of international law. Article 51 permits the use of military force in such as the Hellfire missiles carried by Reaper drones, if "an armed attack occurs". The International Court of Justice has emphasized that the attack must be "grave".
https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-killing-of-soleimani-and-international-law/

Neocons want to start killing Iranians (which they already are doing via economic sanctions) – time for the west to grasp this inescapable reality.

nottheonly1 ,

What do these countries have in common?

U.S. IR UK FR AUS DE CAN NZ PL UK ES BR COL SA UAR NL SW NOR ET AL?

They are all

M O ☐ H ☐ R ☐ A R ☐ H ☐ ☐ C K ☐ R ☐

Yes, you may buy an 'F'.

That includes its populations, that do it by default. They are programmed and conditioned from early on to be in harmony with the Pompeos, the Busches, Obamas, Trumps and whatever their names are that have this planet in stranglehold.

U.S. MUST PAY for all damages it inflicted over the last ~213 years. The ticket is endless – and with the indiscrininate use of weapons of mass destruction, very expensive.

In a world of justice, the rich people would be given the shittiest places in these countries and the rest be divided among the victim Nations of these pathetically religiously fascist psychopaths.

Is the use of the term 'religiously fascist psychopath' now reason for a drone strike?

Well, what are you waiting for? You are okay with the above fascist nations to do pre-emptive murders, but hesitate to do the same?

What an epic Upfuckery.

Because – in other words – nobody capable to do the one act that is excempt from Karmic retribution? Rather than doing that, saner beings are actually leaning back in the most fatalistic way. What is it good for, if the sane let the insane do whatever they please – or their mental illness dictates them to do?

Hitler was a good example. He was not mandated to undergo a psychological evaluation. And I don't care where you set the red line. Being part of genocide is plenty enough at any given day. And there can be no more limitations of terms.

Maybe the prevailing opinion about all this is for it to be a joke. But that only appears to be so, because the populations of the above listed nations et al, are murdering innocent women and children (future population reduction) in the Nations on the receiving fascist shit end of the stick.

On a side note and only marginally related:

Listening to the early Beatles and their 'depressing' songs, the mind drifted to 'The Man in Black' (that I adore) and his song about why he is wearing black and likely to do so into his grave, which he did. The song I have on mind changes the lyrics a bit, but stays true, or emphasizes the new expression.

Well, you wonder why I'm always using 'fuck'.
Why you'll never hear me leaving out the muck.
And why my words have such a somber tone.
Well, there's a reason for the things I'm bringing on.

Oh, and yes, for what its worth: invest yourself in aeroponics. Learn everything about it and start your own food production – using very little, very clean water and clean air, delivering healthy greens. It will work in an apartment as well as in a large greenhouse. The REAL Foodevolution.

Dungroanin ,

Yes the US has been at war in the ME for a very very long time Eric.

Their advance was halted and is now in retreat, bar a few 'battles of Bulges' false hopes – they are heading back to their bunkers and throwing the kiddy corps into the front lines to take on hardened campaigners. They have even resorted to assassination of the Generals and leaders – opening the way and hoping for equal retaliation, to sway the public perception.

The Iraqis want the US out – and are threatened with economic sanctions and freezing of their US$ accounts!

Just like Venezuela and Iran and Libya and Yemen ..,

The Iraqis are proceeding with their closer ties with the winners – the Eurasian conglomerate, the Belt & Road investments; the superior Russian weapons systems and no doubt the disengagement from the petrodollar, ball and chain of a slave.

Like an abused woman who wants to remove the 'ex boyfriend' who moved in a decade ago – has never paid any bills, doesn't do housework or maintenance and brings round his mates to wreck the place

Iraq has served a legal order to remove the abusive bastard !

Get the fuck out – or the bailiffs will be called to do it – and that will mean MORE cost you bully!

If that is MORE war then retreating Empire will see a REAL war on all fronts including for the first time ever in their own country – the bodybags will be required domestically – just like the poor civilians have been dying in theit tens of thousands at the proxy US forces hands for decades.

The people of the US need to get past their daily diet of super sugared Hollywood superiority and understand THEY are the EVIL EMPIRE and THEY are LOSING as the downtrodden ewoks of the many countried are fighting back!

GEOFF ,

After the USS Vincennes in 1988 had shot down Iran Air Flight 655 and killed 290 people, including many children, the U.S. government denied any culpability. George H. W. Bush, the vice president of the United States at the time, commented: "I will never apologize for the United States – I don't care what the facts are I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy." Despite its "error" the crew was given medals and the captain was even awarded a Legion of Merit "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer

GEOFF ,

The above is from moon of Alabama I forgot to mention

Yarkob ,

Have a listen to Whitney Webb on QTR podcast giving her take: https://youtu.be/dmaypBvuNzs?t=376

George Mc ,

Example an American "request":

https://www.youtube.com/embed/SeldwfOwuL8?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Antonym ,

That's the CIA today; not the USA.

George Mc ,

Granted that it's not the whole of the USA – but it's not just the CIA and it's certainly not merely "today". Incidentally, Brando said his attraction towards playing the Godfather is that he thought it was a prefect demonstration of how the American political system really works.

Protect ,

From Zero Hedge / The Strategic Culture Foundation:
"Abdul-Mehdi [The Iraqi prime minister] spoke angrily about how the Americans had ruined the country and now refused to complete infrastructure and electricity grid projects unless they were promised 50% of oil revenues, which Abdul-Mehdi refused.
The complete (translated) words of Abdul-Mahdi's speech to parliament:
"This is why I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the construction instead. Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement. When I refused, he threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my premiership.
"Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me.
"I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us rescinding our deal with the Chinese.
"After this, when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting both protestors and security personnel alike (just as Trump had threatened he would do), I received a new call from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we kept on talking about this "third party"."
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/deeper-story-behind-assassination-soleimani
and there is this:
"I was supposed to meet him [Soleimani] later in the morning when he was killed. He came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered to the Iranians from the Saudis."

lundiel ,

Here's your answer from the state department, it appears to be both yes and no (depending on financial incentives).

America is a force for good in the Middle East. Our military presence in Iraq is to continue the fight against ISIS and as the Secretary has said, we are committed to protecting Americans, Iraqis, and our coalition partners. We have been unambiguous regarding how crucial our D-ISIS mission is in Iraq. At this time, any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated to discussing how to best recommit to our strategic partnership -- not to discuss troop withdrawal, but our right, appropriate force posture in the Middle East. Today, a NATO delegation is at the State Department to discuss increasing NATO's role in Iraq, in line with the President's desire for burden sharing in all of our collective defense efforts. There
does, however, need to be a conversation between the U.S. and Iraqi governments not just regarding security, but about our financial, economic, and diplomatic partnership. We want to be a friend and partner to a sovereign, prosperous, and stable Iraq.

Gall ,

Typical imperialistic boiler plate. America being a "force for good in the Middle East" or anywhere else is a lie. Remember Vietnam? As for "continu(ing) the fight against ISIS" the SOS really means to continue to finance and supply ISIS while pretending to "fight against" them. There whole statement is a Stygian Stable full of total BS.

The Iraqis should tell them again to get the f-k outta Dodge or they'll go Wyatt Earp on their sorry lying asses.

Frances ,

Pardonnez-moi, but why do Canada and Australia also UK (Boris) take their 'cue' on foreign policy from the USA? Sending defence forces to fight Washington's wars and banker's wars for resources?

austrian peter ,

I answer to your question, Frances, take out an hour of your day to find out:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/np_ylvc8Zj8?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Andy ,

This edition of Crosstalk seems to encapsulate perfectly US arrogance and stupidity/disingenuity.

https://youtu.be/Rlkeyl4adJ0

Brian Harry ,

That assertion by Mike("We lied we cheated we stole" ..)Pompeo is a total lie. The USA invaded Iraq under a complete pack of lies, about Saddam Hussein's "Weapons of Mass Destruction" back in 2003 and are still there after having murdered Hussein and now occupy Iraq.
The Elected Leader of Syria has also told the USA to "Get out of Syria", but the USA has not done so.
The USA(and it's 'owners" Israel, are the problem in the Middle East, NOT IRAN or Iraq.
Israel's anaesthetised donkey, The USA, is completely controlled by Israel .It's pathetic. but it's true.

austrian peter ,

In the sixties we all knew that "NO" meant "YES" and these guys are from that era.

Brian Harry ,

I think that the World has grown sick and tired of the LIES, spewing out of the Military Industrial Complex ..In the highest levels of the USA Government, "if their lips are moving, they're LYING .

austrian peter ,

Yep, with you 100% and the bulk of the 99% are getting the message too.

Yarkob ,

"the bulk of the 99% are getting the message too."

Don't kid yourself, Peter. I'd love to agree with you, but there is little evidence of that on those sites that allow comment on this. the masses have drunk the kool aid long and deep. Yes, there's some pearl-clutching going on but he was "still a trrst" so it's all ok. Back to sleep.

Look! Harry and Meghan!!

austrian peter ,

Take your point Yarkob, thank you. I was trying to be optimistic – in my world my network is gradually becoming more aware – I hope that my book, due to publish this quarter, will ride the wave; fingers crossed!
:-))))

Admin ,

Where are you seeing this BTL? Bear in mind that comments in most corporate media sites are heavily censored these days, and replete with sock puppets manipulating debate & seeding talking points.

George Mc ,

As I have often said, the MSM not only lies but gives a false image of public opinion. Granted that it is not easy – or even possible – to really know what the population is tending towards in their opinion, I think we can safely say that the MSM always bullshits about it. I love it especially when they not only bullshit about what "everyone thinks" abut also about what everyone "WILL" think e.g. the blathering about what party is "electable".

I am not, by any stretch, a subscriber to David Icke but he did come up with one wonderful expression when he described what the MSM pump out as "the movie". That is exactly what it is. And I'd like to believe that less and less people believe it. Of course the big problem is that even if you reject it, you have to put up with the fact that, obviously as far as the "mainstream" goes, it's the only show in town. And a lot of people still regurgitate what they hear. So e.g. a lot of people go along with the manufactured outrage over Corbyn "refusing to apologise" while these same people have no idea what he is apologising for – other than a vague notion that he must be some kind of Hitler guy. It all comes down to vibrations set up in the MSM. If you shit enough and often enough then eventually many will swallow it.

falcemartello ,

Since when has pax-americana not been at war. The only administration since ww2 that has not been at war was the Peanut farmer from Georgia The Carter administration and it was his secretary of state Brezinski that created the Takfiri army to disrupt Afghanistan in 1979.
Post Scriptum: The Iranian missile strike in western Iraq and Erbil was a historical event.
It is the second time in Us military history that pax-americana had not responded to a direct attack on a military barracks , the first time was in 1982 in Beirut where a suicide bomber killed over 200 people.
Docius in Fondem:Wesley Clarke statement from when he was alluded to the Likudniks plan & countries in 5 years Iran was last on the list.
US have declared war on both Iraq and Iran with the assassination of the IRGC General and the PMU General. Simple facts tend to allude we the exceptional civilized west

austrian peter ,

love the Latin:
Caesar ad sum iam forte
Pompei ad erat
Caesar sic in omnibus
Pompei sic in hat

Brian Harry ,

"Don't talk to me about the bloody Romans, what have they ever done for us"?
Try as I may, I cant get Google to translate that .what does it mean, please?

Brian Harry ,

.although, when I read it 'phonetically', it sounds like a "big night out, and lots of vomit sprayed around but, I'm Australian, and we don't do things like that .much

austrian peter ,

:-)))))
Use DuckDuckGo:
Non me loqui Romani sanguinis quid unquam fecit u

Brian Harry ,

I'll take your word for it Thanks for the laugh ..!

austrian peter ,

:-))))) "Laughing is the best policy and is generally better than getting hit by a taxi!" – Spike Milligan – another comic messiah.

austrian peter ,

No worries, cobber, have a smiley day and always remember: " If you see a man without a smile, give him one of yours".

https://www.youtube.com/embed/SJUhlRoBL8M?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

austrian peter ,

This should help, Brian:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y7tvauOJMHo?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Brian Harry ,

Monty Python the Greatest .There weren't many Romans in Australia 2000 years ago. Too busy invading and really irritating Europeans and British people, but, somehow, it all worked out ok Always look on the bright side of life, huh ?

austrian peter ,

Yep, and you Brian are in the right place to see the sunny side. We here in old Blighty are suffering the gloom, doom and damp. I lived in Cape Town for ten years (same latitude as Sydney and similar climate) and miss it dreadfully – the climate that is – the rest is isht; power cuts (load shedding they call it), water shortage (drought they call it), pollution and infrastructure failure all round, Nuff said! Go well cobber.

Mike Ellwood ,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Latin

Not quite the same thing but interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer_is_icumen_in

Especially the parodies towards the end.

There are some good pastiche French rhymes / songs around as well. Don't have any links to hand ..aha, found what I was thinking of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mots_d%27Heures

Gall ,

Actually Jimbo the Peanut Farmer was involved in a covert war in Angola and also covertly arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Not to mention operation Eagle Claw that failed against the Iranians.

GEOFF ,

In 240 years since its inception warmongering yanky land has been at war in the last 224 years with someone, 50 in the last 10 years, not a bad record.

[Jan 14, 2020] Patrick Henningsen on Twitter I see we have reached peak hypocrisy now. Resign Mike. You are an embarrassment to the people

Jan 14, 2020 | twitter.com

Patrick Henningsen ‏ 1:47 AM - 13 Jan 2020

I see we have reached peak hypocrisy now. Resign Mike. You are an embarrassment to the people of the United States who you claim to be serving. Every day you read the same script, and it's a bevy of lies, every time.

btowngoatsnbirds ‏ 1:57 AM - 13 Jan 2020

Shhh....the grownups have a country to run

Patrick Henningsen ‏ 2:46 AM - 13 Jan 2020

Yes, I heard that one too.

Cheryl Sanchez ‏ 1:50 PM - 13 Jan 2020

Indeed.

[Jan 14, 2020] The EU is a hopeless vassal of the US. It doesn't matter if the EU is agreement capable or not. They have no sovereignty to begin with.

Notable quotes:
"... Deal finishes October 2020 if I remember correctly. All sanctions will be lifted so long as Iran is in compliance at that time. This is a move to prevent this. ..."
"... Obviously, Merkel doesn't have the political strength to nix Nordstream 2. Until she's replaced by someone with greater vision, EU and German policy won't change toward Iran. IMO, the trio don't amount to the level of poodles as they're known to have courage. The Trio proudly display the fact that they're 100% Cowards. ..."
"... The EU cannot lead in anything - it is a completely owned and operated US tool. It is a big zero in providing humanity any help with the big problem of our time: the 'indispensable and exceptional' supremacist US. ..."
Jan 14, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Nemo , Jan 14 2020 19:35 utc | 1

Be fair. It doesn't matter if the EU is agreement capable or not. They have no sovereignty to begin with. It is known.

powerandpeople , Jan 14 2020 19:37 utc | 2

Deal finishes October 2020 if I remember correctly. All sanctions will be lifted so long as Iran is in compliance at that time. This is a move to prevent this.
BraveNewWorld , Jan 14 2020 19:41 utc | 3
I always learn some thing here. For example imagine my surprise to learn the EU had a reputation worth protecting. All you need to know about the EU is bitches will do what bitches are told. This is just one more step on the road to war with China, is that really what the citizens of the EU want? Are the people of the EU ready to die for the Trump and the Republican party?
Ghost Ship , Jan 14 2020 19:42 utc | 4
Nemo @ 1

You forget that on the day the UK leaves the EU it recovers full sovereignty. Well at least Boris Johnson claimed it would.

Realist , Jan 14 2020 19:49 utc | 6
Think tanks, think tanks, think tanks. In 2009, the Brookings Institute's paper Which Path to Persia, proposed offering Iran a very good deal and then sabotaging it. Good cop, Obama, bad cop, Trump. Mission accomplished.
winston2 , Jan 14 2020 19:50 utc | 7
Only a matter of when and how. The warmongers have Trumps balls in a vice, he can't even resign without making it worse by letting Pence take over. The art of the squeal, very high pitched is whats happening in DC.
Heath , Jan 14 2020 19:51 utc | 8
1st of all The UK was always going to side with DC over Iran. 2ndly for France and Germany they probably aren't ready to put themselves plus their EU partners in the US doghouse for Iran. When they break it will be a time of their own choosing.
Likklemore , Jan 14 2020 19:52 utc | 9
Thanks b, for this detailed coverage of the 3 wimps' efforts to kill JCPOA. You did not disappoint. Love the image showing mother residing in "occupied Palestine" .. (term coined by MoA barfly)

I commented in the previous post, Russia warned of unintended consequences LINK

Moscow is calling on the European parties to the Iran nuclear deal not to escalate tensions and to abandon their decision to trigger the treaty's Dispute Resolution Mechanism, the Russian Foreign Ministry said Tuesday.

"We strongly urge the Eurotroika [of parties to the JCPOA] not to inflame tensions and to abandon any steps which call the prospects of the nuclear deal's future into question. Despite all the challenges it has faced, the JCPOA has not lost its relevance," the ministry said in a statement.

OTH
Trumps impeachment trial begins next Tuesday

so the focus shifts BUT

what do we make of this?

Court in Ukraine orders investigation of Poroshenko, Obama administration members

Ex-US vice-president, Joseph Biden is also suspected of corruption, according to a member of the Ukrainian parliament

KIEV, January 14. /TASS/. Ukraine's Supreme Anti-Corruption Court has obliged the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) to launch a probe into seizure of government power and corruption suspicions. The cases mention the names of the United States' 44th president, Barack Obama, former Ukrainian president, Pyotr Poroshenko and ex-US vice-president, Joseph Biden, a member of the Ukrainian parliament from the Opposition Platform - For Life party, Renat Kuzmin, said[.]

"investigate the suspicions over the seizure of government power in Ukraine and of the embezzlement of state budget money and international financial assistance by members of the Obama administration"

that's what the man said.

Russ , Jan 14 2020 19:53 utc | 10
If it ever was possible to sign a treaty with the US and expect them to abide by it, it hasn't been possible for a long time. Here as everywhere else, Trump merely openly proclaims the systemic lawlessness he shares with the rest of the US political class. (His contemptuous withdrawal from the JCPOA never has been one of the things the establishment and media criticize him for.)

For as long as US imperial power lasts, anyone who doesn't want to be a poodle (or to get regime-changed because they foolishly attempt to sit the fence) has to accept that there can be no legitimate agreements with the US or its poodles. If you sign a treaty with them, you have to view it exactly the same way you know they do, as nothing but propaganda, otherwise not worth the paper it's written on. No doubt North Korea, if they were in any doubt before, registered how Trump and the US media immediately proceeded to systematically lie about the agreement they'd supposedly just concluded, before the ink was even dry.

Here's hoping that if Iran was in any doubt before, they too are getting the message: As far as the US and Europe are concerned, the only purpose of the JCPOA is to serve as a weapon against them.

Pnyx , Jan 14 2020 19:53 utc | 11
Face it B, there will be blood. It's a matter of time. It's unavoidable. The empire will force its own destruction - and perhaps the rest of humanity's. The demons of nihilism will prevail. (Sounds like I have been hearing death metal. I swear I did not. And I not under the influence either.)
les7 , Jan 14 2020 19:53 utc | 12
The Oct 2020 deadline is important for more than one reason- Irans application to the SCO is being held up because of it. The SCO membership would obligate support from countries like India in response to politically motivated sanctions.
karlof1 , Jan 14 2020 19:54 utc | 13
Surprised at Germany since Merkel just met with Putin. When I read of this earlier this morning, that it's based on lies was 100% clear, that the trio are feckless and deserve all the social instability that will soon come their way. Why did I mention social instability:

Breaking :

"US, Japan, EU seek new global rules limiting subsidies."

Thus begging this question : "Does that include all the free money printing from central banks and repo market interventions?"

And why would the Fed need to do this at a time of the greatest Bull Market of all time:

"The Fed is considering a plan to allow them to lend cash DIRECTLY TO HEDGE FUNDS in order to ease the REPO Crisis. [Emphasis original]

"Where is 'bailing out private investment funds' in their alleged 'dual mandate'?"

Which gets us back to the reason Iran's targeted: Because it lies outside the dollar economy, refuses to engage in petrodollar recycling, and has a quasi-socialist economy with no private banking. Plus, we now see that Iraq will pursue evicting NATO and Outlaw US Empire forces and likely join the Arc of Resistance's/Iran's policies which are what the Outlaw US Empire went to war over to begin with.

Obviously, Merkel doesn't have the political strength to nix Nordstream 2. Until she's replaced by someone with greater vision, EU and German policy won't change toward Iran. IMO, the trio don't amount to the level of poodles as they're known to have courage. The Trio proudly display the fact that they're 100% Cowards.

Heath , Jan 14 2020 19:57 utc | 14
@ realist 6. basically it boils down to giving Barry a foreign policy award like getting the Nobel gong.

AriusArmenian , Jan 14 2020 19:58 utc | 15

The EU is a hopeless craven vassal of the US. The US dropping out of the JCPOA was the acid test which the EU has spectacularly failed. We are in a historical pivot with the rise of the coalescing multifarious East which is forcing the EU to make a decision: stay under the US wing, go it alone, or ally with the East. The EU seems to know it at least should get more distance between itself and the US but every time there is a major geopolitical event it starts to talk like it is going independent but then always drops back into the US hand. How many times does this have to happen for us to admit what the EU is about?

The EU cannot lead in anything - it is a completely owned and operated US tool. It is a big zero in providing humanity any help with the big problem of our time: the 'indispensable and exceptional' supremacist US.

Posted by: AriusArmenian | Jan 14 2020 19:58 utc | 15

Brad , Jan 14 2020 20:00 utc | 16
If we accept that EU nations lack sovereignty and go further to suggest that such nations are more simulations than real, what would an analysis of such events as the fallout from the demise of the JCPOA look like? How should one talk about international events when corporate sovereignty and oligarchical decision making are the real? How would we describe this exact context based not on the simulation but on the real workings of power?
Nemo , Jan 14 2020 20:04 utc | 17
Yes indeed! At least blighty knows the score! The leash is no place for the British bulldog. When brexit is complete they will be free to crawl straight up muricas bum! Lol!
alaff , Jan 14 2020 20:07 utc | 18
Haha, great drawing. This pile on the left is incomparable. But the picture is incomplete - there is not enough proudly walking in front of the masters of a small Polish poodle with a bone in his teeth.

Agree with Nemo, #1. This is a matter of sovereignty. At the moment, European countries are not sovereign, and, btw, this is a kind of double non-sovereignty: the submission of a separate European country to the Americans, plus the submission of the same country to a Brussels bureaucracy called the EU leadership. What independent, bold decisions can we talk about? None.

The once great Europe...

[Jan 14, 2020] The Long Planned U.S. Assassinations In Iraq Will Increase Its Political Chaos

Jan 14, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Moon of Alabama Brecht quote " The MoA Week In Review - Open Thread 2020-03 | Main January 13, 2020 The Long Planned U.S. Assassinations In Iraq Will Increase Its Political Chaos

The Trump administration has given various justification for its assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani and commander Abu Mahdi al Muhandis. It claimed that there was an 'imminent threat' of an incident, even while not knowing what, where or when it would happen, that made the assassination necessary. Trump later said the thread was a planned bombing of four U.S. embassies. His defense secretary denied that.

Soleimani and Muhandis during a battle against ISIS

That has raised the suspicion that the decision to kill Soleimani had little to do with current events but was a long planned operation. NBC News now reports that this is exactly the case:

President Donald Trump authorized the killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani seven months ago if Iran's increased aggression resulted in the death of an American, according to five current and former senior administration officials.

The presidential directive in June came with the condition that Trump would have final signoff on any specific operation to kill Soleimani, officials said.

The idea to kill Soleimani, a regular General in an army with which the U.S. is not war, came like many other bad ideas from John Bolton.

After Iran shot down a U.S. drone in June, John Bolton, Trump's national security adviser at the time, urged Trump to retaliate by signing off on an operation to kill Soleimani, officials said. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also wanted Trump to authorize the assassination, officials said.

But Trump rejected the idea, saying he'd take that step only if Iran crossed his red line: killing an American. The president's message was "that's only on the table if they hit Americans," according to a person briefed on the discussion.

Then unknown forces fired 30 short range missiles into a U.S. base near Kirkuk. The salvo was not intended to kill or wound anyone:

The rockets landed in a place and at a time when American and Iraqi personnel normally were not there and it was only by unlucky chance that Mr. Hamid was killed, American officials said.

Without presenting any evidence the U.S. accused Katib Hizbullah, an Iraqi Popular Militia Unit, of having launched the missiles. It launched airstrikes against a number of Katib Hizbullah positions near the Syrian border, hundreds of miles away from Kirkuk, and killed over 30 Iraqi security forces.

This led to demonstrations in Baghdad during which a crowd breached the outer wall of the U.S. embassy but soon retreated. Trump, who had attacked Hillary Clinton over the raid on the consulate/CIA station in Benghazi, did not want to get embarrassed with a full embassy breach.

The media claim that it was the embassy breach that the led to the activation of an operation that had already been planned for a year before Trump signed off on it seven month ago. As the New York Times describes it :

For the past 18 months, officials said, there had been discussions about whether to target General Suleimani. Figuring that it would be too difficult to hit him in Iran, officials contemplated going after him during one of his frequent visits to Syria or Iraq and focused on developing agents in seven different entities to report on his movements -- the Syrian Army, the Quds Force in Damascus, Hezbollah in Damascus, the Damascus and Baghdad airports and the Kataib Hezbollah and Popular Mobilization forces in Iraq.

It was the embassy breach and a war-industry lobbyist who convinced Trump to finally pull the symbolical trigger :

Defense Secretary Mark Esper presented a series of response options to the president two weeks ago, including killing Soleimani. Esper presented the pros and cons of such an operation but made it clear that he was in favor of taking out Soleimani, officials said.

Trump signed off and it further developed from there.

There was no intelligence of any 'imminent threat' or anything like that.

This was an operation that had been worked on for 18 month. Trump signed off on it more than half a year ago. Those who had planned it just waited for a chance to execute it.

We can not even be sure that the embassy bombing had caused Trump to give the final go. It might have been that the CIA and Pentagon were just waiting for a chance to kill Soleimani and Muhandis, the leader of Katib Hizbullah, at the same time. Their meeting at Baghdad airport was not secret and provided the convenient opportunity they had been waiting for.

Together Soleimani and Muhandis were the glue that kept the many Shia factions in Iraq together. The armed ones as well as the political ones. Soleimani's replacement as Quds brigade leader, Brigadier General Ismail Qaani, is certainly a capable man. But his previous field of work was mainly east of Iran in Afghanistan and Pakistan and it will be difficult for him to fill Soleimani's role in Iraq :

After Soleimani's death, Ayatollah Khamenei appointed Soleimani's deputy Ismail Qaani to succeed him. Qaani does not speak Arabic, does not have an in-depth knowledge of Iraq, nor the insight of Soleimani and his ability to balance the different positions of Iraq's factions with the opinions of Ayatollah Khamenei and the religious authorities in Najaf.

The question is how the successor of Soleimani will manage his new responsibility including the thorny issues in Iraq. The escalation of the Iranian-American conflict is, according to many, an escalation towards war and the destabilization of the region in which the rules of engagement have changed. The question remains how, and not whether all of this will impact the situation in Iraq.

Today the Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who has his on militia, and Iraqi PMU leaders met in Qom , Iran, to discuss how the foreign troops can be expelled from Iraq. Gen. Qaani will likely be there to give them advice.

Yesterday Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Hizbullah, gave another speech . In it he called on the Kurds in Iraq to pay back their debt to Soleimani and Hizbullah, which is owned for their fight against ISIS, and to help to evict the foreign soldiers from Iraq:

85-Nasrallah: Now, the rest of the path. 1) Iraq: Iraq is the first country concerned w/responding to this crime, because it happened in Iraq, and because it targeted Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a great Iraqi commander, and because Soleimani defended Iraq.

86-Nasrallah: I ask Masoud Barazani to thank Soleimani for his efforts in defending Erbil and Kurdistan Region, because Soleimani was the only one to respond to your call. Soleimani and with him men from Hezbollah went to Erbil.

87-Nasrallah: Barazani was shaking from fear, but Soleimani and the brothers from Hezbollah helped you repulse this unprecedented threat; and now you must repay this good by being part of the effort to expel the Americans from Iraq and the region.

The Barzani family, which governs the Kurdish part of Iraq, has since long sold out to the Zionists and the United States. It will certainly not support the resistance effort. But Nasrallah's request is highly embarrassing to the clan and to Masoud Barzani personally.

So far I only found this rather confusing response from him:

Nihad N. Arafat @NihadArafat - 7:44 UTC · Jan 13, 2020

The Kurdistan Regional Government's response to the immoral speech uttered by Hassan Nasrallah through the anti-terror apparatus is a clear message from the regional government to those terrorists that the response to the terrorists must be through the anti-terror apparatus.

As military leader both Soleimani and Muhandis are certainly replaceable. The militia groups they created and led will continue to function.

But both men also played important political roles in Iraq and it will take some time to find adequate people to replace them in that. That makes it likely that the already simmering political situation in Iraq will soon boil over as the Shia factions will start to fight each other over the selection of a new Prime Minister and government.

The U.S. will welcome that as it will try do install a candidate that will reject the Iraqi parliament decision to remove the foreign forces from Iraqi grounds.

Posted by b on January 13, 2020 at 17:32 UTC | Permalink

Zanon , Jan 13 2020 17:43 utc | 1

next page " As expected, war against Iran is the focus for west.

Ukraine, Canada, Germany, Sweden seeks to punish Iran, call iranian claims of what happend "nonsense"
https://sputniknews.com/world/202001131078024553-london-talks-on-plane-downing-to-include-possible-action-against-iran---ukraine-foreign-minister/

Maracatu , Jan 13 2020 17:48 utc | 2
The United States has truly become a rogue state. John Helmer pointed out that when Putin visited Damascus recently to meet with Assad, he did so at a Russian military facility as a safety precaution because you can no longer put it by the USA that it won't target people of such hierarchy.
juliania , Jan 13 2020 17:57 utc | 3
Was there not anyone in all of those previous discussions and planning sessions objecting and explaining the importance of Qassem Suleiman in the Iran hierachy of government????

Was there not anyone in all of those previous discussions and planning sessions objecting and explaining the illegality of assassinating such a leader when he was traveling openly to discuss matters of defense on a mission of diplomacy???????????

Was there not anyone in all of those previous discussions and planning sessions objecting and resigning or going public to attempt to stop this infamy????????????

A P , Jan 13 2020 18:00 utc | 4
So were the Saudis genuine in their "peace attempt" or were they simply working with CIA/Mossad to lure Soleimani and Muhandis into a situation where they could be droned?

If the Saudis were genuine, they would be much more vocal in their opposition to these murders, which completely derail any potential Iraq-brokered peace process.

Norumbega , Jan 13 2020 18:01 utc | 5
To the best of my recollection, Elijah Magnier, on a recent appearance with Joanne Leon on the Around the Empire Podcast, says it is erroneous to identify Muhandis as the leader of Katib Hizbullah. Actually, he was the highest military official of the PMU (excepting only its nominal head, a civilian), the umbrella organization of the (mainly) Shia militia which are part of the Iraqi military.
Noirette , Jan 13 2020 18:01 utc | 6
US biz persons in NY RE, in Florida, (etc.) as well as tv 'moguls' - do transactional power-play interactions, not Int'l diplomacy. (Whatever that is, pretty worthless actually, but = other topic.)

Obviously, Trump's order to murder Soleimani was partly due to impeachment pressure, as he has said himself.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/report-trump-cited-impeachment-pressure-to-kill-soleimani.html

Plus, Soleimani insulted him gravely. From tabloids and women's mags, which I read on occasion.

NK (Kim + spokespersons) called Trump a heedless and erratic old man. Also a dotard iirc, but all this was in an exchange of insults which could be taken as mimicking that between equals, Trump calling Kim Rocket Man, etc. (Everyone knew nothing would happen.) There was also that kerfuffle when Trudeau (sleazy hypocrite) and others were caught open-mick gossiping about Trump taking too long for his pressers or whatever. No doubt others and Dem public insults are politically calibrated in a known landscape and Trump of course initiates and has no problem with riposte.

2018. Soleimani speech. The Sun: vid. eng subs.

Very demeaning: gambler - bartender - casino manager that hits hard.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10668165/donald-trump-iran-general-death-warrant/

When much is hung on 'identity politics' and 'personalia' - ppls identity, character, beliefs, personal interaction with others, etc. take up too much air (like in Hollywood movies), institutional or other long-worked out arrangements (like Int'l law based on upholding the existence of Wilsonian Nation-States..) are simply scuttered.

psychohistorian , Jan 13 2020 18:05 utc | 7
Thanks for the reporting b and I am not surprised about the background behind the assassination of Soleimani and Muhandis

I would also not be surprised to read that my country was complicit to some degree in the Ukraine plane shoot down by Iran.

The West is a very sick world run by the dictators that own global private finance. Those dictators have managed to even brainwash the public into not understanding their illness and believing it is a good force in our world.

I am glad to read less of the belief that Trump is being played by the system and not an active actor within it. I continue to hope that other groups of our species continue to stand up to the anti-humanistic social contract of the West and end its centuries old reign of terror.

Igor Bundy , Jan 13 2020 18:08 utc | 8
Before Putin left for Damascus he already mentioned something about he wont be so easily removed without any consequence.. most likely meaning Russia would probably neutralize all US bases in close proximity and get on the stick to fire strategic nukes for any US response.. But we know the US has hit a lot of Russian assets without seeing any Russian response. So who knows..
Pandora , Jan 13 2020 18:10 utc | 9
The idea to kill Soleimani, a regular General in an army with which the U.S. is not war ...

The US has been at war with Iran for 40 yrs ...(hybrid war)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8NHawXaOPc (Christopher Black)

War without limits: using all domains (pol, fin, econ, media, com, legal inst) to subvert and destroy an enemy, where the objective is to obliterate the state itself as a political entity
Aside from genocide, what greater crime can there be than the complete annihilation of the state itself, as we saw happening in the NATO-attack on Libya and the state's total destruction and re-invention in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the NATO-attack against Yugoslavia and now Ukraine and Syria.

.. a complete negation of the concept of state sovereignty and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the UN-Charta. It is a form of aggression of the worst kind and the type of total war that the Nazis waged against the SU. (obliterate state, people, social & econ system and culture).

...So the term HW first appears in American military literature and as practised by NATO means the commission of multiple war-crimes against the people of the targeted state. In Libya we saw conventional military style ops by NATO (massive bombing over many months) simultaneous with unconventional operations (local and imported proxy forces, subversion, assassinations, terrorism against civilians, use of social and mass-media to distribute false information about the regime, criminal actions, cyberattacks to shut down communication and the use of quasi legal bodies (ICC) to criminalize the leadersip, to accuse Gadhafi of being a war-criminal; use of mercenaries, destruction of infrastructure to break the will of the people to resist.

The subject is one of immediate concern because the Americans have begun using the term hybrid warfare in their propaganda accusing Russia of engaging in it in Ukraine and now raising the alarm that (they believe) Russia will engage in HW in the Baltic. Therefore the Americans argue, they have to react to prepare for this eventuality which they claim to be inevitable. And that indicates to me where we can expect the next operations against Russia to take place (and it may explain the exercises NATO has been running all summer, landing of airborne troops, combined sea-operations, etc.)

But the American claim of Russia using HW is in fact a mirror of their own image as we see these methods being used by them as a matter of routine.

(... used in the Indian wars, in 19th century, starvation, prop and other techniques to destroy their cultures, in Mexico, Philipines, Korea and Vietnam, in Central America (i.e. Nicaragua) and in Ruanda....

All the accusations against Iran ("greatest sponsor of terrorism", aligning Iran with AQ, etc.) are a projection of their own crimes ..


Piotr Berman , Jan 13 2020 18:27 utc | 10
It was explained by Craig Murray in his blog (replicated in a few websites) that the usage of "imminent" adjective is created by a certain lawyer who first worked for Netanyahu, then for Blair etc. The usage does not convey ANY information about the nature of a "danger", but the attitude, judgement if you will, of the institution that commissioned the opinion.

And "immanent" or "eminent" (Trumpian tweet) would fit equally well, but legalistically, the confusion raised by "imminent" is more useful.

juliania , Jan 13 2020 18:29 utc | 11
Noirette @ 6, it is my belief that an irrational US president, under the constant pressure of attack from the Russiagate and Ukraingate instigators (you know who you are) from the instant he became president and took on those responsibilities, volatile and insecure as he was from the getgo, has finally cracked and is now very much in need of retirement from the highpressure stage of politics in a time of potential war. It would be in the interests of everyone in the world for his family to ask him, for his doctors to require of him, that he resign. Certainly the alternatives to his remaining in office are grim, but not as grim as having a president who is mentally incapacitated.

It would seem that an entire warmaking apparatus of government is similarly dysfunctional. I don't know how that can be remedied, but it must.

Piotr Berman , Jan 13 2020 18:34 utc | 12
Muqtada al-Sadr, who has his on militia

whose militia is "on", active, rather than "off"? In any case, separating this guy from microphones would require an Amored Personal Carrier or something heavier.

bevin , Jan 13 2020 18:35 utc | 13
juliania@3
The answer to your questions lies in the reality that for years a sure means of not being promoted or even being fired from a government job in the US is to know anything about the Arab or Islamic world. Or to act as if knowing anything about such inferior beings is necessary for making judgements.
This idea, that ignorance is bliss, has spread from Israel, not because the Israelis practise it-they don't- but because they want DC to be entirely reliant on them for intelligence and direction in the Middle East.
pretzelattack , Jan 13 2020 18:42 utc | 14
consistent from trump, he appointed bolton, this is all very characteristic.
Peter AU1 , Jan 13 2020 18:46 utc | 15
Although only one battle in what will be a longer war, Trump has won that round. More confusion and disarray in Iraq, bad PR for Iran after the Uki plane shootdown. Bad PR allows western vassals to move closer to the US side of the fence, and also provides fuel for US regime change operations within Iran.
The two generals that were assassinated - there will be others that can plan military strategy, but a big part, perhaps more important than strategy, is the personality to be able to hold disparate groups together so they act as one and all tactics by separate groups fit into a larger strategy.
juliania , Jan 13 2020 18:47 utc | 16
Thank you, bevin. That is a sad explanation, though to me it doesn't obviate what should be inherent in any normal human person, as I myself know very little about the Middle East, relying indeed upon b's excellent and nearly objective (as objective as any human can be) reporting on the facts and his interpretation of them. That which ought to be inherent is the human desire not to inflict pain on another human if that can be avoided. Those who are in government service ought to have that moral incentive front and center. We see it in the great leaders, and surely in this country there are some among the elite who haven't lost this natural instinct? It is very problematic if that has been thoroughly weeded out in those now occupying powerful positions.

This country has been fortunate in the past to select persons of high moral compass as our heroes. We the people still want to do that, I am convinced. Perhaps there is still time, and we can re-order our own hierarchy now that what has been done is this terrible, an enormous reductio ad absurdum, front and center.

This is not going away.

wendy davis , Jan 13 2020 18:48 utc | 17
@ Piotr Berman #10

yes, the Bethlehem Doctrine made this reTweet from john steppling even more outrageous a psyop:

'Israelis: Soleimani Intercept Sparked Drone Strike; US Reinforces Region', jan. 3, 2020, breaking defense

"TEL AVIV: Five days ago, an undisclosed intelligence agency intercepted a telephone call made by the head of Iran's Quds Force, Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, in which he was heard ordering his proxies in Iraq to attack the US embassy in Baghdad, as well as other Israeli and American targets, with the aim of taking hostages, Israeli sources say.

It's unclear whether this was a lapse in tradecraft on the part of the usually savvy Soleimani or whether the notorious Iranian military leader's phone calls were being routinely intercepted. Nor is it clear whether it was the US or another foe of Iran that made the intercept. Regardless, the intelligence seems to have led directly to Soleimani's killing yesterday, which has thrown the Mideast into uproar."

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/01/israelis-soleimani-intercept-sparked-drone-strike-us-reinforces-region/?_ga=2.263021516.1146847899.1578081532-904925514.1578081532


karlof1 , Jan 13 2020 18:48 utc | 18
psychohistorian @7--

In the chain of cause & effect, the Outlaw US Empire is definitely responsible for the airliner shootdown; that must be seen as 100% irrefutable. The Outlaw US Empire has executed numerous high ranking political and military people beginning with Yamamoto in 1943, although I'll admit he was a legitimate target; yet, the seed was planted then. I recall Diem being killed with the approval of JFK just weeks prior to his own execution. As I wrote at Escobar's Facebook over the weekend, the Great Evil in the world resides within the Outlaw US Empire and must be expunged even if Nukes must be used. Yes, that conclusion was painful to arrive at and write, but the horrors have lasted for 3,000+ years now. The crop of Current Oligarchs are the most aggressive ever and won't stop their rampage until they Own Everything . In the overall scheme of things, getting Imperial forces ousted from Southwest Asia will be a good thing but only a small portion of what must occur.

Jase , Jan 13 2020 18:53 utc | 19
What does a single word of Nihad N. Arafat's response even mean? How is Nasrallah's speech immoral by any stretch of the imagination? Do the Kurd's have no gratitude for Hezbollah and Qud's laying down their lives to save them from mass rape and genocide? What is the "anti-terror apparatus", does he mean fighting terrorism in Iraq and Syria must be done only by US supported forces like the SDF? The Kurds siding with the US occupiers and Israel is one of the most disgusting developments in recent history, its no wonder these people have been so distrusted and abused for so long, their power hungry leadership betrays their allies like snakes.
juliania , Jan 13 2020 18:57 utc | 20
Apologies, karlof1; you know I value your input. But that is one very crazy post.
Red Ryder , Jan 13 2020 18:58 utc | 21
@8, Igor Bundy

Russia takes its vengeance cold, often with no flair or notoriety. They often take in multiples for their losses.

In Syria, a Russian missile into a mountain cave where US, Israeli, Saudi and AQ Intel leaders were meeting cost over 50 high value lives. It was Russian payback for when some Colonels and a General were hit by Coalition air strikes. Auslander, on the Saker blog, has written about this. 2016, as I recall.

In Donbass, there have been many paybacks by Russia for Ukie and NATO acts. Some even taken inside Russia.
A number of the culprits who killed over a hundred people and set fire to the Trade Union building in Odessa have met Russian justice. Same with some of the criminal SBU who tortured Berkut who came from Crimea. And others have been liquidated for murders done by Ukies in Mariupol.

People who know and need to know are aware that Russia always more than evens the score.

They just recently eliminated the head Turkmen who was responsible for shooting the pilot of the jet the Turks shot down as he parachuted. It wasn't enough that when they rescued the co-pilot navigator of the jet (rescue led by General Soleimani), the Aerospace forces bombed the hell out of the area the Turkmen populated. They got the names and tracked for years the commander.

Never assume because you don't know, it hasn't happened. And if it hasn't yet, it will.

DM , Jan 13 2020 19:06 utc | 22
Dear juliania,
Perhaps there is still time, and we can re-order our own hierarchy

Seems highly unlikely.

Laguerre , Jan 13 2020 19:06 utc | 23
I don't like to say it but b's article doesn't support his headline. And I don't like to repeat myself, but I've already commented this subject earlier today @ open thread 55 , but he doesn't seem to have taken it into account. We should not expect a powerful Iraqi reaction to the events.
Firstly remember that Abd ul-Mahdi is a weak leader, only there because the US agreed to him. The US has made sure that the Iraqi leadership is not strong. Secondly, there was always going to be a time necessary for a new militia leader to emerge. Instant reaction was just about impossible.

However in the long term, the prospects are good. The Shi'a are in power in Iraq without question. The Sunnis are out of it, the Kurds no longer intervene outside KRG. All the cr*p about civil war is nonsense. The Shi'a factions all have basically the same interest, and conflict is only between different leaders of the same grouping. Things could turn around in an instant.

The anti-US movement is popular sentiment, not govt led. The more the US offends that sentiment, as will inevitably happen, the stronger the movement will be. We already have seen the way things will go. US bases are being sprayed with rockets. That will make life difficult for the US. The more they punish the culprits, the more resentment there will be. There's no way things can work out well for the US.

b has been reading the instant reaction, breast-beating, woe-is-me, articles like Salhy in Middle East Eye, without looking further.
Peter AU1 , Jan 13 2020 19:10 utc | 24
juliania 20

US aggression is at the stage of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan around the start of WWII.
Rather than seeing that their unipolar world is ending, the US is prepared to use military power to hold its position in the world.
The exceptionalist mindset is not just one small faction in the US hierarchy, it is the mindset of the hierarchy plus a good proportion of the population.
Throughout history, countries or nations like that always end up destroyed as they fight for their position until the very end rather than step down.

Piotr Berman , Jan 13 2020 19:24 utc | 25
What does a single word of Nihad N. Arafat's response even mean?

Posted by: Jase | Jan 13 2020 18:53 utc | 19

Upon quick inspection, N.N. Arafat is not a real person. For few months he (it?) only retweeted, mostly a pro-Kurdish US senator, and now produced a test of his (its?) own. The text is weird, which may corroborate the purported education -- radiologist who graduated in Dohuk (the capital of one of the three provinces of Kurdistan autonomous area in Iraq). Actual on-line Kurdish publication have a rather sketchy English, although not as bad.

james , Jan 13 2020 19:27 utc | 26
dang, i was too long and my comment is in moderation... oh well..
Passer by , Jan 13 2020 19:30 utc | 27
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 13 2020 18:46 utc | 15

>>Although only one battle in what will be a longer war, Trump has won that round. More confusion and disarray in Iraq, bad PR for Iran after the Uki plane shootdown. Bad PR allows western vassals to move closer to the US side of the fence, and also provides fuel for US regime change operations within Iran.
The two generals that were assassinated - there will be others that can plan military strategy, but a big part, perhaps more important than strategy, is the personality to be able to hold disparate groups together so they act as one and all tactics by separate groups fit into a larger strategy.

Yup. Some people like to underestimate the US Empire, because it is easier to wear rose coloured glasses, rather than face unpleasant reality.

Even b changed from US will leave Iraq to there will be chaos in Iraq and the US will try to stay.

Although personally i think that the US will be kicked out because most of the Shia leaders would like to be killed by a US drone for whatever. Especially Sadr, who has the biggest political block, and whose Mahdi Army killed plenty of americans back then. He knows that he is a potential target too, so he will work to make this expulsion happen.

There was also an assasination attempt against iranian official in Yemen. This is all part of a Cold War, a hybrid war against Iran. To break it. There is no isolationism. No one will leave Iran or Syria unless they are actually kicked out.

And yes, Trump is a willing imperialist. He likes it. He can't do much on the domestic front but he is allowed to show his violent tendencies on the foreign front. As a zionist and a military puppet.

Trump loves the sanction weapons and financial-banking weapons the US possesses. He's all in on using every coercion to strangle, starve and screw everyone, friend, foe, ally, adversary. A power-hungry guy who has all the power to dominate the globe, yet not his own country, break sovereignties, ignore laws and trample opponents to get his way.

And he likes it.

Trump has taken on the personification of the Hegemon. It is a form of Wizard of Oz syndrome. If the Deep State and MIC allows him, he is "powerful". This suits his dysfunctionality as a man. He has big inadequacies. They manifest in his need to be big, wealthy, #1, first, triumphant in all deals.

In the Oval Office, he is powerless to get the wall built, infrastructure legislation passed, health reform, or even announce he will consider pardons for all those entrapped by Comey and the Russiagate hoax. He's being impeached.

But as the Hegemon, when the handlers around him allow it (advise him), he gets to kill people. This is heady stuff that captivates him.

I would predict that Assad is on the top of Trump's hit list too.

snake , Jan 13 2020 19:41 utc | 28
sponsor of terrorism", aligning Iran with AQ, etc.) are a projection of their own crimes ..by: Pandora @9..<=many Domestic Americans may be at risk for elimination ..If I were an aspiring Democrat I would wear my anti-drone outfit ?

Americans used to pride themselves that their government promised those accused of wrongdoing to be treated as "innocent" until guilt was established by a due process procedure known as a fair open trial. These trials were a source of information that allowed the governed to keep somewhat honest those who were running the government. many Americans chose to become American Citizens in order to gain access to the due process procedures. Humanity in the world has a problem it needs to define and solve because death by drone is not an acceptable line item in the statistics.

Red , Jan 13 2020 19:48 utc | 29
I gleaned this off the saker, https://twitter.com/Azof313/status/1216717472780505093?fbclid=IwAR1pJTv4a5BxI9Ov7IQKUYo5FuhkzluCBUCC7ocsduuATQL4UxRQG5JLLAM .I don't read the language but commenter speaks of cyber attack on the uki plane.
Laguerre , Jan 13 2020 19:50 utc | 30
Actually, I don't think the Shi'a militias are that divided at all. Sistani's call was classic and unifying.
I was quite interested by the remarks of Ayatullah Sistani last Friday, I think it was, criticising Iran and the US equally for illegal attacks on Iraqi soil.

The context is of course that Sistani is Iranian, but has never taken a pro-Iranian position. He is aged now, and his view is expressed by his aides, so it can be taken that this is the view of the Sistani organisation, not so necessarily of the man himself. It is quite nationalistic, and not subservient to Iran, as everybody is currently claiming. Iraqi Shi'a independence from Iran has always been the policy, and its being reaffirmed. Iran remains an ally, naturally.

That doesn't mean that the Iraqi state is strong and can dictate to the US. The US ensures that doesn't happen. But the positions of Sistani, Muqtada al-Sadr and the others are all pretty similar, and concentrate on Iraqi nationalism, which equals opposition to the US, and non-dependence on Iran.

Of course Shi'a Iraqi nationalism is a little bit particular, as no concessions are made to the Sunnis. It's as though they don't exist. For the moment that doesn't matter, as the Sunnis are thoroughly defeated, and if they have rebels, they join Da'ish, who are discredited. The Kurds have had their fingers burned, and won't venture outside KRG again. If the US wants to stir them up, it won't work.

Peter AU1 , Jan 13 2020 19:51 utc | 31
Passer by

I agree with all of that, though on Trump as trying to make up for inadequacies I would differ.
More a very aggressive, competitive mindset and very self confidant in his abilities.
He had held no political positions in the past, runs for president of the US and wins.

Peter AU1 , Jan 13 2020 19:55 utc | 32
Laguerre 30

It looks as though much rides on whether the Shia groups can put aside domestic differences for the duration and agree on and stick to a common strategy to oust the US.

powerandpeople , Jan 13 2020 19:58 utc | 33
https://twitter.com/SecPompeo/status/1216466497901596675

This tweet by Mike Pompeo has triggered a large response condemning USA hypocrisy.

But the murder of the Iranian General does highlight the difficulty of the militias throughout the Middle East.

Middle East is tribal, militias, as far as I understand, can be paid by Sheiks, by local religous leaders, by some arm of the relevant government, by foreign governments. And by foreign governments, I mean Turkey, USA, Iran, UK and so on.
Or a mix of all the above.

So Pompeo has a point - the sooner Middle East governments bring militias fully into the armed forces, the clearer the applicable law will be.

What caused this mess?

Lack of a robust governmental process.

Whose problem is it? At base, the national government in question.

If clear lines of control and command and full integration can't happen due to political divisions and corruption, poor popular control of politicians, then the country (and others around the region) are doomed to endless trouble, from home, from abroad.

Sad fact, IMO.

Sovereignty starts with responsive, effective, reliable, accountable, transparent, and widely accepted, clear, principles-based governance.


psychohistorian , Jan 13 2020 20:02 utc | 34
@ Posted by: Passer by | Jan 13 2020 19:30 utc | 27
with the comment about Trump with which I agree...thanks

Trump is a very hurt human being that is not recognized as such because of a skewed view of what mental health is.....aggression, bullying, and murder have all been normalized to be acceptable mental health in top/down world that is never discussed as being the source of the Trump type of mentality.

I agree with your call out:
"
I would predict that Assad is on the top of Trump's hit list too.
"
and want to add that I expect there are active hit list plans for all world leaders that conflict with the dictatorship of global private finance.

juliania , Jan 13 2020 20:02 utc | 35
b's last comment is:


"...The U.S. will welcome that [the Shia factions will start to fight each other over the selection of a new Prime Minister and government] as it will try do install a candidate that will reject the Iraqi parliament decision to remove the foreign forces from Iraqi grounds."

If the US hopes this will happen to deflect Iraqis from their shock at US assassination on their soil of their military leader as well as Iran's, surely they are as mistaken as they were in perpetrating the atrocity. That's not what happens - we saw it first in Russia. There will be unity against a common enemy, would be my take. As has been happening all along with less important 'sanctions' than this. They always backfire.

Passer by , Jan 13 2020 20:06 utc | 36
My view is that the iraqi shia will work towards expulsion of the US and will make it happen. They will also buy capable anti-air defense from Russia, no matter the threats. Because having US drones over your head is simply unacceptable, and many leaders, including Sadr, know that they are a potential target for "misbehaving" or past grievances. This lurking theat is simply too much. That's not to mention the israeli strikes in Iraq. They also do not want Iraq to turn into US-Iran battlefield. Which will inevitably lead to killings of Shia leaders and groups.

But there will be lots of bullying coming from Trump and some US companies could get large deals as a price for the withdrawal, maybe some expensive military equipment will be sold too.

Peter AU1 , Jan 13 2020 20:12 utc | 37
The middle east, particularly the Arab world have always been susceptible to divide and conquer.
Clans, Tribes, Religions, Ethic groups and nations - all fault lines that the imperial countries have and still do, easily drive wedges into and turn one against another.
Mao , Jan 13 2020 20:15 utc | 38
Putin jokes Assad should invite Trump to visit Damascus. The leaders were referring to the Straight Street, which leads to Mariamite Cathedral of Damascus, & to Apostle Paul whose life was transformed after a vision he had as he walked on that road.


https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1216797057639337984

Tuyzentfloot , Jan 13 2020 20:15 utc | 39
Since the attack on Suleimani, Al Muhandis and that officer in Yemen, Reza Shahlai, were the result of long planning the question is what else is part of the plan, and its possible opportunistic addons. Trump was very fast in following up with new sanctions. The current demonstrations in Iran were probably(my guess) planned. I don't understand how they can get traction so close to the funeral.
Also I wonder to what extent the US/Israel are strenghtening IS near the Syrian border.
lex talionis , Jan 13 2020 20:15 utc | 40
@21 Red Ryder - I am going to put something on the open thread to you. My question doesn't pertain to this ghastly Iraq/Iran business.
Peter AU1 , Jan 13 2020 20:18 utc | 41
Passer by "They also do not want Iraq to turn into US-Iran battlefield."

This is the part that annoys me about the Iraqi's. Trump stated bluntly that US is in Iraq and will be staying in Iraq to watch Iran. That was at the time of the Syrian pullback and oilfield grab.

US is using Iraq to attack Iran. It killed and Iran military officer and diplomat on Iraqi soil. It is constantly striking Iraqi militia groups on Iraqi soil.
By stating Iran violated Iraqi sovereignty with its strike on the US base, Iraq is giving sanctuary to the US.

Passer by , Jan 13 2020 20:21 utc | 42
Posted by: Tuyzentfloot | Jan 13 2020 20:15 utc | 39

>>the question is what else is part of the plan

The plan seems to be israeli one, and it will be about what will benefit Netanyahoo.

This means a continuous near war situation between the US and Iran, but without the actual large scale war. A covert war involving killings, sabotage, everything other than a large scale war. The US will be the meat-shield for Israel. Untill the elections. Then we will see.

Passer by , Jan 13 2020 20:26 utc | 43
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 13 2020 20:18 utc | 41

I think no one believed that the US will start killing senior iraqis and iranians. Soleimani was even seen together with US troops in Iraq, and was visiting often. Iran certainly did not believe that either. But now things changed.

Likklemore , Jan 13 2020 20:26 utc | 44
@ Passer by 24; ph 34

Trump is one sick pup. He now defends that it does not matter if there was an imminent threat [his] .... "killing of Soleimani regardless of 'imminent' threat, says he had a 'horrible past'

Mike Bloomberg Says He's Spending 'All' His Money 'to Get Rid of Trump'

May need to invoke the 25th Amendment. 11 months is a very long time and we may not all be here. In the previous post I linked to a Tass report Iran has declared their revenge is not over. More to come.

Guy THORNTON , Jan 13 2020 20:34 utc | 45
"Several troops CNN spoke to said the event (al-Assad base) had shifted their view of warcraft: the US military is rarely on the receiving end of sophisticated weaponry, despite launching the most advanced attacks in the world.
"You looked around at each other and you think: Where are we going to run? How are you going to get away from that?" said Ferguson.
"I don't wish anyone to have that level of fear," he said. "No one in the world should ever have to feel something like that.""

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/13/middleeast/iran-strike-al-asad-base-iraq-exclusive-intl/index.html

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ....and Iran is even 5th Division compared with Russia.

Laguerre , Jan 13 2020 20:37 utc | 46
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 13 2020 19:55 utc | 32

Yeah, the way I see things going, I wouldn't call it a strategy, is that the Iraqi parliament continues to vote against any proposal the US makes, while at the same time random militias continue to fire off Katyushas against US bases, making life difficult.

US pressure on Abd ul-Mahdi can't disarm the militias, as he doesn't have the power to do so. There's no scenario where the US could agree to the appointment of a strong PM, who might master the militias, and be accepted by the parliament, and yet guarantee to stop militia attacks. The different elements are contradictory.

DontBelieveEitherPr. , Jan 13 2020 20:39 utc | 47
Yeah, Peter AU1 is right. Iran lost that round.
With the plane shot down, they fucked it totally up. Trump can (somewhat with a basis in reality) point to Iran, the "evil Regime" that prefers to shoot down 100+ civilians instead of closing airspace for "a strategic gain" (Bernards words defending this).
A PR nightmare for Iran. And sadly a deserved one in this case of not closing the airspace.

Had this catastrophe not happend, it would have been a brilliant operation, which would have turned the US standing upside down militarily.
But with shooting themselves in the foot, they managed to paint themselves as the paraiah regime that cares not about human life, as Trump and the NeoCons have painted them all along.

Now i understand why Trump did not respond that night and happily went to bed tweeting that all is well. The US knew Iran shot it down in that night, and they knew that Iran would have hurt itself more then they hurt the US from a PR and propaganda standpoint.

And with Soleimani gone, and a replacement that does not even speak Arabic (WTF?!), how can they even dream of rallying all the tribes in Syria and Iraq behind their game plan??
Personality is key in politics. And when such a person can not even speak the language of the people he should unite, then this looks futile IMHO.

All in all, a very telling development. Telling about both the US and Iran, but also about Alt Media and us readers+commenters.

Laguerre , Jan 13 2020 20:51 utc | 48
Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPr. | Jan 13 2020 20:39 utc | 47

What does that have to do with Iraq?

ben , Jan 13 2020 21:01 utc | 49
IMO, the sad truth is, that the new 4th Reich owns the globe, because of their grasp of the reserve currency system, and NO nation, at this point in time, can reverse that fact.

I've been reading people talking about the demise of the empire for years now. Until the reserve currency issue is changed,
NO NATION on earth can challenge the monstrosity of the new 4th Reich.

The empire will continue to control the world with economic and military terrorism.

To coin an old saying, "It's just business, get over it"....

Laguerre , Jan 13 2020 21:11 utc | 50
Suppose that the US wants to stay in Iraq, as they've said. What strategy could they follow to make it possible? I'm at a bit of a loss there. Full military occupation, with 100,000 US troops? Unacceptable in the US. Change the Iraqi PM? Would someone else be better? Another PM would still be subject to parliament votes. Impose a dictator? Dictators aren't in fact absolute rulers, but still depend on public acquiescence.

Anyone else have a better idea?

nemo , Jan 13 2020 21:13 utc | 51
"Now i understand why Trump did not respond that night and happily went to bed tweeting that all is well. The US knew Iran shot it down in that night, and they knew that Iran would have hurt itself more then they hurt the US from a PR and propaganda standpoint."

Except Trump's stupid tweet came 4 hours BEFORE the plane was downed. Seriously delusional stuff you are spouting.

Alpi , Jan 13 2020 21:13 utc | 52
We have been talking for about 7 days venting our anger and frustration with US empire and its puppets. Also, talking about the why's and The Who's and How's.

I think it is time to concentrate on the " now what" question. What can be done to get the US out of West Asia and keep them away?

The key to all of this and the future of West Asia's peace, IMHO, is Saudi Arabia. Iran and its allies have to concentrate and preempt in changing the Saudi regime. Time is ripe for this and they are on the defensive as well. Taking out the Saudis will:

1. Finish the Wahabi- Saud axis and weaken it tremendously (weaken ISIS, AlQueda, etc if not end them)
2. It will cut off the financial source of much of evil going on in West Asia and beyond
3. No oil, no Americans in the region and a gradual end of petrodollar and hopefully the empire(of course, easier said than done but it has to start somewhere)
4. That will also have a chain reaction in the gulf monarchies with the majority non-Sunni population. So it goes for the other West Asian fiefdoms.
5. The end of ERETZ ISRAEL
6. Realignment of North African alliances and shift away from US and the west, especially Egypt.
7. Bring OPEC under a more democratic control
8. Facilitating Belt and Road and possibly more prosperity for the region as a whole although China and Russia should be watched and dealt with very carefully. They are not the angels that they have been made to be in these forums. They are just the lesser evils, comparatively. Much less.
9. A gradual growth away fanaticism and more toward secularism. Maybe even Iran can restart the first true democracy in the region, if such a thing exists outside of books and novels.

I'm sure others can add to this list. It sounds like fantasy but like i said before it has to start somewhere and Iran is in a position to make this happen and it should be sooner than later. Once Saudis have been dealt with, comes next, Israel. 1967 lines or get the hell out of West Asia. No ifs or buts. No negotiations.

It is a nice dream anyway. I truly believe it is the only hope for the region, otherwise we are looking at 50 more years of this shit if a global war hasn't happened in between.

ted01 , Jan 13 2020 21:31 utc | 53
karlof1 @ 18

"...the Great Evil in the world resides within the Outlaw US Empire and must be expunged even if Nukes must be used. Yes, that conclusion was painful to arrive at and write, but the horrors have lasted for 3,000+ years now."

Is this the real karlof1? Or his alter ego Major karlof1 Kong riding the bomb.

When you say "...Nukes must be used." Would it be correct to assume you mean on yourselves? or some innocent third party in the Middle East?


I thought I despised you Americans, but there is a lot of self loathing here.

Guy THORNTON @45 - should be mandatory viewing. The American needs to feel abject fear, helplessness and loss before anything can even begin to change.


karlof1 , Jan 13 2020 21:34 utc | 54
juliania @20--

Sorry to confound you with my 18! Cause & Effect in this case began in 1953. If 1953 hadn't occurred and nothing similar in-between, then the dead would be alive. Peter AU 1's 24 explained the middle portion well enough. The 3,000+ years refers to the amount of time an oligarchy consisting of landed rich, rentiers and such have subjugated humanity in the West as seen by the numerous proofs offered in the numerous publications by the team Hudson assembled at the Peabody Museum at the same time the Berlin Wall was falling, which Hudson's trying to make more accessible via a series beginning with and forgive them their debts... which I very much encourage you--and everyone reading this comment--to read as it really is that important. The bits and pieces provided in the related essays at Hudson's website are not a sufficient substitute for the series of books, although they ought to be enough to motivate.

b4real , Jan 13 2020 21:38 utc | 55
@50 Laguerre

" What strategy could they follow to make it possible?"

The same strategy they use in Korea, Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, ......etc... Bribery, threats and violence.

@52 Alpi

"What can be done to get the US out of West Asia and keep them away? "

Kill a couple of few hundred American troops in a very rapid fashion or close the straits and collapse the economies.


b4real


Really?? , Jan 13 2020 21:41 utc | 56
Juliania 16
"This country has been fortunate in the past to select persons of high moral compass as our heroes."

Really?
Who?
Can you be more specific?
I am sure there are a few genuine heroes, but I am curious as to whom you mean specifically?
Anyone in the Oval Office?

Josh , Jan 13 2020 21:43 utc | 57
Finally a top Canadian businessman who points the finger for this tragedy to Trump: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51095769. Of course there's not a single politician who has the guts to speak this truth out loud. Trump, the narcissist cum laude, demonstrates how the whole world has to count on others having more common sense than the crazy Americans who bully whoever they don't like, damn the consequences. Let's not forget that it is this ongoing verbal adolescent barrage and unnecessary hyping that almost got us into a nuclear holocaust twice (1963 and 1983) - and both times we were saved by the sound and sober Russians. What if the Russian then would have been the Iranian now?
Likklemore , Jan 13 2020 21:54 utc | 58
@ ben 49

I've been reading people talking about the demise of the empire for years now. Until the reserve currency issue is changed,
NO NATION on earth can challenge the monstrosity of the new 4th Reich.


The USD$ will follow all the others that went before.

just a little more faith ben. The collapse is not one event like an explosion, "boom" it's a process over time. U.S'. 'perceived prosperity' is built on debt or by another name, printing fiat which is unsustainable.

Watch the new QE repo fail, also derivatives and prepare.
U.S. Fed is working hard to save the financial system that is leaking like a sieve. One Fed governor said it [the Repo] was a plumbing exercise. How apt. In 2006 global debt was $125 trillion now stands at $260 trillion.

I mentioned watch derivatives. These banks with the biggest derivative positions - DB, JPM, Citigroup and GS - list their official position a tad below $200 trillion. When it blows? could be another 6 years but collapse it will.

Actually, imo we are in the collapse. Why are interest rates in negative territory? It is a theft of pensioners' savings to keep the casino standing. I suspect the warmongering is a distraction.

When all else fails, they take us to war.


Peter AU1 , Jan 13 2020 21:56 utc | 59
DontBelieveEitherPr. 47 "A PR nightmare for Iran. And sadly a deserved one in this case of not closing the airspace."

It is not deserved. Decisions are easy to ridicule in hindsight, very difficult to make make at the time. War is all about deception. Did Iran know US had the ability to spoof what they were seeing on their radar screens. There is a good chance the US have made some deliberately failed attempts in the past to set them up for something like this. Iran is in a fight with an exceptionally dirty fighter that knows all the tricks. They will take more hits before this is over.
not understanding that and disparaging Iran when it does take hits is part of US calculations. That is human character. Everyone likes a winner type mindset. Part of human character.

xLemming , Jan 13 2020 21:58 utc | 60
Posted by: Josh | Jan 13 2020 21:43 utc | 57

Thanks Josh for that
Unfortunately your link doesn't work (due to the period included at the end)

Canada business chief lashes Trump over Iran plane crash

james , Jan 13 2020 22:02 utc | 61
"pr nightmare." the west can win the pr war, but the actual war is different.. the 2 aren't connected as some might like to think..
Canthama , Jan 13 2020 22:03 utc | 62
Thanks b, Elijah's newest article touches on this very subject, the situation will get hot in Iraq should the Us occupiers do not leave the country. The situation will aggravate, maybe slowly, then speed up, the US will most likely retaliate with sanctions and other usual crimes.
I do see China and Russia stepping up in Iraq and Iran, there is a clear alignment forming, backstage talks must be very busy at the moment, many countries aligning such as Qatar and Turkey, while the traditional allies of Israel and US continue to drag on their knees, such as UAE and KSA.
I do expect the war of aggression in Yemen to get hotter, since KSA is kicking the can down the road instead of true commitment to a peace deal, while in eastern Syria we may see US mercenaries being most likely killed by Syrian insurgency, lots of mercenaries there vs US soldiers.
dh , Jan 13 2020 22:06 utc | 63
@61 Here is a good example of the pr war. As you can see the US army is a real nice bunch of guys and gals doing a tough job fighting ISIS.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-51100129/inside-a-us-air-base-attacked-by-iranian-missiles

Peter AU1 , Jan 13 2020 22:10 utc | 64
james

Trump US has had problems getting vassals on board for war against Iran. With the recent incident, more have moved to Trumps side. Winning the PR war means puppet leaders are free to do as US tells them as even puppet leaders are keeping an eye on re-election and public opinion and so forth.
Trumps war on Iran will not be well publicised build up to Iraq shock and awe. It will be Trident missiles with no warning.

foolisholdman , Jan 13 2020 22:11 utc | 65
Piotr Berman | Jan 13 2020 18:34 utc | 12

I thought "his on militia" was a typo for "his own militia".

karlof1 , Jan 13 2020 22:13 utc | 66
Canthama @62--

I just read your comment at SyrPers:

"Something very odd is happening in the past 24 hours and today:

"The Qatari Emir was in Tehran yesterday, long talks with Iranian leadership.

"Also yesterday, basically all top Syrian Gov leaders (except President Assad apparently), went to Iran as well, a very rare and could say rather risky move of a large group from the Syrian leadership."

Do you have anything to add or further speculation about those events? And thanks for all your efforts!!

Peter AU1 , Jan 13 2020 22:18 utc | 67
karlof1

Almasdarnews had a piece on the Syrian delegation vist.

""Today, a high-level government delegation headed by Prime Minister Imad Khamis, began a trip to the Iranian capital, Tehran, during which they will discuss with senior officials there the current bilateral relations between the two countries and work to strengthen them at all levels, as well as accelerating developments in the regional and international arenas," Al-Watan reported, quoting a diplomatic source.

The Al-Watan source said that consultation and coordination between the two countries at this stage is necessary because after the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, the two allies need to strengthen their alliance.

The newspaper added that the delegation will include in the foreign and defense ministers."
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/high-level-syrian-govt-delegation-heads-to-iran-for-important-meeting/

Alpi , Jan 13 2020 22:22 utc | 68
@ 45

I think this is the first time the American military has tasted a pushback like this. A clear feeling of defeat and demoralization among those interviewed. It is good for them to be at the receiving end and feel helpless and to know what they have been wreaking on the region for the past 16 years. Maybe they will start questioning their role in these atrocities and pass on the word to new recruits: " Don't join in".

Bubbles , Jan 13 2020 22:27 utc | 69
Meanwhile, the US Pivot to Asia grand plan seems to be in a state of hiatus. Skirmishes and a potential uprising in the Provinces have disrupted the once all important thrust to confront China and curb it's expansion on all fronts.

OBOR strategy continues undeterred, drawing more and more interest and solidifying influence as the months pass. China quietly gives support to the Empire's targets on 2 continents and expands largely unopposed in a 3rd. The Empire's debts to finance it's interests and militarism grows at a never b4 seen rate. It's own military industrial complex robbing it's treasury almost at will, while it's foes grow in size and number.

Looking at it all in Grand Chess Board sort of way, it brings to mind Muhammed Ali's 'Rope a dope' strategy. Let the big dope punch himself out before taking him down was the essence of it.

Another of his most memorable quotes, "No Vietcong ever called me n****r".

No Chinese ever called people in the Provinces hadji either. But hey why go to all that bother of wining hearts and minds and investing in local economies when bribery, corruption and killing dissenters has worked so well in achieving your goals?

'We have the right to stay as a force of good.' Buffalo Wings Mike Pompeo

Oui , Jan 13 2020 22:39 utc | 70
Explanation #99 and counting from the US NSC:

Disclosure Mike Pompeo: Bigger Strategy of Real Deterrence

Not an imminent threat

blues , Jan 13 2020 22:51 utc | 71
In my very most humble opinion, I think this whole 'episode' (starting with the USSA droning of the very high profile military officers in Iraq) must be all just theater. A very large crowd of the most knowledgeable experts in (real) economics are quite certain that the USSA is on the brink of total collapse. So the population is in dire need of distractions. I also am pretty sure that if the USSA were to attack Iran the result would be 'instant' collapse, so that won't happen unless 'they' are slightly stupider that I suspect them to be. I think the 'world' is simply death-watching the USSA. All they have to really do is to avoid being crushed when the Big Dummy goes full Humpty Dumpty.
james , Jan 13 2020 23:04 utc | 72
@ 63 dh.. thanks.. i guess that is similar to the link @ 45 guy thornton shared? bbc verses cnn... they are all tied at the hip..

quote from one of the men at the site - ""I don't wish anyone to have that level of fear," he said. "No one in the world should ever have to feel something like that." well holy fuck... welcome to the reality you have been putting on all of the people in middle east in what seems like forever!! maybe you want to think that thru??

@64 peter au... you're right... this war porn for the kiddies back home is all used for the same purpose.. keeping all the folks back home as braindead as possible.. and yes - when the shit hits the fan, it will be without warning.. great place to be in.. thanks trump, usa, neo con warmongering group.. great place to be here in 2020..

Cynica , Jan 13 2020 23:09 utc | 73
@nemo #51

Trump's "stupid tweet" coincided with UIA Flight 752 crashing.

brian , Jan 13 2020 23:18 utc | 74
Tehran Plans to Take Trump to International Court for Soleimani's Assassination – Iran's Top Judge
Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp's Quds Force, died in Baghdad on January 3 when the vehicle he was traveling in was struck by a missile launched by a US drone. Soleimani's death brought relations between Iran and the US to a new low.

The Iranian government will seek to prosecute US President Donald Trump for the assassination of Maj. Gen. Soleimani, Iranian Chief Justice Ebrahim Raisi has said
etc

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/202001131078026671-tehran-plans-to-take-trump-to-international-court-for-soleimanis-assassination--irans-top-judge/?fbclid=IwAR3PQWAd9LWPKyULZUP15oo_FlGjBvTYPaXyPTsGXnCJr0ZC9BmN4f-0B_E

ted01 , Jan 13 2020 23:24 utc | 75
karlof1 @ 54

juliania - you poor confused women.
Classic gaslighting.

You should know that there are things you are not allowed say, no matter how polite you are.
Criticism will not be tolerated.

That explanation makes Masoud Barzani sound coherent.

Now we shall never talk of this again.

dh , Jan 13 2020 23:24 utc | 76
@72 To be fair james the average US servicemen/women are probably pretty decent guys. They genuinely don't know why anyone would try to kill them. It never occurs to them that they are being manipulated.
brian , Jan 13 2020 23:25 utc | 77
Assad Awarded Qassem Soleimani, the Highest Medal in Syria (Photo + Video)

5 hours ago News 809 visits

Assad awarded Qassem Soleimani, the highest honor in Syria (photo + video)

Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad granted the highest honor in the Republic to the commander of the "Quds Force" Qassem Soleimani, who was assassinated in an air strike carried out by the American forces, on January 3, 2020, in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

On Monday, Syrian Prime Minister, Imad Khamis, said that President al-Assad granted the commander of the "Quds Force" of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Qassem Soleimani, the highest honor in Syria.

He added, during his meeting with the first vice-president of the Iranian President, Ishaq Jahangiri, in Tehran, that "the award of the medal reveals the deep affection of Assad for Soleimani and his brothers in Iran," according to the agency "Tasnim".
https://shaamtimes.net/218591/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%AF-%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%86%D8%AD-%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%85-%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%A3%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%B9-%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%85-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B3%D9%88/

RT video
https://youtu.be/ZnRo-JkKtRE

Likklemore , Jan 13 2020 23:33 utc | 78
@ Josh 57

Minds are a changing.

Trudeau endorses Maple Leaf Foods CEO who flays the U.S on the Ukraine plane crash.

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Monday that the victims of the Ukrainian airliner shot down in Iran would still be alive if the recent escalation of tensions in the region had not happened, according to a transcript of an interview with Global News TV.

"I think if there were no tensions, if there was no escalation recently in the region, those Canadians would be right now home with their families," Trudeau said in the interview.

Trudeau said Canada did not receive a heads up before the United States killed Soleimani, and that he "obviously" would have preferred one.

"The U.S. makes its determinations. We attempt to work as an international community on big issues. But sometimes countries take actions without informing their allies," he said


james , Jan 13 2020 23:36 utc | 79
@76 dh.. i agree with you and i think the same applies to the average westerner, whether american, canuck or etc. etc.. people are manipulated without much awareness of it.. however, thinking something thru would be a good exercise for many, especially those cheering for the west in it's war on iran.. that is the part i have a hard time comprehending, absent the constant pr sell... thus the pr becomes a pivotal piece in the war movement.. they have to sell it to the public.. from reading the cbc comments on the maple leaf foods ceo, it is not apparent to me that the pr act is working fully here.. in fact, some people seem to be waking up to where this is all headed and don't like what it looks like..
dh , Jan 13 2020 23:38 utc | 80
@78 Poor Justin. He has to be so careful what he says. He doesn't want the Canadian economy to get trashed.
james , Jan 13 2020 23:38 utc | 81
@ 78 likklemore.. thanks for that.. the maple leaf ceo is getting a lot of airplay, but that bit from trudeau is a departure from his usual acceptance of the official agenda here. thanks..
imo , Jan 13 2020 23:49 utc | 82
@ blues | Jan 13 2020 22:51 utc | 71

"A very large crowd of the most knowledgeable experts in (real) economics are quite certain that the USSA is on the brink of total collapse. So the population is in dire need of distractions. ..."

This crowd of 'economists' and their like have been sprouting this scenario for decades. Why believe any of these characters? The whole basic premise of std economics is now dated and largely BS. Obviously, they have not updated on "modern monetary theory"?

There is no market economy in 'equilibrium' run on rational basis. That ideology's shell cracked with Nixon and completely broke with blow-job Willy Clinton when he had time not playing with the kids on Epstein's Express (and Island).

It is a political economy now. Hegemony first, second and third. Vassal states (plantations) and Colony-economic all the way with LBJ (& the Fed) etc. The only place 'normal' economics applies is at the margins for the working class -- like your credit card and the local hardware store.

However, your general sentiment is on the mark if you change the key phrase from "brink of total collapse" to " brink of major reset."

Sasha , Jan 13 2020 23:50 utc | 83
It has already started...The Mahdi is coming! En marche!

Soleimani´s Curse....

Floods cause millionaire damage to Israeli fighter jets in their hangars

Sasha , Jan 13 2020 23:59 utc | 84
Damage count...

'Pence secretly visits Ain Al-Asad base, attacked by Iran'

He is probably in the hope that someone would retaliate by killing him so as to he becomes an American hero....but to no avail...in his insignificance...

The current state of affairs in the US and for extension in the resto fo the world is a byprosuct of at least three men in the WH who feel so littel that they think they need to produce so much noise to be noticed...

b4real , Jan 14 2020 0:07 utc | 85
CNN interview American troops who survived attack

b4real

Rd , Jan 14 2020 0:16 utc | 86
Do you have anything to add or further speculation about those events? And thanks for all your efforts!!

Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 13 2020 22:13 utc | 66


RT is now reporting on the reason for the assassination. Iran and KSA were about to settle differences. the empire was not too happy about that. these meeting may well be related to regional settlements among the regional countries.

Dennis , Jan 14 2020 0:17 utc | 87
@ karlof1 (18)

JFK did not order the Diem assassinaton. The "cables" that purport to show that were long ago revealed to have been forged by the infamous EH Hunt. Kennedy's Ambassador Lodge (a Republican) conspired with CIA station chief Lucien Conein and a small group of administation officials in Washington to remove Diem when JFK was away on a weekend. I believe Lodge was on his way back to US where JFK was going to fire him to his face over this when he was himself assassinated.

jayc , Jan 14 2020 0:17 utc | 88
Apparently one of the issues for Iraq is that its oil revenue gets directed to an account at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, and access to that account would be the first order of any prospective retaliatory sanctions by the U.S., and it was likely that account that Trump referred to when warning of crippling sanctions if Iraq should attempt to remove US / NATO forces.

https://news.yahoo.com/u-could-reportedly-bar-iraq-174900741.html

Carson , Jan 14 2020 0:30 utc | 89
@85, remarkable video. Damage is more extensive than I expected. Grateful none of our troops was killed or physically injured (if that report is correct). However, those soldiers certainly experienced trauma and will likely endure long-lasting mental and emotional effects.

It all makes me angry that our President so cavalierly put our young men and women in harms way. They should be home with family.

Likklemore , Jan 14 2020 0:30 utc | 90
@ james 81

Quite the turn. On Saturday Trudeau wanted "clarity" asked Iran " if it [the downing of the plane] was a mistake?"
I suspect Trudeau received a lot of emails from Quebec..Trudeau's party lost out to BQ; understand a majority of Quebecois are not enamoured or impressed by the brain dead D.C. leadership.

Carson , Jan 14 2020 0:33 utc | 91
I hope that Iran can get the protests under control peacefully. ISTM that the Iranian protesters and the Venezuelan protesters both appear to be upper class. I don't see peasants protesting; I see a privileged class that probably stand to gain in the event there is a regime change.
Theophrastus , Jan 14 2020 0:35 utc | 92
Soraya Sepahpour and Finian Cunningham has a very interesting take on this. Their hypothesis fits remarkably well, in regard to motive, means, and opportunity.

https://sputniknews.com/columnists/202001131078026961-iran-jet-disaster-setup/

Jen , Jan 14 2020 0:40 utc | 93
Really @ 56:

You're not the only one looking for genuine heroes of high moral compass.

Iran Cleric: We Have No Good Revenge Targets, Only US Heroes Are SpongeBob and Spider-Man

The learned mullah laments:

"Are we supposed to take out Spider-Man and SpongeBob? ... All of their heroes are cartoon characters."
b4real , Jan 14 2020 0:41 utc | 94
@89 Carson


Thanks but props go to Canthama, vid purloined from his twitter feed. Recommend bookmarking his twitter, Link to Canthama's twitter feed he is one of those extraordinary persons. No twitter account necessary.

b4real

karlof1 , Jan 14 2020 0:48 utc | 95
Rd @86--

Do you have a link to that info? I found nada on RT or on its Twitter, nor is there anything at Sputnik.

Dennis @87--

Outlaw US Empire assassination policy isn't 100% governed by POTUS as you show.

james , Jan 14 2020 0:49 utc | 96
@90 likklemore... i think its true what you say about quebec.. ask lozion, lol! either way i commend him for putting some space in our position from the usas!
Peter AU1 , Jan 14 2020 1:01 utc | 97
Jen
Not all are cartoon characters. Would be well worth Iran taking a look at who receives medals and awards in the US. Captain of a certain ship comes to mind. But forget the heroes. Pompeo would make a good 'eye for an eye'. Secretary of state and a nasty one at that. His job is somewhat similar to Soleimani's.
Virgile , Jan 14 2020 1:05 utc | 98
If Trump is not reelected, I don't give much of his head. Thousands are ready to make him pay for his crimes. He and his advisors will remain the targets of revenge for years to come
Liklemore , Jan 14 2020 1:40 utc | 99
@ Karlof1 95

I read it as well, ready to make nice - linked in this article sourced to

The Independent.co.uk


Writer Kim Sengupta from The Independent explains this incredible twist in the story:

Iraq's prime minister revealed that he was due to be meeting the Iranian commander to discuss moves being made to ease the confrontation between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia – the crux of so much of strife in the Middle East and beyond.

Adil Abdul-Mahdi was quite clear: "I was supposed to meet him in the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered from the Saudis to Iran."

The prime minister also disclosed that Donald Trump had called him to ask him to mediate following the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad. According to Iraqi officials contact was made with a number of militias as well as figures in Tehran. The siege of the embassy was lifted and the US president personally thanked Abdul-Mahdi for his help.

There was nothing to suggest to the Iraqis that it was unsafe for Soleimani to travel to Baghdad – quite the contrary. This suggests that Trump helped lure the Iranian commander to a place where he could be killed.

Lurker in the Dark , Jan 14 2020 1:44 utc | 100
Red @ 29 -

I posted what I believe might be a translated version of the document you linked to above, but I as well do not speak the language.

This may be a related Twitter stream on the Iranians ruling out human error and pointing the finger at U.S. electronic warfare malfeasance being used to trick the Iranians or their systems into making the shoot down.

https://twitter.com/khoosh_/status/1216782662968455168?s=20

University of Tehran Cyperspace Research Lab:

On the matter of the Ukrainian plane accident in Iran, the role of human error has been ruled out [as it has been discovered that] deception operations were carried out on the air control & command system.

, This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted. Working... Your comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment Name:

Email:

URL:
Allowed HTML Tags:

< B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
< U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
< A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)

Working... " The MoA Week In Review - Open Thread 2020-03 | Main

next page "

Verify your Comment Previewing your Comment

[Jan 14, 2020] Trump's Killing of Soleimani New "Worst Mistake in US History" by Kevin Barrett

Jan 14, 2020 | www.unz.com

Kevin Barrett January 12, 2020 2,000 Words 135 Comments Reply Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information


=> List of Bookmarks
◄ ► Bookmark ◄ ► ▲ ▼ Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Add to Library Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments Search Clear Cancel

Donald Trump occasionally utters unspeakable truths. In March 2018 he called Bush Jr.'s decision to invade Iraq "the worst single mistake in US history." Earlier, Trump had said that Bush should have been impeached for launching that disastrous war.

Yet on January 2 2020 Trump made a much bigger mistake: He launched all-out war with Iran -- a war that will be joined by millions of anti-US non-Iranians, including Iraqis -- by murdering Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the legendary hero who defeated ISIS, alongside the popular Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Gen. Soleimani was by far the most popular figure in Iran, where he polled over 80% popularity, and throughout much of the Middle East. He was also adored by millions even outside that region, non-Muslims as well as Muslims. Many Christians throughout the world loved Gen. Soleimani, whose campaign against ISIS saved the lives of thousands of their co-religionists. Even Sunni Muslims (the people, not the billionaire playboy sheikhs) generally loved and admired the Shia Muslim Gen. Soleimani, a saintly warrior-monk who was uncommonly spiritual, morally impeccable, and the most accomplished military genius of this young century.

The strategic stupidity of Trump's order to murder Soleimani cannot be exaggerated. This shocking, dastardly murder, committed while Soleimani was on an American-encouraged peace mission, has unleashed a "Pearl Harbor effect" that will galvanize not just the nation of Iran, but other forces in the region and around the world. Just as the shock effect of Pearl Harbor helped the American war party overcome domestic political divisions and unite the nation in its resolve for vengeance, so has the Soleimani murder galvanized regional groups, led by Islamic Iran and Iraq, in their dedication to obliterate every last trace of any US-Israeli presence in the region, no matter how long it takes, by any means necessary.

Most Americans still don't understand the towering stature of Soleimani. Perhaps some comparisons will be helpful.

To understand the effect on Iran and the region, imagine that Stalin had succeeded in murdering George Patton, Dwight Eisenhower, and Douglas MacArthur, all on the same day, in 1946. These US generals, like Soleimani, were very popular, in part because they had just won a huge war against an enemy viewed as an embodiment of pure evil. How would Americans have reacted to such a crime? They would have united to destroy Stalin and the Soviet Union, no matter how long it took, no matter what sacrifices were necessary. That is how hundreds of millions of people will react to the martyrdom of Gen. Soleimani.

But even that comparison does not do justice to the situation. Patton, Eisenhower, and MacArthur were secular figures in an increasingly secular culture. Had Stalin murdered them, their deaths would not have risen to the level of religious martyrdom. Americans' motivation to avenge their deaths would not have been as deep and long-lasting, nor as charged with the avid desire to sacrifice everything in pursuit of the goal, in comparison with the millions of future avengers of the death of Gen. Soleimani.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/4nKSlbFCJwo?feature=oembed

The tragedy, from the US point of view, is that this didn't need to happen. Iran, a medium-sized player in a tough neighborhood, is a natural ally of the United States. As Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in The Grand Chessboard , "Iran provides stabilizing support for the new political diversity of Central Asia. Its independence acts as a barrier to any long-term Russian threat to American interests in the Persian Gulf region." (p. 47) Obama, guided by Brzezinski and his acolytes, set the US on a sensible path toward cordial relations with Iran -- only to see his foreign policy triumph sabotaged by the pro-Zionist Deep State and finally shredded by Netanyahu's puppets Trump and Pompeo. Iran, dominated by principled anti-Zionists, is a thorn in the side of Israel, so the unstable Iranophobe Trump was inserted into the presidency to undo Obama's handiwork and reassert total Israeli control over US policy -- the same total control initially cemented by the 9/11 false flag.

If the murder of Soleimani bears comparison to Pearl Harbor, it also echoes the October 1914 killing of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo, the first domino in a series that ended in a world war. The dominos are lined up the same way today, though it may take longer for all of them to fall. Due to the enormity of its psychological effect, the Soleimani assassination irreversibly sets the US at permanent war with Iran and the rest of the Axis of Resistance. That war can end in only two ways: The destruction of Islamic Iran, or the complete elimination of the US military presence in the region. The first alternative is unacceptable not only to Iran, its regional friends, and the conscience of the world, but also to Russia and China, who would be next in line for destruction if Iran is annihilated. The second alternative is probably unacceptable to the permanent National Security State that governs the US no matter who is in office, and to Israel and its global network (and its agents in the "US" National Security State). So the irresistible force will soon be meeting the immovable object. It is difficult to see how this could possibly end well.

Ironically, given Trump's well-justified scorn for Bush's invasion of Iraq, the first front of the world war unleashed by Soleimani's killing will be in that long-suffering nation, whose government has just ordered US troops to depart posthaste. If Trump wants to keep US forces in Iraq he is going to have to re-invade that nation, attack and destroy its government and military, fight a long-term counterinsurgency (this time against the vast majority of the population) and take far more casualties than Bush Jr. did.

Trump's decision to martyr the great Iranian general and the celebrated Iraqi commander was perfectly timed to unite Iraq against the American occupation. Prior to the murder, Iraq was in the midst of color-revolution chaos, as demonstrators protested against not just the US and Israel, the real culprits in the destruction of their country, but also Iran, Iraqi politicians, and other targets. Those demonstrations, and the murders that marred them, were orchestrated by Gladio style covert US forces. As Iraqi Prime Minster Abdul Mahdi explained :

" I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the construction instead (of an American company). Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement. When I refused, he threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my premiership.

"Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me. I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us rescinding our deal with the Chinese.

"After this, when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting both protestors and security personnel alike (just as Trump had threatened, he would do), I received a new call from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we kept on talking about this 'third party'.

"I was supposed to meet him [Soleimani] later in the morning when he was killed. He came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered to the Iranians from the Saudis (as part of a peace initiative)."

So Trump lured Soleimani to Tehran with a peace initiative, then ambushed him. That's why Soleimani was traveling openly on a commercial flight to Baghdad International Airport. He thought he was under US protection.

Abdul Mahdi's explanation rings true. It reflects the views of most Iraqis, who will be galvanized by Trump's atrocious actions to resume their insurgency against US occupation.

As Iraqis continue to attack the hated US presence in their country, Trump will undoubtedly blame Iran, whatever its actual role. So this time the Iranians will have no motivation to avoid helping the Iraqi liberation struggle -- they would be blamed even if they didn't. Though Soleimani was a relatively America-friendly stabilizing force after the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan -- the claim that he was behind IEDs that killed US troops is a ridiculous lie -- in the wake of his death Iran will respond positively to Iraqi requests for help in its national liberation struggle against the hated US occupier.

A rekindled anti-US insurgency in Iraq, and various forms of ambiguous/deniable retaliation for the murder of Gen. Soleimani throughout the region and the world, will force Trump up the escalation ladder. Iran, and the larger eject-the-US-from-the-Mideast project, will not back down, though they may occasionally stage tactical retreats for appearance's sake. The only way Trump could "win" would be by completely destroying Iran. Even if Russia and China allowed that, an unlikely prospect, Trump or any US president who "won" that kind of war would be remembered as the worst war criminal in world history, and the US would lose all its soft power and with it its empire.

Russia now faces the same kind of decision it had to make when the Zionist-dominated US tried to destroy Syria: stand by and let Tehran be annihilated, with Moscow next in line; or use its considerable military power to save its ally. Putin will have no choice but to support Iran, just as he supported Syria. China, too, will need to ensure that the USA loses its Zionist-driven war on Iran. Otherwise Beijing would risk facing the same fate as Tehran.

Even if the only help it gets from Russia and China is covert, Iran is in a strong position to wage asymmetric war against the US presence in the Middle East. Almost two decades ago, the $250 million war game Millennium Challenge 2002 blew up in the neocons' faces, as Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper commanded Iranian forces against the US and steered them to victory. Though some technological developments since then may favor the US, as Dr. Alan Sabrosky recently pointed out on my radio show , others favor Iran, which now has missiles of sufficient quality and quantity to rain down hell on US bases, annihilate much of if not all of Israel, and send every US ship anywhere near the Persian Gulf to the bottom of the ocean. (Anti-ship missiles have far outstripped naval defenses, and Iran has concealed immense reserves of them deep in the Zagros Mountains overlooking the Persian Gulf.)

So Trump or whoever follows him will eventually face a choice: Accept defeat and withdraw all American bases and forces in the region; or continue up an escalation ladder that inexorably leads to World War III. The higher up the ladder he goes, the harder it will be to jump off.

The apocalyptic scenario may not be accidental. Mike Pompeo, who is widely believed to have duped Trump into ordering the killing of Gen. Soleimani, may have done so not only on behalf of the extremist Netanyahu faction in Israel, but also in service to an apocalyptic Christian Zionist program that yearns for planetary nuclear destruction . Pompeo is ardently awaiting "the rapture," the culmination of Christian Zionist history, when a global nuclear war begins at Megiddo Hill in Occupied Palestine and consumes the planet, sending everyone to hell except the Christian Zionists themselves, who are "beamed up" Star Trek fashion by none other than Jesus himself.

Whether it goes down in radioactive flames or in a kinder and gentler way, the US empire, as unstable as its leaders, is nearing the final stages of collapse. "Very stable genius" Trump and Armageddonite Pompeo may have hastened the inevitable when they ordered the fateful killing of Gen. Soleimani.

[Jan 14, 2020] Trump First OK'd Killing Soleimani 7 Months Ago If Americans Killed

Jan 14, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

me name=

Skip to main content

https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777 Trump First OK'd Killing Soleimani 7 Months Ago "If Americans Killed" by Tyler Durden Mon, 01/13/2020 - 13:05 0 SHARES

There's been a number of theories to emerge surrounding President Trump's incredibly risky decision to assassinate IRGC Guds Force chief Qasem Soleimani, including that it was all the brainchild of hawkish Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

But an emerging reporting consensus does indicate that the public justification for the strike -- that Soleimani posed an "imminent" threat as he was orchestrating an attack against American troops and sites in the region -- was manufactured based on flimsy intelligence. The evolving and contradictory statements within the administration itself demonstrates at least this much.

And now according to the latest NBC bombshell it's becoming clear that the top IRGC general's killing was actually months in the works :

President Donald Trump authorized the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani seven months ago if Iran's increased aggression resulted in the death of an American, according to five current and former senior administration officials.

2018 file photo, Getty images.

Apparently the "option" to take him out was already on the "menu" of Pentagon contingencies long before Soleimani's fateful Jan.3 early morning passage through Baghdad International Airport.

Reports NBC based on multiple officials , "The presidential directive in June came with the condition that Trump would have final signoff on any specific operation to kill Soleimani, officials said."

The Dec.27 Kataeb Hezbollah rocket attack on a US base in Kirkuk then became a core element of the official rationale, given it killed an American contractor later identified as 33-year old Sacramento resident Nawres Waleed Hamid, who had been assisting the Army as a linguist.

The new report confirms further that it was both National Security Advisor at the time John Bolton as well as Mike Pompeo that had Trump's ear on the subject .

"There have been a number of options presented to the president over the course of time" related to bold steps to curtail Iranian aggression, a senior administration official told NBC, which reports further:

The president's message was "that's only on the table if they hit Americans," according to a person briefed on the discussion.

The origins of the plan to assassinate the top IRGC elite force general and popular "national hero" inside Iran actually evolved initially out of 2017 discussions involving Trump's national security adviser at the time, retired Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster.

Burning convoy near Baghdad International Airport, via Iraq government/EPA.

The report explains :

The idea of killing Soleimani came up in discussions in 2017 that Trump's national security adviser at the time, retired Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, was having with other administration officials about the president's broader national security strategy, officials said. But it was just one of a host of possible elements of Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran and "was not something that was thought of as a first move," said a former senior administration official involved in the discussions.

The idea did become more serious after McMaster was replaced in April 2018 by Bolton , a longtime Iran hawk and advocate for regime change in Tehran. Bolton left the White House in September -- he said he resigned, while Trump said he fired him -- following policy disagreements on Iran and other issues.

So there it is: Bolton's ultra-hawkish influence is still in effect at the White House.

Congratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani. Long in the making, this was a decisive blow against Iran's malign Quds Force activities worldwide. Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran.

-- John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) January 3, 2020

And the torch is being carried further by Mike Pompeo.

But again while none of this should come as a surprise, it's yet further proof on top of a growing body of evidence that Washington is yet again telling bald-faced lies to the public about a major event that could lead America straight back into another disastrous Middle East quagmire. Tags Politics

https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4879&num_ads=18&cf=1258.5.zerohedge%20190919 Show 281 Comments Login

ZeroHedge Search Today's Top Stories Loading... Contact Information Tips: [email protected]

General: [email protected]

Legal: [email protected]

Advertising: Click here

Abuse/Complaints: [email protected] Suggested Reading Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide

It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer , our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure . Here's our Cookie Policy .

How to report offensive comments

Notice on Racial Discrimination .

Copyright ©2009-2020 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD Want more of the news you won't get anywhere else? Thank you for subscribing! Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again. Sign up now and get a curated daily recap of the most popular and important stories delivered right to your inbox. Please enter a valid email

[Jan 14, 2020] Craig Murray

Jan 14, 2020 | www.unz.com

January 4, 2020 2,300 Words 73 Comments Reply Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information


=> List of Bookmarks ◄ ► ◄ ► ▲ ▼ Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Add to Library Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments Search Clear Cancel

In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani, Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning "Imminent attacks" on US citizens. It is a careful choice of word. Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence .

Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu's government and then Blair's, the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of "pre-emptive self-defence" against "imminent" attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept. Including me.

What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here "Imminent" – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either "soon" or "about to happen". An attack may be deemed "imminent", according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of "intelligence" you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again.

I am not inventing the Bethlehem Doctrine. It has been the formal legal justification for drone strikes and targeted assassinations by the Israeli, US and UK governments for a decade. Here it is in academic paper form, published by Bethlehem after he left government service (the form in which it is adopted by the US, UK and Israeli Governments is classified information ).

So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were "imminent" he is not using the word in the normal sense in the English language. It is no use asking him what, where or when these "imminent" attacks were planned to be. He is referencing the Bethlehem Doctrine under which you can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something.

The idea that killing an individual who you have received information is going to attack you, but you do not know when, where or how, can be justified as self-defence, has not gained widespread acceptance – or indeed virtually any acceptance – in legal circles outside the ranks of the most extreme devoted neo-conservatives and zionists. Daniel Bethlehem became the FCO's Chief Legal Adviser, brought in by Jack Straw, precisely because every single one of the FCO's existing Legal Advisers believed the Iraq War to be illegal. In 2004, when the House of Commons was considering the legality of the war on Iraq, Bethlehem produced a remarkable paper for consideration which said that it was legal because the courts and existing law were wrong , a defence which has seldom succeeded in court.

(b) following this line, I am also of the view that the wider principles of the law on self-defence also require closer scrutiny. I am not persuaded that the approach of doctrinal purity reflected in the Judgments of the International Court of Justice in this area provide a helpful edifice on which a coherent legal regime, able to address the exigencies of contemporary international life and discourage resort to unilateral action, is easily crafted;

The key was that the concept of "imminent" was to change:

The concept of what constitutes an "imminent" armed attack will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats

In the absence of a respectable international lawyer willing to argue this kind of tosh, Blair brought in Bethlehem as Chief Legal Adviser, the man who advised Netanyahu on Israel's security wall and who was willing to say that attacking Iraq was legal on the basis of Saddam's "imminent threat" to the UK, which proved to be non-existent. It says everything about Bethlehem's eagerness for killing that the formulation of the Bethlehem Doctrine on extrajudicial execution by drone came after the Iraq War, and he still gave not one second's thought to the fact that the intelligence on the "imminent threat" can be wrong. Assassinating people on the basis of faulty intelligence is not addressed by Bethlehem in setting out his doctrine. The bloodlust is strong in this one.

There are literally scores of academic articles, in every respected journal of international law, taking down the Bethlehem Doctrine for its obvious absurdities and revolting special pleading. My favourite is this one by Bethlehem's predecessor as the FCO Chief Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood and his ex-Deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst.

I addressed the Bethlehem Doctrine as part of my contribution to a book reflecting on Chomsky 's essay "On the Responsibility of Intellectuals"

In the UK recently, the Attorney General gave a speech in defence of the UK's drone policy, the assassination of people – including British nationals – abroad. This execution without a hearing is based on several criteria, he reassured us. His speech was repeated slavishly in the British media. In fact, the Guardian newspaper simply republished the government press release absolutely verbatim, and stuck a reporter's byline at the top.

The media have no interest in a critical appraisal of the process by which the British government regularly executes without trial. Yet in fact it is extremely interesting. The genesis of the policy lay in the appointment of Daniel Bethlehem as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Chief Legal Adviser. Jack Straw made the appointment, and for the first time ever it was external, and not from the Foreign Office's own large team of world-renowned international lawyers. The reason for that is not in dispute. Every single one of the FCO's legal advisers had advised that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and Straw wished to find a new head of the department more in tune with the neo-conservative world view. Straw went to extremes. He appointed Daniel Bethlehem, the legal 'expert' who provided the legal advice to Benjamin Netanyahu on the 'legality' of building the great wall hemming in the Palestinians away from their land and water resources. Bethlehem was an enthusiastic proponent of the invasion of Iraq. He was also the most enthusiastic proponent in the world of drone strikes.

Bethlehem provided an opinion on the legality of drone strikes which is, to say the least, controversial. To give one example, Bethlehem accepts that established principles of international law dictate that lethal force may be used only to prevent an attack which is 'imminent'. Bethlehem argues that for an attack to be 'imminent' does not require it to be 'soon'. Indeed you can kill to avert an 'imminent attack' even if you have no information on when and where it will be. You can instead rely on your target's 'pattern of behaviour'; that is, if he has attacked before, it is reasonable to assume he will attack again and that such an attack is 'imminent'.

There is a much deeper problem: that the evidence against the target is often extremely dubious. Yet even allowing the evidence to be perfect, it is beyond me that the state can kill in such circumstances without it being considered a death penalty imposed without trial for past crimes, rather than to frustrate another 'imminent' one. You would think that background would make an interesting story. Yet the entire 'serious' British media published the government line, without a single journalist, not one, writing about the fact that Bethlehem's proposed definition of 'imminent' has been widely rejected by the international law community. The public knows none of this. They just 'know' that drone strikes are keeping us safe from deadly attack by terrorists, because the government says so, and nobody has attempted to give them other information

Remember, this is not just academic argument, the Bethlehem Doctrine is the formal policy position on assassination of Israel, the US and UK governments. So that is lie one. When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning "imminent" attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which "imminent" is a "concept" which means neither "soon" nor "definitely going to happen". To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem.

Let us now move on to the next lie, which is being widely repeated, this time originated by Donald Trump, that Soleimani was responsible for the "deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans". This lie has been parroted by everybody, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Really? Who were they? When and where? While the Bethlehem Doctrine allows you to kill somebody because they might be going to attack someone, sometime, but you don't know who or when, there is a reasonable expectation that if you are claiming people have already been killed you should be able to say who and when.

The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11, in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90% of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf satellites, and less than 10% of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to Iran.

This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which, regardless of party, are beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money. It is, the USA affirms, the Sunnis who are the allies and the Shias who are the enemy. Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni, every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni, the Benghazi attack was by Sunnis, Isil are Sunni, Al Nusra are Sunni, the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis.

Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which the Shia forces of Soleimani were responsible? Is there a list? It is of course a simple lie. Its tenuous connection with truth relates to the Pentagon's estimate – suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became the designated enemy – that back during the invasion of Iraq itself , 83% of US troop deaths were at the hands of Sunni resistance and 17% of of US troop deaths were at the hands of Shia resistance, that is 603 troops. All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani, remarkably.

Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion. The Iraqi Shia militias – whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion. The idea that the killing of invading American troops was somehow illegal or illegitimate is risible. Plainly the US propaganda that Soleimani was "responsible for hundreds of American deaths" is intended, as part of the justification for his murder, to give the impression he was involved in terrorism, not legitimate combat against invading forces. The idea that the US has the right to execute those who fight it when it invades is an absolutely stinking abnegation of the laws of war.

As I understand it, there is very little evidence that Soleimani had active operational command of Shia militias during the invasion, and in any case to credit him personally with every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense. But even if Soleimani had personally supervised every combat success, these were legitimate acts of war. You cannot simply assassinate opposing generals who fought you, years after you invade.

The final, and perhaps silliest lie, is Vice President Mike Pence's attempt to link Soleimani to 9/11. There is absolutely no link between Soleimani and 9/11, and the most strenuous efforts by the Bush regime to find evidence that would link either Iran or Iraq to 9/11 (and thus take the heat off their pals the al-Saud who were actually responsible) failed. Yes, it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to Afghanistan. But there is zero evidence, as the 9/11 report specifically stated, that the Iranians knew what they were planning, or that Soleimani personally was involved. This is total bullshit. 9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.

Soleimani actually was involved in intelligence and logistical cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan post 9/11 (the Taliban were his enemies too, the shia Tajiks being a key part of the US aligned Northern Alliance). He was in Iraq to fight ISIL.

The final aggravating factor in the Soleimani murder is that he was an accredited combatant general of a foreign state which the world – including the USA – recognises. The Bethlehem Doctrine specifically applies to "non-state actors". Unlike all of the foregoing, this next is speculation, but I suspect that the legal argument in the Pentagon ran that Soleimani is a non-state actor when in Iraq, where the Shia militias have a semi-official status.

But that does not wash. Soleimani is a high official in Iran who was present in Iraq as a guest of the Iraqi government, to which the US government is allied. This greatly exacerbates the illegality of his assassination still further.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. (Republished from CraigMurray.org by permission of author or representative)

utu , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 6:16 am GMT

Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations by Ronen Bergman

The book's title is inspired by a statement in the Talmud: "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first".

And there is another dictum in Talmud: Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog ("Kill the Best Gentiles").

Igor Bundy , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:16 am GMT
We know Israel does this all the time but to non state actors. I dont think in recent history anyone has openly target a state actor in such a criminal fashion because it is an act of war and not only that but considered barbaric. To ask for mediation and then to assassinate the messengers is an act that not even the mongols took part in and they considered it enough to wipe out any such parties..
Parfois1 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:25 am GMT
Good expose about the creative criminal minds twisting language and decency to justify murder and war crimes...

A new legal doctrine to justify crimes in an industrial scale for the good of UK-USrael.

However they might be right in claiming that Gen. Soleimani had killed or was about to kill many "Americans" – not strictly US citizens – but the honorary American terrorist foot soldiers fighting American wars in the Middle East.

Ghali , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:56 am GMT
Do terrorists act legally? The U.S. is a terrorist organisation. It is misleading to call the US a nation or a country. Soleimani is widely-acknowledged as the architect of the successful campaign to defeat the U.S.-Israel sponsored terrorists (ISIS and al-Qaeda) in Syria and Iraq. The sad irony is that Iran was a major U.S. "ally" during the U.S. aggression against Afghanistan and more importantly against Iraq. Without Iran (the Eastern front) the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq. Iran played a major military role helping the U.S. against the Iraqi Resistance.
Priss Factor , says: Website Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 8:18 am GMT
Hollywood creatures are the vilest scum.

Hollywood's fake history vs. actual history on Israel's role in the Iraq war.

Hollywood's fake history vs. actual history on Israel's role in the Iraq war. for more https://t.co/lTonBw8VGF pic.twitter.com/1pxVcmIqhq

-- Adam Green (@Know_More_News) January 12, 2020

Dube , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:12 am GMT
While Ahmadinejad never actually said that Israel would be driven into the sea, that statement was imminent, therefore it was legitimate to quote it.
Zumbuddi , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:41 am GMT
How hideous that this is named Bethlehem, "The place of healing; place of birth of the Prince of Peace.'

More appropriate to call it the ESTHER doctrine, or PURIM doctrine.

The Hebrew text provides no solid evidence that Haman sought to kill Jews: the notion is based on Mordecha the Spy and self-serving Snitch.

Netanyahu has made public statements linking today's Iran to the Purim doctrine that Jews celebrate to this day.

In other words, Jews demonstrate a clear patter of "imminent threat" to kill those who resist Zionist – Anglo dominence.

Under this Purim (Bethlehem) doctrine, therefore, it is not only legitimate, it is necessary -- a Constitutional obligation -- that the American government Kill Jews who pose an Imminent Threat to the American -- and Iranian -- people.

tim hardacre , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:47 am GMT
As a retired international lawyer I am of the opinion Mr. Murray sets out fact and law impressively . He says everything that is needed to be said

Good for the FCO legal team in resisting the invasion of Iraq. I do know at least one British regiment sought independent legal advice before accepting orders.

Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:50 am GMT
Great article Mr. Murray, very needed in these times of almost universal deceit.

Mr. Bethlehem displays the famous Jewish quality of chutzpah – the quality of a bit who has killed his parents in cold blood but begs the judge for mercy because he is an orphan – when he decided to simply change the law.

I wish I had some of that Jewish privilege, that way I too could go around robbing and killing and then simply change the law to get away Scot free.

Gallum , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:52 am GMT
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani attended Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland, graduating in 1995 with an M.Phil. degree in Law. Rouhani is close to Jack Straw and Straw is very close to Lord Levy. And Lord Levy is very close to Lord Rothschild. Jack Straw says "in Hassan Rouhani's Iran, you can feel the winds change." "Winds changing" is an understatement. They are gust winds blowing at high velocity directly from the City of London and from Israel's direction. All very high level British intrigue going on here in Iran. It was Jack Straw who appointed Daniel Bethlehem who developed the "Bethlehem Doctrine" used in justifying the assassination of General Soleinami under false pretenses Pompeo probably knew about when he informed President Trump. From 1979 to 2013, Rouhani held a number of important positions in the Velayat-e Faqih's key institutions, as "the man in power but in the shadows." Hassan Rouhani's job it appears considering his education and position is through Shia law is to continue to perpetuate the spread of the "revolution." The "revolution" is designed to keep confrontation in place. Why not gradually move from "revolutionary Shia" to a more conciliatory peaceful religious position? Iran's Mohammad Javad Zarif who is now an Iranian career diplomat, spent 20 years from the age of 17 studying in the United States. Kind of makes us look harder at John Kerry and whether or not his connections to Mohammad Javad Zarif have anything to do with all that is unfolding here?
Nonny Mouse , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 10:41 am GMT
They all have fake names. Netanyahu is really Mileikowski. Ben Gurion was really Gruen. But for a British Jew to grab the name Bethlehem is a real attack on Christianity.
Parfois1 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 10:43 am GMT
@Ghali

The sad irony is that Iran was a major U.S. "ally" during the U.S. aggression against Afghanistan and more importantly against Iraq. Without Iran (the Eastern front) the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq. Iran played a major military role helping the U.S. against the Iraqi Resistance.

Well, what can one say? First, there is the official narrative; then there are the alternative narratives in their many fashions and narrations; and then there is the oddball narrative that defies logic and reason. Iran allied with Usrael?

It may look (and is) an exorbitant stretch of imagination to come to such a view. But it is not unique; it is not much different from the often-heard impossible claim here at UR that Nazi Germany was allied with the Soviet Union in 1939!

anonymous [382] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 10:51 am GMT
@RouterAl

Can I be the only person to think that from the moment Hitler transported his first shipment of Haavara Agreement Jews to Palestine there has not been a moments piece in that corner of the globe.

Can you be the only person . . .?

Possibly.

"There has not been a moment's piece [sic] in that corner of the globe" since Herzl began attempting to co-opt the Ottoman Empire in ~1895.

Balfour ramped it up a notch in 1917; at the urging of Louis Brandeis, Woodrow Wilson endorsed Balfour's plan.

NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 11:01 am GMT
@Wally Note here that Wally fails to condemn Trump's illegal act of war on a national of a nation which Congress has not declared war upon.

Yes Wally, Obama was a war criminal who deserves to hang for his crimes, but if you are to retain any credibility with which to continue your mission to expose the Holohoax, you should also acknowledge that Trump is a war criminal too who, based on precedent, also deserves to hang. Your loyalty is clearly misplaced.

NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 11:09 am GMT
@Dube I believe that what he actually said was that, "Israel would disappear from the pages of history". The usual liars reported this as "Iran would wipe Israel off the map".

If the West is to fight back and survive then the first battle should surely be against the lying media organs that bear so much responsibility for the shit-storm that is on the way.

SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 11:29 am GMT
@Parfois1 Hillary Mann Leverett negotiated with Iranian counterparts at United Nations and gained Iranian assistance in finding partners to defeat Taliban
March 31, 2015

~15 min:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?325094-3/washington-journal-hillary-mann-leverett-mark-dubowitz-iran-nuclear-negotiations

Leverett:

"Unlike Mr. Dubowitz and many in Washington, I have actually negotiated with current Iranian officials, and it was an effective negotiation. [it resulted] in a state enormously not only overthrow the Taliban, but set up a proper government in Afghanistan. There is just no evidence whatsoever that continuing to bludgeon them and pressure them is going to do anything to give us concessions."

Leverett participated in a 'round-table discussion' with Mark Dubowitz of Foundation for Defense of Democracy (FDD).

Dubowitz's spiel was boilerplate: "Saddam killed 200,000 of his own people, he is pursuing nuclear weapons," blah blah blah.

On Jan 12 2020 on C Span, https://www.c-span.org/event/?467915/washington-journal-01122020 first Ilan Goldenberg of Center for New American Security (George Soros, major funder), then Michael Rubin of American Enterprise Institute * recited the same talking points: only the names were changed, a tacit acknowledgement that the original, Iraqi-based set of names were dead.

*AEI Board of Trustees:
AEI is governed by a Board of Trustees, composed of leading business and financial executives.
Daniel A. D'Aniello, Chairman
Cofounder and Chairman
The Carlyle Group

Clifford S. Asness
Managing and Founding Principal
AQR Capital Management, LLC

The Honorable Richard B. Cheney

Peter H. Coors
Vice Chairman of the Board
Molson Coors Brewing Company

Harlan Crow
Chairman
Crow Holdings

Ravenel B. Curry III
Chief Investment Officer
Eagle Capital Management, LLC

-- also interesting comments from the audience @ 11 min

Leverett has also repeated, on numerous occasions, that sanctions –" a weapon of war" -- are counterproductive and, in the case of Iraq, "killed a million Iraqis, half of them children."

Biff , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 11:31 am GMT
@NoseytheDuke

I believe that what he actually said was that, "Israel would disappear from the pages of history".

More precisely the quote says "The Israel regime would disappear .." meaning the Israel government – not the country and its' people.

dimples , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 11:34 am GMT
@Dube Indeed, the Jews cunningly arranged for the Arab states to look like they might attack them in 1967. Then they swooped like a prescient eagle and blew up all the Egyptian planes on the ground before this attack, which might not have happened otherwise, actually happened. Its definitely a winning philosophy, but only if you are sure you are going to win in the first place.
Art , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 11:45 am GMT
Leave it to a Jew and his Bethlehem Doctrine, to crush the four centuries old Treaty of Westphalia where the principle of national sovereignty was instituted. Killing the leaders of a sovereign nation breaks the treaty.

Assassination is a Jew tool. Killing is the Jew way.

Stop the Jew – Think Peace

YetAnotherAnon , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 12:02 pm GMT
@RouterAl "Jew Jack Straw was everything you would expect from Jew"

I seem to recall a piece in an Israeli paper saying he wasn't Jewish. It was quite witty, saying IIRC that although he looked like a shul trustee and his career trajectory (student politics then law then media) was classically Jewish, he has (as wiki says) only one Jewish great-grandparent.

From wiki

"In 2013, at a round table event of the Global Diplomatic Forum at the UK's House of Commons, Straw (who has Jewish heritage) was quoted by Israeli politician Einat Wilf, one of the panelists at the forum, as having said that among the main obstacles to peace was the amount of money available to Jewish organizations in the US, which controlled US foreign policy, and also Germany's "obsession" with defending Israel."

YetAnotherAnon , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 12:12 pm GMT
@dimples "Its definitely a winning philosophy, but only if you are sure you are going to win in the first place."

Yes, it didn't do the losers much good at Nuremberg, although Germany had explained the attack of June 22 as a pre-emptive strike – " Therefore Russia has broken its treaties and is about to attack Germany. I have ordered the German armed forces to oppose this threat with all their strength ".

Cowboy , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 12:18 pm GMT

"The Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of "pre-emptive self-defence" against "imminent" attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept."

So Operation Barbarossa was legal. But we knew that already because not only Germany, but Romania, Finland, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia and Croatia ( wiki doesn't mention the Spanish Azul division) all attacked due to the "imminent threat" of Stalin, who certainly had a long history of war crimes, the most recent being his invasions of Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and even Finland.

Additionally, 400,000 of the Waffen SS were non-Germanic, yet wiki prefaces its description of Barbarossa as "The operation put into action Nazi Germany's ideological goal of conquering the western Soviet Union so as to repopulate it with Germans." .

The more things change, the more the lies stay the same. Like Hitler, Soleimani was a "bad, hateful terrorist" who they smear by claiming "he deserved to die". In the end this is really about the mother of all modern jewish lies, the "holocaust".

John Chuckman , says: Website Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 12:58 pm GMT
"The Bethlehem Doctrine"

Just one additional bit of evidence for the sick, corrupting influence of empire on law and human affairs.

This what what happens when you have an empire instead of a country.

Jake , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 12:59 pm GMT
#1 – "When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning "imminent" attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which "imminent" is a "concept" which means neither "soon" nor "definitely going to happen". To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem."

#2 – [1] Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? [2] And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. [4] And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. [5] For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.

What do we get when we add #1 and #2?

#3 – The CIA, the Mossad, and the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency are all offshoots from, are all in origin product of, Brit WASP secret service.

When we add the answer to the above question to #3, what then is the sum?

Jake , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:06 pm GMT
@Biff It is 100% true.

Offhand, I think 19 of the 21 highjackers were Saudi born and raised. All 21 were Arab Sunnis.

9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:06 pm GMT
@Biff Agree that 9/11 had " nothing to do with Iran" but to say that "9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led " is disinformation . Is Craig Murray , a former British Diplomat , a 9/11 gatekeeper? Murray has written
"I do not believe that the US government or any of its agencies were responsible for 9/11." Like Noam Chomsky , Murray fails the 9/11 "litmus test ".
Trump is continuing the state terrorism by drone as carried out by Bush and Obama : "Why is Obama still killing children [by drome] ?" cato.org :
.".. thousands of civilians , including hundreds of children , have fallen victim to his preemptive drone strikes over the last seven years 'America's actions are legal ', Obama said ,'we were attacked on 9/11′"
So Obama had the chutzpah to blame his murder of civilians on 9/11. The Democratic and Republican parties are truly wings which belong to the same bird of prey .
Fuerchtegott , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:09 pm GMT
A very feministy Doctrine.
peter mcloughlin , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:10 pm GMT
Historically, nations act in what serves their interests. Western involvement in the Middle East has been primarily about energy security and commerce. They seek to justify it through different means, including legalistic sophistry. The real danger of the US-Iran confrontation is consequences that lead to no alternative but escalation. One scenario, a Tehran 79 type hostage stand-off in Baghdad where President Trump (in an election year) could find himself with no choice but up the ante. The spector of humiliation and defeat convincing him the only hope is to persevere. But that could be an illusion, moving deeper into a sequence of events leading unstoppably to the real danger in the Middle East – confrontation with Russia. Many say it couldn't happen. History suggests otherwise. Living by the law might be the future: learning from history the way to create that future.
https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Johnny Walker Read , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:15 pm GMT
It's all about interpretation . As Bill Clinton taught us about words and their meaning:
"it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"

https://www.youtube.com/embed/j4XT-l-_3y0?feature=oembed

anonymous [582] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:23 pm GMT
Sunni this, Sunni that !@# You, Craig Murray, you whitrash piece of shit!!

If this scum was a career diplomat of that pissant island, which has never been up to any good, then he must fundamentally be an evil scumbag, working for the pleasure of that old thieving witch.

Just various masks of controlled opposition. Mofers all!!

Been_there_done_that , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:40 pm GMT
Yet another mixed bag. Invoking an official government lie, thus poisoning the well.

" Yes, it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to Afghanistan. "

" The hijackers "?
I suppose this is an inserted reference to the alleged "hijackers" that were not even on the airline flight manifests yet became central to the phony 9/11 story that no serious person believes.

Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:48 pm GMT
Israel and its colony the ZUS are the most dangerous countries in the world because of their total disregard of international law as evidenced by their joint attack on the WTC on 911 and their using this as the excuse to destroy the middle east for Israel, which has killed millions and kept America at war for Israel for decades!

The ZUS and Israel are in the same league as Stalin and Hitler and are a blight on humanity!

SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 2:50 pm GMT
@Desert Fox

The ZUS and Israel are in the same league as Stalin and Hitler and are a blight on humanity!

What is your criterion for comparison, Desert Fox?

I don't know much about Stalin, so can't deal with that.

Hitler was defending Germany: he told Herbert Hoover that his three " idees fixes " were:

"to unify Germany from its fragmentation by the Treaty of Versailles;

to expand its physical resources by moving into Russia or the Balkan States . . .[to prevent a recurrence of] the famine;

to destroy the Russian Communist government . . .[consequent to] the brutalities of the Communist uprisings in German cities during the Armistice period." ( Freedom Betrayed, by Herbert Hoover).

ZUS and Israel are aggressing, invading, occupying, displacing and ethnically cleansing forces; they are not acting defensively, as NSDAP was, by any application of logic.

Mulegino1 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:02 pm GMT

This is total bullshit. 9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.

The Saudis may have enabled the creation of the legends of the hijackers, but had little or nothing to do with the execution of the operation. 9/11 certainly was carried out preponderantly by Israeli operatives for the economic benefit of Zionist Jews and their criminal co-conspirators in the world of finance and the councils of government.

The sentence ought to be reordered thus:

'9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led. ' That is total bullshit. In any case, it had nothing to do with Iran.

Number 2 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:21 pm GMT
Sean promptly serves up the CIA line, more slogans for people who are not too bright. Today it's a little pun to muddle up the law and give CIA a desperately-sought loophole for the crime of aggression, for which there is no justification. Sean is thinking fast as he can to try and distract you from the necessity and proportionality tests which accompany any use of force and govern the status of the act as countermeasure, internationally wrongful act, or crime. Sean's indoctrination has protected his stationary hamster-wheel mind from the black letter law of Chapter VII, including Articles 47 and 51, which place self-defense forces at the disposal of the UNSC under direction of the Military Staff Committee. Sean also seizes up with Orwellian CIA CRIMESTOP when he hears anything about the case law governing use of force, such as the minimal indicative examples below.

https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/70/summaries
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/90/summaries

CIA has been running from the law for 85 years now, but despite their wholesale corruption of the Secretariat, they're losing control of the UN charter bodies and treaty bodies. Some SIS scapegoats are going to be faking palsy in the dock to get a break. Brennan first.

Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:22 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus Recommend you do the research, Hitler was put into power by the zionist banking kabal, the same kabal that rules the ZUS, read the book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, and they wanted Hitler and Stalin to destroy each other, that was the zionist plan and they used the ZUS and Britain to do it, just as they have destroyed the mideast for Israels greater Israel agenda.

The ZUS is just like Hitler invading and destroying the mideast for Israel using the attack on WTC as an excuse, which was a joint attack on the WTC on 911 by traitors in the ZUS and Israel, the whole deal is a zionist driven holocaust on the people of the middle east.

By the way Israel is perpetrating a holocaust of the people of Palestine and this holocaust is backed by the ZUS, which is Israels military arm ie a subsidiary of the IDF.

Recommend the archives section on henrymakow.com on Hitler and Stalin.

Harry

9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:29 pm GMT
@Jake There were no hijackers , there were no planes , they were likely CGI's in videos produced in a "Holywood production" prior to 9/11 , see septemberclues. info "The central role of the news media on 9/11" .
Truth3 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:35 pm GMT
@Biff 9/11 was a Jewish operation from Day One.

PNAC, anyone?

Silverstein?

c matt , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:46 pm GMT
@Wally I am sure, if asked, he would condemn Obama's war crimes as well (and Bush I, Bush II, Clinton, etc. probably going back to Lincoln at least). But the subject was about Soleimani's assassination, which, as much as I am sure you would like to do, cannot be pinned on Obama.
Wally , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:55 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke LOL

– There hasn't been a US declaration of war since WWII, and there have been countless US military actions.
Your Pelosi talking point refuted.

– Your double standard is on parade. Again, no mention of "war criminal" Obama.

– You clearly prefer to ignore my many posts critical of Trump.

– And of course you cannot refute anything I have posted about the fake & impossible "holocaust".

Ah.

Rev. Spooner , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:56 pm GMT
@Igor Bundy Right. The Mongols rolled the murderers of their emissaries or ambassadors in carpets and had them trampled to death by horses. This was followed by razing the city/state. I'm told Nuttyyahoo of Israel provided the info and encouraged it.
Really No Shit , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:58 pm GMT
My two cents worth:

1) Elizabeth Warren has lied about her ethnicity and has benefited from it thus lying can be natural for her she would most likely give a lap dance to Bibi if demanded to get elected,

2) Arabs are being absolved of 9/11 by their Ashkenazi cousins who mistakenly believe that they are semites despite having overwhelmingly slavic blood there must be trace amounts of meshuggah genes mixed up with the Indo-European and thus the hatred of Iranians,

3) Jesus came once before, therefore it must reason that he is coming back the second time and now the arrival is imminent so Daniel Bethlehem must become Christian now or go to hell

Rev. Spooner , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 4:05 pm GMT
@Priss Factor Adam Green is a true American patriot.
Buck Ransom , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 4:20 pm GMT
@Biff " every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni ,"
LOL.
Z-man , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 4:37 pm GMT
@Jake 20 Hijackers. One, a black Moroccan Muslim, chickened out and is in jail somewhere in the USA. The leader, Atta, was from Egypt. The lead guy to the flight that only had four hijackers because of the Moroccan, which crashed in PA, was from Lebanon and could pass for an American/Jew. Two were from the United Arab Emirates and the rest, 15 , were Saudis.
AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 4:46 pm GMT
Mafia-style assassination of Soleimani was undoubtedly an act of state terrorism. What's more, it was an act of war against Iran. It was a crime committed by the US military on orders of Trump, who publicly confessed that he gave that criminal order.

Limited Iranian response just shows that Iran government is sane, in sharp contrast to the US government.

AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 4:54 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus

"to unify Germany from its fragmentation by the Treaty of Versailles;
to expand its physical resources by moving into Russia or the Balkan States . . .[to prevent a recurrence of] the famine;
to destroy the Russian Communist government . . .[consequent to] the brutalities of the Communist uprisings in German cities during the Armistice period." (Freedom Betrayed, by Herbert Hoover).

Your #2 and #3 are naked aggression. Exactly as Soleimani murder.

Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 5:13 pm GMT
May 8, 2019 Afghanistan, the Forgotten Proxy War. The Role of Osama bin Laden and Zbigniew Brzezinski

The original "moderate rebel"

One of the key players in the anti-Soviet, U.S.-led regime change project against Afghanistan was Osama bin Laden, a Saudi-born millionaire who came from a wealthy, powerful family that owns a Saudi construction company and has had close ties to the Saudi royal family.

https://llco.org/afghanistan-the-forgotten-proxy-war/

June 6, 2018 Why the US shouldn't build more foreign bases

The United States maintains almost 800 military bases in over 70 countries, which far exceeds our modern day security requirements.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/06/06/why-the-us-shouldnt-build-more-foreign-bases/

Mar 28, 2014 VICE on HBO Debrief: Children of the Drones

Suroosh Alvi went to Pakistan and found out that American drones there are doing more harm than good.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/wFQwbxFPVfo?feature=oembed

GeeBee , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 5:19 pm GMT
@Been_there_done_that While I am sure that the official story of the September 11th 2001 'attack' is false, I frequently wonder why the 'truthers' seem never to be able to get all their ducks in a row. Many claim that the film footage of the aircraft strikes were pre-manufactured CGIs, issued to the media in order to mask the real culprits which they allege were cruise missiles. But a cruise missile doesn't have a flight manifest. Either those four flights that the official story says were hijacked took off that day, or they did not. The CGI theory rests, of course, on there being no such flights. Yet you claim that 'the hijackers' were not on flight manifests for those flights. This is surely the craziest interpretion: either the flights were fictional (as in the CGI theory) and thus there were no manifests, or they really did take place, and therefore had manifests, and were hijacked. If, as you claim, the flights actually took place, but no hijackers boarded them, how on earth did they fly into the twin towers? It makes no sense at all I fear.
CanSpeccy , says: Website Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 5:27 pm GMT

every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11

Generally interesting comment. But why distract from the issue of the Soleimani assassination with such a ridiculous comment ab0ut 9/11?

nsa , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 5:28 pm GMT
Americans are now as gods. asserting their inherent right to kill anyone, anytime, anywhere, for any reason.
"Did we just kill a kid?" In 2012 a USAF drone operator named Bryant reported he was "flying" drones out of New Mexico and painted a 6000 mile away Afghan shack with his laser, and with permission released a Hellfire missile. During the time the missile took to arrive, he saw on his screen a child toddle from behind the shack. Mesmerized, in slow motion, he saw the shack explode and the child disappear. Having killed hundreds remotely, he still wasn't ready for this and asked his copilot: "Did we just kill a kid?". The operator answered: "I guess so". Suddenly on the screen appeared the words of some unknown anonymous supervisor: "No, it was a dog". Bryant responded: "A dog on two legs?"
Even the resident boomer Nam hero, Rich, might have trouble justifying this kind of activity .but then again in a jewed out society ..maybe not.
GeeBee , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 5:28 pm GMT
@Desert Fox 'The ZUS and Israel are in the same league as Stalin and Hitler and are a blight on humanity!'

Ah. I see that you are still drinking the Kool Aid regarding Herr Hitler. I used to believe it all too. You'll learn in time, as will enough people. Only then will the gigantic criminal enterprise fomented by 'the International Race' that we call World War II be seen for the monstrous crime against humanity that it was. Perhaps – just perhaps – that same sick and depraved race will then finally be so deservedly called to account for its foul deeds.

Make no mistake: understanding just who and what Adolf Hitler really was, and especially his role in saving at least part of the West from Communism, is absolutely central to an appreciation of this awful world in which we now live.

Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 5:54 pm GMT
@GeeBee I am under no illusions about Hitler or Stalin as both were funded by the international zionist banking kabal, read the book Hitlers Secret Bankers by Sidney Warburg and Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution,by Anthony Sutton, zionists were behind the whole deal.

Recommend henrymakow.com and his archive section on Hitler and Stalin.

Paul , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 6:41 pm GMT
Noam Chomsky has pointed out that if the United States is truly against terrorism, it should stop engaging in it.
Art , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:09 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN Limited Iranian response just shows that Iran government is sane, in sharp contrast to the US government.

There is great tension in the world, tension toward a breaking point, and men are unhappy and confused. At such a time it seems natural and good to me to ask myself these questions. What do I believe in? What must I fight for and what must I fight against?"
― John Steinbeck, East of Eden

This is one of those times.

Lol , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:25 pm GMT
What's ironic is that Pompeo and his fellow Americans would cry like the little girls they are if the rest of the world starting assassinating Americans based on the same grounds. Lol
anonymous [283] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:31 pm GMT
There is no such thing as international law or legality. Might makes right as shown by the US doing as it pleases and thumbing it's nose at everyone. Some person with legal credentials gets trotted out to declare whatever has been done is legal, just rubber-stamping it. It's too bad but that's the reality.
2stateshmustate , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:42 pm GMT
@Z-man With all due respect which is 0. How pray tell did the those "hijackers" manage to plant the explosives in the 3 World Trade towers buildings with which to imploded them? Of course they didn't. Israel and Jews have their fingerprints all over the 911 attack.

911 was an Israeli/ Jew false flag attack that resulted in the murder of 3000 innocent goyim before noon that day. It's purpose was to create hatred towards Arabs, Muslims and Persians so that stupid Americans would send their children to die for the squatter colony of Israel.

Folks the Jew controlled US government is saying that those 3 sky-scrapers collapsed into their own footprint at free fall speed due to one cause: office furniture fires. Not the impact of the "plane" and not the fuel carried by the "planes". This has never happened before or since in the history of the world. It is complete bullshit. The JewSA's story is totally impossible and defies the laws of physics. Namely the Law of the conservation of energy.

As anyone who observers the fall of all 3 towers can see those building fall at free fall speed. For this to happen it means that the underlying structure is offering NO resistance to the above falling structure. How can this be? The many floors below the impact zone were in no way effected by the fire. Yet we see them vaporized into dust as the buildings collapse into their own footprint.

No folks this is impossible. Therefore the entire government's story is suspect and I would suggest total bullshit.
I'll admit that in the heat of the moment I fell for this lie. But what really got my attention was when I found out about the collapse of Building 7. A 57 story that was not hit by any "plane". And yet it followed the same script as the Twin Towers. Use critical thinking Americans.

I realize for many the truth about 911 is going to blow up their entire world view regarding the exceptionalness of the US and our good buddy Israel. But it is vital for the survival of our nation that the real criminals behind 911 be held accountable.

Israel did 911 and they are our number one enemy.

SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:42 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN If so, AnonFromTn, while begging pardon for a Whataboutery argument, How does #2 differ from the activities of Israelis, that are supported by American taxpayers; and how does #3 differ from the activities of Americans toward Iran, whose government US / Israel has been seeking to topple and re-form to "western" preferences, since at least 1979? *

Moreover, Desert Fox is partly (but only minimally-partly) correct in that zionist Jews and Allies set-up or duped or manipulated or otherwise used Germany to attempt to destroy Bolshevism in Russia, similar to the way that US used Saddam against Iran, then killed Saddam; used Soleimani against ISIS in Iraq, then killed Soleimani.

So are the actions of USA / ZUSA excusable, unaccountable, but those of Germany were demonstrably not?

Or should the American people remain warily alert for the next shoe to drop, when that "arc of justice" bends inexorably their way?

* I still, perhaps stubbornly, maintain that Germany had far more justification for its actions in seeking to vanquish a political regime that was observably committing mass murder with the "imminent" danger of carrying out the same against the German people -- as, in fact, was done; and that seeking to protect its people from starvation, of which 800,000 people had died within the present memory of surviving Germans, is an obligation of the state, a far more compelling obligation than that of "protecting American interests" 7000 miles from the homeland, when the homeland has more than adequate capacity to provide for its people, and when the interests being protected are those of a very few very rich individuals or corporations.
Competing and trading fairly is far less costly than waging war, and not nearly so ignoble.

AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 8:18 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus I am not trying to whitewash the Empire. Many of its actions are clearly criminal, including bombing of Serbia, the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, assisting murderous Saudis in Yemen, etc. Assassination of Soleimani is yet another similarly criminal action, not the first and likely not the last.

However, the criminality of the Empire does not justify Hitler in any way. His troops behaved in a totally barbaric manner in the former Soviet Union. I know that not from propaganda, but from the accounts of real people who lived through German occupation in 1941-44.

The Empire being a criminal enterprise does not make the Third Reich any less criminal. FYI, bandits often clash with each other, and both sides in those clashes remain bandits.

Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 8:20 pm GMT
Jan 13, 2020 Assassination-gate! Trump Officials Say No 'Imminent Threat.' With Guest Phil Giraldi

Trump officials – including Trump himself today – have been steadily pulling back from initial claims after the January 3rd assassination of Iranian top general Soleimani that he was killed because of "imminent threats" of attack led by the Iranian.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/WjtMSaOBaiU?feature=oembed

JamesinNM , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 8:47 pm GMT
Pray for Christ's return and the destruction of all evil.
9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 8:47 pm GMT
@Paul "Noam Chomsky and the gatekeepers of the left " is a chapter in Barrie Zwicker's book "Towers of Deception ", this chapter is available in pdf format at 9/11conspiracy.tv .
Zwicker argues that Chomsky " In supporting the official story is at one with the right-wing gatekeepers such as Judith Miller of the New York Times Chomsky's function is identical to Miller's: support the official story Chomsky systematically engages in deceptive discourse on certain key topics such as 9/11 , the Kennedy assassination and with regard to the CIA . ..A study of Chomsky's stands show him to be a de facto defender of the status quo's most egregious outrages and their covert agency engines To the New World Order he is worth 50 armored divisions ."
As filmmaker Roy Harvey has stated " the single greatest obstacle to the spread of 9/11 truth is the Left media ."
JamesinNM , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 8:52 pm GMT
@Sean Make that plea as justification to Christ at the final judgement when your eternal destiny is being determined.
Zumbuddi , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:30 pm GMT
@JamesinNM Years ago I was given the book, Prayers, by Michel Quoist.
IIRC, the first page said, "Prayer is political action."
Been_there_done_that , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:35 pm GMT
@GeeBee

"If, as you claim, the flights actually took place, but no hijackers boarded them, how on earth did they fly into the twin towers?"

Remote control – a proven and trusted technology.

It could have been possible that some of the airline planes were electronically "switched" in mid-air, remotely flown with their beacons turned off, to simply disappear into the South Atlantic Ocean once their fuel ran out, while replaced by a fuel tanker in one case, to create a bigger fireball upon impact in Manhattan, or a much smaller plane to penetrate into the Pentagon.

The public ought to demand a thorough investigation resulting in concrete answers and prosecutions.

Some of the alleged hijackers were actually alive after the event and outraged to have had their identities stolen and misused.

Herald , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:42 pm GMT
@Biff Great article, but Craig is taking the easy way out on 9/11. Of course, the Arabs were Sunnis, but were bit players only, and no way was 9/11 Saudi led.

[Jan 12, 2020] Comment on Sen. Tom Cotton lauding the murder of Suleimani

Jan 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Piotr Berman , Jan 12 2020 5:02 utc | 373

NYT posted editorial by Sen. Tom Cotton (nincompoop, Arkansas) lauding the murder of Suleimani. This is one of the readers' comments:

Bill
Nova ScotiaJan. 10
Times Pick
I don't understand how the USA can kill a military leader of a country we are not at war with in a third country no less and claim it was legal. The resulting high-pressure in the aftermath has left 63 Canadian citizens dead. Yes, at the hands of an Iranian missile - but many of those dead were dual Iranian Canadians. The blood is not just on Iran's hands, it is on the USA and on trump.

[Jan 12, 2020] The United States has murdered one of Iran's top personalities who was officially visiting a friendly country on a diplomatic mission

Jan 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sasha , Jan 11 2020 22:39 utc | 298

... ... ...

Killing a General

The United States has murdered one of Iran's top personalities who was officially visiting a friendly country on a diplomatic mission.

The message of the assassination of Gasem Soleimani is the persistence of Washington in the effort to keep the world's first energy region revolt and prevent any distension between Iran and Saudi Arabia...

(...)Soleimani was a great strategist who achieved three notable victories in the last seventeen years: He was one of the organizers of the armed resistance to the American occupier in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, played a great role in the expulsion of the Islamic State from Iraq and defeated then the jihadist conglomerate in Syria (Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, etc.) financed and supported by the CIA and the Gulf oil monarchies. It was Soleimani who in 2015 convinced Vladimir Putin of the advisability of helping the Syrian government militarily, which has ended up restoring its control of the country by thwarting a new regime change operation that has resulted in another huge slaughter.

(...)Since Friday, January 3, all commentators announced an Iranian response to this "declaration of war" by Trump, or his generals, does not matter. It is forgotten that this war has been a fact for many years. Historically it began with the coup d'etat against Mossadeq, the Iranian prime minister who nationalized oil, and continued with the reaction to the Khomeinist Revolution of 1979, which induced the West to provoke the bloody war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s with hundreds of thousands of dead.

(...)The unilateral withdrawal of the United States, in May 2018, from the nuclear agreement reached with Iran, as well as the sanctions suffered by that country, the murders of Iranian scientists and the attacks, sanctions and the financial and oil blockade that suffocates the Iranian economy, form Part of that war. For 19 months, Iranian oil exports, which in 2017 were 2.5 million barrels per day, have fallen to a few hundred thousand as a result of Trump's sanctions.

(...)And in the meantime in Europe ...

On Sunday, January 5, 48 hours after the murder in Baghdad, the leaders of the three main European powers, Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and Boris Johson, released their joint statement. In it the murder of Soleimani is not even mentioned. "We have denounced the recent attacks on coalition troops in Iraq and are deeply concerned about the negative role played by Iran in the region, especially through the guards of the revolution and of the al-Quds unit under the command of General Soleimani", says the statement. "We especially call on Iran to refrain from more violence", it continues. In other personal statements Johnson told Trump that Soleimani "posed a threat to all our interests" and that "we do not regret his death". Macron expressed concern about the destabilizing role of the forces led by the assassinated general and German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas stated that the General "had left a trail of devastation and blood in the Middle East" and that "the European Union had good reasons to have him on its list of terrorists". This statement prompted Tehran to summon the German ambassador and censor him for his support of the "terrorist attack by the United States". For its part, the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has held Iran alone responsible for escalating tensions in the Middle East and has justified the murder as a reaction to the provocations suffered by the Americans in Iraq. Once again the "European foreign policy" is portrayed.

It is in Germany, at the base of Ramstein, where the command and control point of drone attacks by US forces is located. An anonymous German citizen has filed a complaint in the town of Zweibrücken to be elucidated if the murder was piloted from Ramstein. Such action being a violation of international law and German law, it has filed a complaint "against all suspects of such crime in Germany and the United States." Those who still believe in the European "rule of law" for international purposes, can hold on to this symbolic gesture without the slightest future.

[Jan 12, 2020] It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake: Soleimani was crucial to the victory over ISIS/ISIL/Daesh in Iraq

Jan 10, 2020 | angrybearblog.com
... He was viewed as crucial to the victory over ISIS/ISIL/Daesh in Iraq, much feared by Iranians. Shia take martyrdom seriously, and he is viewed as a martyr. It appears that even Trump took notice of the massive outpouring of mourning and praise for Soleimani there up to the point of people dying in a stampede in a mourning crowd in his hometown. But, hey, obviously these people simply do not understand that he was The World's Number One Terrorist! Heck, I saw one commenter on Marginal Revolution claiming Soleimani was responsible killing "hundreds of thousands." Yes, this sort of claim is floating around out there.

A basic problem here is that while indeed Soleimani commanded the IGRC al Quds force that supported and supplied various Shia militias in several Middle Eastern nations, these all were (and are) ultimately independent. Soleimani may have advised them, but he was never in a position to order any of them to do anything. Al Quds itself has never carried out any of the various attacks outside of Iran that Soleimani is supposedly personally responsible for.

Let us consider the specific case that gets pushed most emphatically, the 603 Americans dead in Iraq, without doubt a hot button item here in the US. First of all, even if Soleimani really was personally responsible for their deaths, there is the technical matter that their deaths cannot be labeled "terrorism." That is about killing non-combatant civilians, not military personnel involved in combat. I do not support the killing of those American soldiers, most of whom were done in by IEDs, which also horribly injured many more. But indeed this awful stuff happened. But in fact this was all done by Iraqi -based Shia militias. Yes, they were supported by Soleimani, but while some have charged al Quds suppplied the IEDs, this turns out not to be the case. These were apparently made in Iraq by these local militias. Soleimani's al Quds are not totally innocent in all this, reportedly providing some training and some inputs. But the IEDs were made by the militias themselves and planted by them.

It is also the case that when the militias and Americans were working together against ISIS/IISIL/Daesh, none of this happened, and indeed that was still the case up until this most recent set of events, with the death setting off all this an American civilian contractor caught on a base where several Iraqis were killed by a rocket from the Kat'b Hezbollah Iraqi group. Of course with Trump having Soleimani assassinated, this cooperation has ceased, with the US military no longer either fighting ISIS/ISIL/Daesh nor training the Iraqi military. Indeed, the Iraqi parliament has demanded that US troops leave entirely, although Trump threatened Iraq with economic sanctions if that is followed through on.

As it is, the US dating back to the Obama administration has been supplying Saudi Arabia with both arms and intelligence that has been used to kill thousands of Yemeni civilians. Frankly, US leaders look more like terrorists than Soleimani.

I shall close by noting the major changes in opinion in both Iran and Iraq regarding the US as a result of this assassination. In Iran as many have noted there were major demonstrations against the regime going on, protesting bad economic conditions, even as those substantially were the result of the illegal US economic sanctions imposed after the US withdrew from the JCPOA nuclear deal, to which Iran was adhering. Now those demonstrations have stopped and been replaced by the mass demonstrations against the US over Soleimani's assassination. And we also have Iran further withdrawing from that deal and moving to more highly enrich uranium.

In Iraq, there had been major anti-Iran demonstrations going on, with these supported to some degree by the highest religious authority in the nation, Ayatollah Ali Sistani. However, when Soleimani's body was being transferred to Iran, Sistani's son accompanied his body. It really is hard to see anything that justifies this assassination.

Barkley Rosser

  1. JDM , January 10, 2020 12:32 pm

    I think this quote is apropos in this situation: "It was worse than wrong. It was a mistake."

Bert Schlitz , January 10, 2020 3:46 pm

They had a handshake agreement, which was why Solemiani wasn't under protection. The Solemiani killed Americans stuff cracks me up. He was a military advisor for the Shia militia's who were attacked by US forces during a unsanctioned war in 2003 .uh derp derp. There have been many other generals that have committed "death of american" crimes that the Trump Admin seems to love.

As my father used to say "homosexuals make great commie fighters"(homosexuals like Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin agree lol). The zionists so badly want this war in the Trump administration, but Trump doesn't have the guts to just invade like Iraq.

rjs , January 10, 2020 5:26 pm

it appears i had a comment on this same post removed from Naked Capitalism

i asked "was his assassination due to the impeachment proceedings, and should the Democrats in Congress be held responsible for the deaths on Ukrainian flight 752?"

sure, that's off the wall, but i still think it addresses a legitimate question i don't think one can separate the personal situation a megalomaniac president like Trump finds himself in from his behavior .i was a news junky back during the Iraq war era, & what i remember most about the runup was that the big story in all the news mags the week before the war started was that Neil Bush, George's son, had lost millions of depositor's money playing poker in the back offices of Silverado Savings and Loan in Denver, and that you then could't find a word about that story anywhere the next week cause George & Saddam had all the coverage .so i have always felt that Bush might have pushed that war forward to take the media heat off his kid

run75441 , January 10, 2020 5:38 pm

No surprise, when I preempt their article on healthcare with commentary; my comments disappear. Get used to it when you can say more than they can.

rjs , January 11, 2020 11:03 am

well, here you go, Trump actually admitting to what i've been banned for suggesting via Jonathan Chait:

Report: Trump Cited Impeachment Pressure to Kill Soleimani – Deep inside a long, detailed Wall Street Journal report about President Trump's foreign policy advisers is an explosive nugget: "Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said." This is a slightly stronger iteration of a fact the New York Times reported three days ago, to wit, "pointed out to one person who spoke to him on the phone last week that he had been pressured to take a harder line on Iran by some Republican senators whose support he needs now more than ever amid an impeachment battle."This would not mean Trump ordered the strike entirely, or even primarily, in order to placate Senate Republicans. But it does constitute an admission that domestic political considerations influenced his decision. That would, of course, constitute a grave dereliction of duty. Trump is so cynical he wouldn't even recognize that making foreign policy decisions influenced by impeachment is the kind of thing he shouldn't say out loud. Of course, using his foreign policy authority for domestic political gain is the offense Trump is being impeached for. It would be characteristically Trumpian to compound the offense as part of his efforts to avoid accountability for it. What kind of pressure could Trump have in mind? It seems highly doubtful that he is worried 20 Republican senators would vote to remove him from office. He could be concerned that one or two of them would defect, denying him the chance to present impeachment as totally partisan (as he did following the House vote.) More plausibly, Trump might be worried a handful of Republicans would join Democrats to allow testimony from witnesses, like John Bolton, Trump has managed to block.

likbez , January 11, 2020 10:24 pm

@JDM, January 10, 2020 12:32 pm

I think this quote is apropos in this situation: "It was worse than wrong. It was a mistake."

This is a very deep observation. Thank you. BTW the original quote is attributed to Talleyrand and is more biting:

C'est pire qu'un crime, c'est une faute.

It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.

Reaction to the 1804 drumhead trial and execution of Louis Antoine de Bourbon, Duke of Enghien, on orders of Napoleon. Actually said by either Antoine Boulay de la Meurthe, legislative deputy from Meurthe (according to the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations) or Joseph Fouché, Napoleon's chief of police (according to John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919), http://www.bartleby.com/100/758.1.html ).

Rephrasing Kissinger: " Assassination is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one".

[Jan 12, 2020] Box Score on airliner shoot down deaths: Iranians -176, USS Vincennes - 290

Jan 12, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Vincennes

(USS Vincennes)

OK pilgrims, we are told today that there are mobs in the streets of Tehran protesting the shoot down of the Ukrainian airliner. 176 were killed. We are carefully not told (thus far) how many Iranians are mobbed up in the streets but the implication spread by the Foxnews clown car is that the "Maximum Pressure" sanctions and propaganda campaign run by Israel and the US is about to cause the fall of the Islamic Republic of Iran. OK We will see.

Long ago during the Iran-Iraq War an Americans frigate USS Stark was attacked in the Gulf by an Iraqi F-! Mirage. The ship was hit by two French built Exocet missiles. I was a member of the JCS investigating board that traveled to Bahrein and Baghdad for the inquiry. The damage to the ship was frightful and many American sailors had been killed and wounded. The JCS decided that a chain of unfortunate and mistaken events had led to the incident but the US Navy conducted its own investigation and destroyed the careers of the captain of USS Stark and all his officers. The navy is very unforgiving of damage to its boats. Unless you have the vessel shot out from under you by enemy action you might as well go down with the ship

Later in the course of that war the anti-aircraft guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes was in the Gulf and it shot down an Iranian airliner killing 290 people on board. The Iranians were and probably still are convinced that Vincennes shot down the airliner as a result of the inherently evil and malevolent nature of the US.

In fact what happened was that the captain of Vincennes was afraid of suffering the same fate as the captain of the Stark who had been accused of not being quick enough to engage the Iraqi fighter bomber.

Well, folks, STUFF HAPPENS and the human link in a chain of events is always the most important link.

IMO Iranian air defenses accidentally shot down the Ukrainian airliner. Stuff Happens, especially in war. PL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vincennes_(CG-49)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident

Posted at 10:11 AM in History , Iran | Permalink

Reblog (0)

[Jan 12, 2020] MIC along with Wall Street controls the government and the country

Highly recommended!
Jan 12, 2020 | angrybearblog.com

  1. likbez , January 12, 2020 5:30 pm

    Everyone keeps dancing around it: Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi has reported that Soleimani was on the way to see him with a reply to a Saudi peace proposal. Who profits from Peace? Who does not?

    The killing of Soleimani, while a tragic even with far reaching consequences, is just an illustration of the general rule: MIC does not profit from peace. And MIC dominates any national security state, into which the USA was transformed by the technological revolution on computers and communications, as well as the events of 9/11.

    The USA government can be viewed as just a public relations center for MIC. That's why Trump/Pompeo/Esper/Pence gang position themselves as rabid neocons, which means MIC lobbyists in order to hold their respective positions. There is no way out of this situation. This is a classic Catch 22 trap.

    The fact that a couple of them are also "Rapture" obsessed religious bigots means that the principle of separation of church and state does no matter when MIC interests are involved.

    The health of MIC requires maintaining an inflated defense budget at all costs. Which, in turn, drives foreign wars and the drive to capture other nations' resources to compensate for MIC appetite. The drive which is of course closely allied with Wall Street interests (disaster capitalism.)

    In such conditions fake "imminent threat" assassinations necessarily start happening. Although the personality of Pompeo and the fact that he is a big friend of the current head of Mossad probably played some role.

    It's really funny that Trump (probably with the help of his "reference group," which includes Adelson and Kushner), managed to appoint as the top US diplomat a person who was trained as a mechanic engineer and specialized as a tank repair mechanic. And who was a long-time military contractor. So it is quite natural that he represents interests of MIC.

    IMHO under Trump/Pompeo/Esper trio some kind of additional skirmishes with Iran are a real possibility: they are necessary to maintain the current inflated level of defense spending.

    State of the US infrastructure, the actual level of unemployment (U6 is ~7% which some neolibs call full employment ;-), and the level of poverty of the bottom 33% of the USA population be damned. Essentially the bottom 33% is the third world country within the USA.

    "If you make more than $15,000 (roughly the annual salary of a minimum-wage employee working 40 hours per week), you earn more than 32.2% of Americans

    The 894 people that earn more than $20 million make more than 99.99989% of Americans, and are compensated a cumulative $37,009,979,568 per year. "

    ( https://www.huffpost.com/entry/income-inequality-crisis_n_4221012 )

[Jan 12, 2020] When the bullets start flying and the bombs start dropping, terrible things can happen that no one has planned for. This is one of the great tragedies of war. Unintended consequences and so-called "collateral damage."

Jan 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Mao , Jan 12 2020 8:46 utc | 389

Tulsi Gabbard:

When the bullets start flying and the bombs start dropping, terrible things can happen that no one has planned for. This is one of the great tragedies of war. Unintended consequences and so-called "collateral damage."

[VIDEO]

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1216173675998633984

[Jan 12, 2020] Iran's accidental downing of a Ukrainian plane is already being used to smear MH-17 skeptics by Max Parry

Notable quotes:
"... What no one is mentioning is: the US airstrikes on Iraqi military bases, and Soleimani's murder contributed greatly to the hair trigger response of Iran's air defense forces. If Washington did not turn the heat up on both Iraq and Iran there would have been no need for Iran's retaliation, and thus the level of Iran's domestic defense forces would not have been so nervous as to pull the trigger downing the airliner. ..."
"... Former CIA high-ranking official accidentally reveals the type of the false flag operation that the US imperialists will orchestrate to start a war with Iran https://failedevolution.blogspot.com/2020/01/former-cia-high-ranking-official.html ..."
"... It reminds me too much of MH-17, which was not hit with a BUK but with bullets. Iran should have closed its airspace because such tricks are to be expected, irrespective of the cause of the current accident. ..."
Jan 11, 2020 | www.unz.com

When the Pentagon confirmed the assassination of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani, U.S. President Donald Trump took to social media to post a single image of the American flag to the adulation of his followers. Unfortunately, most Americans are ignorant of the other flag synonymous with U.S. foreign policy, that of the 'false flag' utilized to deceive the public and stir up support for endless war abroad. While the chicken hawk defenders of Trump's reckless decision to murder one of the biggest contributors in the defeat of ISIS salivated over possible war with Iran, their appetite was spoiled by Tehran's retaliatory precision strikes of two U.S. bases in Iraq that deliberately avoided casualties while in accordance with the Islamic Republic's right to self defense under Article 51 of the United Nations charter. The reprisal successfully deescalated the crisis but sent a clear message Iran was willing to stand up to the U.S. with the backing of Russia and China, while Washington underestimated Tehran which forewarned the Iraqi government of its impending counterattack so U.S. personnel could evacuate.

In the hours following the ballistic missile strikes, reports came in that a Boeing 737 international passenger flight scheduled from Tehran to Kiev, Ukraine had crashed shortly after takeoff from Imam Khomeini International Airport, killing all 176 passengers and flight crew on board. Initial video of the crash of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752 (PS752) showed that the aircraft was already in flames while descending to the ground, leading to speculation it was shot down amid the heightened political crisis between Iran and Washington. In the days following, a second obscure video surfaced which only increased this suspicion. Meanwhile, Western governments quickly concluded that an anti-aircraft surface-to-air missile brought PS752 down and were eager to point the finger at Iran before any formal investigation. Many people, including this author, were admittedly skeptical as to how a plane taking off from Tehran could have been mistaken five hours after the strikes in Iraq.

Nevertheless, those with reservations turned out to be wrong when days later the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) came clean that its aerospace forces made a "human error" and accidentally shot the passenger plane down after mistaking it for a incoming cruise missile when it flew close to a military base during a heightened state of alert in anticipation of U.S. attack. Many have noted that Iran's honorable decision to take responsibility for the catastrophe is in sharp contrast with Washington's response in 1988 when the U.S. Navy shot down Iran Air Flight 655 scheduled from Tehran to Dubai over the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, killing all 290 occupants, after failing to cover it up. Just a month later, Vice President George H.W. Bush would notoriously state he would " never apologize for the United States of America. Ever. I don't care what the facts are ." Although he was not directly referring to the incident, one can only imagine what the reaction would be if Iranian President Hassan Rouhani were to say the same weeks after shooting down the Ukrainian plane, let alone an American one. Predictably, Tehran's transparency has gone mostly unappreciated while the Trump administration is already trying to use the disaster to further demonize Iran.

Oddly enough, Ukrainian International Airlines is partly owned by the infamous Ukrainian-Israeli oligarch, politician and energy tycoon Igor Kolomoisky, who was notably one of the biggest financiers of the anti-Russian, pro-EU coup d'etat which overthrew the democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. Kolomoisky is also a principal backer of current Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky whose dubious phone call with Trump resulted in the 45th U.S. president's impeachment last month. In another astounding coincidence, Kolomoisky's Privat Group is believed to control Burisma Holdings, the Cypress-based company whose executive board 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden's son Hunter was appointed to following the Maidan junta. The former Vice President admitted that he bribed Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor who was looking into his son's corruption by threatening to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees.

Kolomoisky, AKA "the Chameleon", is one of the wealthiest people in the ex-Soviet country and was formerly appointed as governor of an administrative region bordering Donbass in eastern Ukraine following the 2014 putsch. He has also funded a battalion of volunteer neo-Nazi mercenaries fighting alongside the Ukrainian army in the War in Donbass against Russian-speaking separatists which the military aid temporarily withheld by the Trump administration that was disputably contingent upon an investigation of Biden and his son goes to. In 2014, another infamous plane shootdown made international headlines when Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 (MH17) scheduled from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was shot down over the breakaway Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) in eastern Ukraine, killing all 298 passengers and crew.

From the get-go, the Obama administration was adamant that the missile which shot down the Boeing 777 came from separatist rebel territory. However, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad denounced the charges brought against the Russian and Ukrainian nationals indicted in the NATO-led investigation, dismissing the entire probe as a politically motivated effort predetermined to scapegoat Moscow and exclude Malaysian participation in the inquiry from the very beginning. Mohamad is featured in the excellent documentary MH17: Call for Justice made by a team of independent journalists which contests the NATO-scripted narrative and reveals that the Buk missile was more likely launched from Ukrainian Army-controlled territory than the DPR. One of Kolomoisky's hired guns could also have been responsible.

Shamefully, Iran's admission of guilt in the PS752 downing is already being used by establishment propagandists to discredit skeptics and conflated with similar contested past events like MH17 in order to intimidate dissenting voices from speaking up in the future. The Bellingcat 'investigative journalism' collective which made its name incriminating Moscow for the MH17 tragedy are the principle offenders. Bellingcat bills itself as an 'independent' citizen journalism group even though its founder Eliot Higgins is employed by the Atlantic Council think tank which receives funding from NATO, the U.S. State Department, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), George Soros' Open Society Foundation NGO, and numerous other regime change factories. Despite its enormous conflict of interest, Bellingcat remains highly cited by corporate media as a supposedly reputable source. At the outset, nearly everything about the PS752 tragedy gave one déjà vu of the MH17 disaster, including the rush to judgement by Western governments, so it was only natural for many to distrust the official narrative until more facts came out.

None of this changes that the use of commercial passenger jets as false flag targets for U.S. national security subterfuge is a verifiable historical fact, not a 'conspiracy theory.' In 1997, the U.S. National Archives declassified a 1962 memo proposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Department of Defense for then-Secretary of State Robert McNamara entitled " Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba ." The document outlined a series of 'false flag' terrorist attacks, codenamed Operation Northwoods, to be carried out on a range of targets and blamed on the Cuban government to give grounds for an invasion of Havana in order to depose Fidel Castro. These scenarios included targets within the U.S., in particular Miami, Florida, which had become a haven of right-wing émigrés and defectors following the Cuban Revolution. In addition to the sinking of a Cuban refugee boat, one Northwoods plan included the staging of attacks on a civilian jet airliner and a U.S. Air Force plane to be pinned on Castro's government:

"8. It is possible to create and incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack."

Although Operation Northwoods was rejected by then-U.S. President John F. Kennedy which many believe was a factor in his subsequent assassination, Cuban exiles with the support of U.S. intelligence would later be implicated in such an attack the following decade with the bombing of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 in 1976 which killed all 73 passengers and crew on board. In 2005, documents released by the National Security Archive showed that the CIA under then-director George H.W. Bush had advanced knowledge of the plans of a Dominican Republic-based Cuban exile terrorist organization, the Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations (CORU), at the direction of former CIA operative Luis Posada Carriles to blow up the airliner. The U.S. later refused to extradite Carriles to Cuba to face charges and although he never admitted to masterminding the bombing of the jet, he publicly confessed to other attacks on tourist hotels in Cuba during the 1990s and was later arrested in 2000 for attempting to blow up an auditorium in Panama trying to assassinate Castro.

In 1962, the planners of Operation Northwoods concluded that such deceptive operations would shift U.S. public opinion unanimously against Cuba.

"World opinion and the United Nations forum should be favorably affected by developing the international image of Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere."

The same talking points are used by the U.S. government to demonize Iran today. Initially, some Western intelligence sources also concluded that it was a malfunction or overheated engine that brought PS752 down in corroboration with the Iranian government's original explanation until the narrative abruptly shifted the following day. That they were so quick to hold Iran accountable without any investigation gave the apparent likelihood that PS752 could have fallen prey to a Northwoods-style false flag operation designed to further isolate Iran and defame its leaders after they took precautions to avoid U.S. casualties in their retaliatory strikes for the killing of Soleimani. Maintaining the image of Iran as a nefarious regime is crucial in justifying hawkish U.S. policies toward the country and Iran's noted restraint in its retaliation put a dent in that impression, so many were suspicious and rightly so.

It was also entirely plausible that U.S. special operations planners could have consulted the Northwoods playbook replacing Cuba with Iran and the right-wing gusanos who were to assist the staged attacks in Miami with the Iranian opposition group known as Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK/People's Mujahedin of Iran) to do the same in Tehran. In July of last year, Trump's personal lawyer and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani gave a paid speech at the cult-like group's compound in Albania where he not only referred to the group as Iran's "government-in-exile" but stated the U.S's explicit intentions to use them for regime change in Iran. The MEK enjoys high level contacts in the Trump administration and the group was elated at his decision to murder Soleimani in Baghdad.

From 1997 until 2012, the MEK was on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations until it was removed by the Obama administration after its expulsion from Iraq in order to relocate the group to fortified bases in Albania and the NATO protectorate of Kosovo. The latter disputed territory is a perfect fit for the rebranded group having been founded by another deregistered foreign terrorist organization, the al-Qaeda linked Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose leader, Hashim Thaçi, presides over the partially-recognized state. The MEK are no longer designated as such despite the State Department's own account of its bloody history:

"During the 1970s, the MEK staged terrorist attacks inside Iran to destabilize and embarrass the Shah's regime; the group killed several US military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran. The group also supported the takeover in 1979 of the US Embassy in Tehran. In April 1992 the MEK carried out attacks on Iranian embassies in 13 different countries, demonstrating the group's ability to mount large-scale operations overseas."

Declassified documents revealing the sinister plans in Operation Northwoods which shockingly made it all the way to the desk of the president of the United States and the foreknowledge of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 are just two examples of solid proof that false flag attacks against civilian passenger planes are a part of the Pentagon's modus operandi as disclosed in its own archives and there is no reason to believe that such practices have been discontinued. That the U.S. is still cozy with "former" terror groups like MEK seeking to repatriate is good reason to believe its use of militant exiles for covert operations like those from Havana has not been retired. If there were jumps to conclusions that proven serial liars could be looking for an excuse to stage an attack to lay the blame on Iran, it is only because the distinct probability was overwhelming. Even so, a stopped clock strikes the right time twice per day and that is all Iran's acknowledgment of its liability proves -- that even the world's most unreliable and criminal sources in Washington and Langley can be accurate sometimes

the grand wazoo , says: Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 2:34 am GMT

What no one is mentioning is: the US airstrikes on Iraqi military bases, and Soleimani's murder contributed greatly to the hair trigger response of Iran's air defense forces. If Washington did not turn the heat up on both Iraq and Iran there would have been no need for Iran's retaliation, and thus the level of Iran's domestic defense forces would not have been so nervous as to pull the trigger downing the airliner.
But, if's a huge word.
Flint Clint , says: Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 5:41 am GMT
I disagree.

https://m.jpost.com/Defense/WikiLeaks-Russia-gave-Israel-Iranian-codes

Israel has had control of Iran's Russian middle systems for years. Russia gave them the codes.

I think Israel blew up the aircraft. I can't find a link but I heard a huge number of Soleimani loyalists were arrested in Iran. Someone should have a link to that from Twitter or somewhere.

I think that there was some kind of collaboration between Khamenei, Israel and the US to remove Soleimani who had designs on a coup.

I don't know if this is a good or bad thing.

I also don't know who was on that plane. So it's unclear if it was good or bad it was destroyed. Who knows who those 176 dual Iranian Nationals were.

I just know that if Israel had control of those missile units and it would embarrass Iran for that to be revealed it makes sense for Iran to claim the lesser of two deep shames.

Particularly if there has been some kind of tacit acceptance of a status as a vassal state to either the US or Israel behind the scenes to preserve the regime.

Perhaps the MEK or a different vassal ruler who is really crypto Jewish will be appointed in Solemeinis place, and Iran will hence offer a symbolic enemy to justify the continuation of the military industrial complex in both Israel and the US.

Just one feasible theory.

Ilya G Poimandres , says: Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 6:46 am GMT
Even a blind squirrel, even a broken clock twice a day.. The Empire's statements and blind accusations could have been for any tragedy in a country they were psyopsing, only a matter of chance for them to be right at some time. In any case, it wasn't intentional on Iran's part.
nmb , says: Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 7:27 am GMT
Former CIA high-ranking official accidentally reveals the type of the false flag operation that the US imperialists will orchestrate to start a war with Iran
https://failedevolution.blogspot.com/2020/01/former-cia-high-ranking-official.html
Lol just lol , says: Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 8:09 am GMT
"Accidental" lol

Only if accidental means a joint Russian/Iranian hit on a Ukrainian plane carrying fleeing cia/mossad agents.

This whole situation has once again displayed how easy it is for the zio-media to control what we see and hear and believe. Disturbingly, that means that things like metoo and "believe all women" are operations too.

We are f*cked no matter what.

Crazy Horse , says: Website Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 8:56 am GMT
@the grand wazoo I wouldn't be surprised it the FDR shows that the plane strayed off its registered Flightpath and was involved in a covert recon mission that went bad.
Antares , says: Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 9:15 am GMT
It reminds me too much of MH-17, which was not hit with a BUK but with bullets. Iran should have closed its airspace because such tricks are to be expected, irrespective of the cause of the current accident. There is no immediate reason for Iranians to fly to Ukraine, or anywhere else. It may sound silly but flying is still a special and dangerous thing and should not be taken for granted.

For someone who doesn't watch television or read Iranian newspapers it was only reported on Twitter and then repeated by PressTV and others on internet. Which parts of the story are real?

Alfred , says: Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 9:30 am GMT
Of course, it was a huge and most regrettable mistake. Doubtless, the Iranians will compensate the victims for what that is worth. Most of the passengers were Iranians. I suspect that many of the "Canadians" Trudeau is on about are of Iranian descent. They would certainly be considered to be Iranians in Iran.

The series of coincidences highlighted in this article are remarkable. It has synchronicity splashed all over it.

I worked at Tehran airport for some years prior to the Revolution. After the Revolution, I volunteered to return on behalf of Raytheon (of all companies) to get some money owing. No one else was prepared to go there. Iran Air personnel were delighted to meet me again and they promptly paid the bill. I took a holiday to the Caspian with my ex-girlfriend.

A further piece of synchronicity is that I am currently visiting Kiev. The world is a truly incestuous place.

... ... ...

Wizard of Oz , says: Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 10:15 am GMT
@the grand wazoo "What no one is mentioning ."??? Really? That's almost exactly what some Iranian spokesmen have been saying.
Wizard of Oz , says: Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 10:29 am GMT
Set aside the beatup of two operations that neither the CIA or any American agency carried out the author has apparently failed to see the obvious. That is that the Iranians had no possibility of covering up the missile strike. Or did he imagine that everyone who might tell the truth could be kept permanently separated from plane parts and bodies which would have shown unmistakeable and undeniable evidences of the strike.

[Jan 12, 2020] Our Orwellian surveillance state the term imminent has been redefined ala doublespeak to mean at any time possible.

Jan 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

UserFriendly , Jan 12 2020 0:53 utc | 338

Can there be any "imminent threat" when one does not know the "who, what, when, where" of the threat?

Ahh you made the common mistake of thinking words have meaning. Just like our Orwellian surveillance state the term imminent has been redefined ala doublespeak to mean at any time possible.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/lies-the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-the-illegal-murder-of-soleimani/

[Jan 12, 2020] Iran Has Effective Military Advantage Over US, Allies in Mideast, New Report Claims

Notable quotes:
"... The 16-month study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) called Iran's Networks of Influence claims that the networks, including Shia militias fighting in what it says is a "grey zone", for instance, are something Iran heavily relies on, even to a greater extent than conventional military forces. ..."
"... Although the report concedes that overall military balance is still in favor of the US and allies, the balance of effective forces has shifted towards Iran and is currently in the Islamic Republic's favour. The study goes on to claim that "Iran is fighting and winning wars 'fought amongst the people', not wars between states". ..."
"... The study has also come up with a number of calculations: the extraterritorial al-Quds force and various militias reportedly amount to 200,000 fighters. Meanwhile, the total cost of Iran's activities in Iraq and Yemen was $16 billion, and Lebanon's Hezbollah reportedly receives $700 million in grants from the Islamic Republic. ..."
Jan 12, 2020 | sputniknews.com

A fresh in-depth study of Iran's military capabilities and balance of power in the embattled Middle East has assumed that regional wars are being waged on two layers - between states and in a so-called "grey zone", where no conventional force can counterbalance Iran's sovereign dominance. As one of the most detailed assessments of Iran's military strategy suggests, the Islamic Republic's "third party capability" has becomes Tehran's most prominent weapon of choice.

The 16-month study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) called Iran's Networks of Influence claims that the networks, including Shia militias fighting in what it says is a "grey zone", for instance, are something Iran heavily relies on, even to a greater extent than conventional military forces.

The network is said to be operating differently in most countries, having been designed by Tehran as a key means of countering regional instability and international pressure alike, with the policy "having consistently delivered Iran advantage without the cost or risk of direct confrontation with adversaries".

Although the report concedes that overall military balance is still in favor of the US and allies, the balance of effective forces has shifted towards Iran and is currently in the Islamic Republic's favour. The study goes on to claim that "Iran is fighting and winning wars 'fought amongst the people', not wars between states".

The report details at length the balance of power in the region painting it as "complex and congested battle spaces involving no rule of law or accountability, low visibility and multiple players who represent a mosaic of local and regional interests".

The study has also come up with a number of calculations: the extraterritorial al-Quds force and various militias reportedly amount to 200,000 fighters. Meanwhile, the total cost of Iran's activities in Iraq and Yemen was $16 billion, and Lebanon's Hezbollah reportedly receives $700 million in grants from the Islamic Republic.

The report comes as Iran continues to battle US-imposed economic sanctions, which closely followed Washington's unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in May 2018.

On 8 May, the first anniversary of the move, Tehran announced that it would start scrapping its nuclear obligations stipulated by the JCPOA every 60 days unless European signatories did their best to save the agreement, safeguarding Iran's interests amid Washington's re-imposed sanctions.

[Jan 12, 2020] Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot

Jan 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Norwegian , Jan 11 2020 19:33 utc | 245

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 11 2020 18:56 utc | 232
Speculation. US cyber or EW warfare cut the coms and Boeing or more likely US operatives cut one engine via the datalink to Boeing.

Following this line of speculation, it is hard to not consider the BUAP - Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot: Boeing wins patent on uninterruptible autopilot system
Boeing's is, of course, not the first autopilot technology in existence, but this one has been designed with counterterrorism first and foremost in mind. Not only is it "uninterruptible" -- so that even a tortured pilot cannot turn it off -- but it can be activated remotely via radio or satellite by government agencies.

[Jan 12, 2020] It's clear that when we ask the question "Who benefits greatly from this event", we are forced to say the US

Jan 12, 2020 | smoothiex12.blogspot.com
  • Patrick Laforet • 19 hours ago This is an interesting article on the possible causes and motivations of the downing of the Boeing in Iran. It's clear that when we ask the question "Who benefits greatly from this event", we are forced to say the US. (Google translation is decent)
    .
    WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE UKRAINIAN BOEING KILLED (show down) IN IRAN
    .
    https://inforuss.info/chto-...

[Jan 12, 2020] Blunders are inherent to military operations in wartime, peacetime often enough too, But why Iran did not close its airspace remains a puzzle. Did Iranians walked into a trap?

Jan 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Daniel N. White , Jan 12 2020 3:37 utc | 365

Yeah, an airliner shootdown because the (tired, stressed, undertrained) SAM operators fucked up. Fuckups are inherent to military operations in wartime, peacetime often enough too, and the time of this accident was both combined, and that certainly made it likelier to happen, too, dammit.

I am pleased to see Iran assume responsibility, promptly enough I reckon, for the shootdown. I trust it will be writing suitable sized checks to the heirs, and one to the Ukrainian airline too. About all that can be done; something that needs doing for everyone's sake.

Iran's assuming responsibility for its shootdown of a civilian airliner by accident contrasts to ours'.* The USA still is dodging its responsibility for the 1980 Itavia DC-9 shootdown. Most nobody in the USA knows about that incident, but I am told it remains an ongoing sore/issue in Italy/Italian politics. My piece from years ago is here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2006/12/21/jimmy-carter-in-austin/ . Since writing this, I wrote Mr. Carter via the Carter Library and via his church in Plains, GA, but never heard back. Unpleasant conclusions about Mr. Carter's integrity must be drawn from this. And similar conclusions about the USA's, and its people's.

My condolences to the families.

Daniel N. White

*Yeah, and the French Navy and nation, too. Apparently back in '68 the French Navy inadvertently shot down an Air France Caravelle over the Med. Immediate hiding of information and physical evidence started and continues to this day. [Did you think I'd pass up this opportunity to kick the French?]

Jackrabbit , Jan 12 2020 4:21 utc | 369

IRGC Commander uses a graphic to show where PS732 was struck by a missile.

FlightRadar24.com shows PS732's flight path - presumably using all data to the point where the data was interrupted by some event on board.

When I compare these, it appears that the IRGC estimate of where the missile hit is WELL AFTER transmission of flight data has ended.

Also, logically, a plane climbing a short distance from an airport should not resemble a drone. Might an operator assume a drone if the plane were DESCENDING?

Thus, there's the possibility of a scenario where a bomb under the cockpit causes the plane to start descending and the IRGC fire a missile as a because the plane's descent causes the operator to surmise that it is a drone instead of a plane.

Might there have been a bomb AND missile hit?

Note: This possibility arises only because of what seems to be a mismatch in the data from the airplane and the IRGC's estimate of where the plane was hit. Perhaps IRGC's graphic is incorrect?

<> <> <> <> <> <>

Aside: AFAICT the plane wasn't turning back to the airport ! It was on a normal flight path which turned slightly but that turning was apparently exacerbated after the plane was hit. That increased turning made it SEEM like it was turning back to the airport.

!!

Fog of War , Jan 12 2020 5:08 utc | 375
Many of you still seemed perplexed as to why Iran allowed commercial flights to go on during such a potentially tense time. Let me make it clear for everyone, they were tricked by the ZioAmericans. Basically, the Iranians were allowed to get their " face saving attack " on the Americans while thinking this would be the end of the whole episode. Little did they suspect that the US had prepared the Ukrainian plane scenario followed by instantaneous protests. The Iranians walked into a trap.


- Swiss Back Channel Helped Defuse U.S.-Iran Crisis -
The U.S. sent an encrypted fax via the Swiss Embassy in Tehran urging Iran not to escalate, followed by a flurry of back and forth messages -

https://www.wsj.com/articles/swiss-back-channel-helped-defuse-u-s-iran-crisis-11578702290

CognitiveDissonance , Jan 12 2020 5:13 utc | 377
@Vasco da Gama
Regarding the FAA NOTAMS restricting airspace a list is provided here. It is not accurate to claim only Tehran was restricted:

Exactly. And if the Ukraine Civil Aviation Authority had followed the FAA lead and grounded its aircraft in Iran , the Ukraine Air aircraft would not have gotten shot down .

The Ukraine Civil Aviation Authority didn't exactly perform well either.

Jackrabbit , Jan 12 2020 5:21 utc | 378
Fog of War @374: The Iranians walked into a trap.

That seems very possible. And, if so, the people on PS732 were sacrificed for the ambitions of AZ Empire asshats.

!!

CognitiveDissonance , Jan 12 2020 5:25 utc | 379
@Fog Of War
Many of you still seemed perplexed as to why Iran allowed commercial flights to go on during such a potentially tense time. Let me make it clear for everyone, they were tricked by the ZioAmericans.

A more plausible reason is here . The relevant except follows:

"The first thing a country should do in case of escalation of the military conflict is to close the sky for civilian flights," said retired Ukrainian Gen. Ihor Romanenko, a military analyst. " But this entails serious financial losses , fines and forfeits, therefore a cynical approach prevailed in Iran."

CognitiveDissonance , Jan 12 2020 5:25 utc | 379 Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 5:52 utc | 380
Jackrabbit 368 "Aside: AFAICT the plane wasn't turning back to the airport! It was on a normal flight path which turned slightly but that turning was apparently exacerbated after the plane was hit. That increased turning made it SEEM like it was turning back to the airport."

From the Ukraine description of the damage, the pilots would be unlikely to have any control over the plane even if they were not dead or incapacitated. From my understanding the aircraft was on its way back to the airport when it crashed.
Iran government was intitaly very sure the aircraft came down due to a tehnical problem which makes me think the pilots radioed in that they had a problem before they were hit. This is why I think the plane was hit after the turn back to the airport.
if they turn back to the the airport brought the plane to where it was facing the military site during the turn this may have caused the airdefence crew to fire. Already on high alert, their coms down and perhaps the planes transponder stops transmitting whould be more than enough suspition to down the aircraft.
A preplanned operation that cut air defence coms and disabled the aircraft (as in cut one engine plus transponder) at the same time.

Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 6:03 utc | 381
In b's previous piece on the aircraft, b had this to say "The airplane climbed out of Tehran airport in a rather straight line. The teams that man the Tor systems around Tehran must be used to the regular radar track of civil planes coming out of Tehran airport. That makes an accidental launch somewhat unlikely."

This is still very relevent. Something about that flight was different causing the Tor crew to fire. A sudden turn back to the airport along with trasponder transmissions stopping and air defence comms down would cause this.

Australian lady , Jan 12 2020 7:23 utc | 382
The Iranian apologia is a masterclass in grace..
Unfortunately the courage to admit responsibility is not understood as a civilised response, but that is what one expects from barbarians.
Iran has admitted that it shot down the plane. Perhaps that was the intention of this tragedy.
Do you remember how it was in Tehran in the election year of 2008?
Luce Ducet of the BBC was on the streets spruiking for the Iranian "colour revolution". But Amadenijad won regardless.
They are trying it again but it won't work. Never does.
However there will be chaos and that has proven to be tremendously profitable.
Krollchem , Jan 12 2020 7:26 utc | 383
DontBelieveEitherPr.@214 ( and other recent trolls)

Please do us a favor by helping with the following issues:

(1) list all countries invaded by the US compared to Iran. Each instance of an invasion of a given country is required as some countries were invaded several times;

(2) In the last 200 years list all countries overthrown by a coup by the US and its proxy's compared to Iran;

After failing in this simple task go back commenting somewhere else...

Steve M , Jan 12 2020 7:47 utc | 384
There are still a couple of things that bother me about this.

1.) is that for those of you who are saying it would be hard to distinguish an incoming enemy plane from a commercial airliner such as Pometheus @ 178 who said:

6) A RADAR signature CANNOT distinguish a commercial airline aircraft from a military aircraft - especially since some military aircraft use 737 airframes.

would that also apply to a cruise missile? That is, would it also be difficult to distinguish between a commercial airliner and a cruise missile? Because, from what I've seen, that's the claim that's being made -- that the SAM operator responsible for launching the missile against the airliner was on high alert due to warnings of possible cruise missile launches against Iran and that he mistook the target for a cruise missile -- or at least suspected that it was -- which, according to the narrative, is why he only had a 10-second window within which to make the decision to launch and why when there were "communication problems" that prevented him from getting a hold of his superiors, he had to basically flip a coin -- and unfortunately made the wrong choice. Now, I don't know if this narrative is still current, because what I read did say this account was an "early assessment", but if it is, if it's still what they're saying -- is it plausible? is what I'm asking. Or would this represent a hole in their narrative? Maybe someone on here could clarify this for me? Possibly Prometheus?

The other thing that bugs me, is who took the footage of the plane actually being hit? How did he know to train his camera in that direction at that particular place and time? Is it somebody who just hangs around and films planes that happen to be passing by? Or is it some camera that is maybe in a fixed position, like a security camera, that just happened to pick this up? (and actually, I have to say, it doesn't look like security camera footage to me) Or what? Because it is conceivable that this could indicate foreknowledge... which, of course, would indicate a planned event as opposed to an accident. Maybe someone could shed light on this for me as well?

But because of my lingering doubts I have also entertained the possibility raised by paul @ 188 that the Iranians may be lying about this in order to prevent (what would be certain) further escalation. What better way to defuse the situation than by claiming it was all just an unfortunate accident? (I guess what I have in mind is that it could have conceivably been an MEK, CIA, Mossad operation timed to eclipse the Soleimani and al-Muhandis murder stories and also further their campaign of escalation against Iran.)

Of course, I'm not maintaining that it's the case, necessarily. But the possibility did cross my mind even before I came across paul @ 188's comment. And there are some obvious problems with this narrative as well... which I probably don't need to go into here. But whatever the case may be, I'd still like an answer to the misgivings I raised above... if someone could shed light on them, I'd appreciate it.

Norwegian , Jan 12 2020 7:51 utc | 385
Speculation: The cases with planes turned into weapons all seem to be Boeings and not Airbuses if I am not mistaken, 4 Boeings @ 911 plus this one (PS752). You could argue that MH370 (vanished) and MH17 (altered flight path) possibly also fall into this category, they were Boeing planes. So a guess is that the Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot (BUAP) plays a role in some or all of these cases, and possibly other ones as well.

If BUAP was used to disable the PS752 pilots + all communication and then switch off one engine during full throttle take-off, what does that do to the flight path? Perhaps an interesting flight simulator exercise, but it would obviously turn. As others have pointed out, a civilian plane does not have IFF and will therefore be identified as hostile when it suddenly appears in front of a Tor-M1 battery because it was made to turn.

A detailed time-line would be useful, i.e. times for take-off, communication loss, when the plane started turning, missile launch, missile hit, final crash. It could possibly narrow the field of possibilities.

Vintage Red , Jan 12 2020 8:08 utc | 386
@somebody, 79

"I don't think it is beyond the US to have used the opportunity to test Iranian radars."

Remember the Soviet downing of Flight KAL 007 back in September '83. The fear of WW3 then was just as real as what we experienced last week. The US purposefully confused KAL 007's identity by flying RC-135 reconnaissance flights near it before its reaching Soviet airspace (both are Boeing, easy to mistake for each other). Some have mentioned that the pilot was Korean CIA. Either way the US got invaluable data on Soviet air defenses by its incursion near Vladivostok, and the USSR was attacked by the capitalist media afterward just as Iran is now.

Whether via hacking or sabotage of the plane, transponder or IFF (e.g., as Peter AU1 outlines @232) or something else entirely, this kind of action or outright weaponization of Ukrainian flight PS 752 is a possibility here as well.

ps -- massive thanks to bevin for very powerful comments @30 and @242.

imo , Jan 12 2020 8:38 utc | 388
@ Norwegian | Jan 12 2020 7:51 utc | 382

Indeed it is speculation but that sometimes has its place to help break up the mass-programming going on.

Remote drone control and flight by instruments are very close in technologies and one could easily imagine
the inbuilt functions and back-doors provided in modern aircraft -- especially Boeing variants for the obvious reasons.
Full-spectrum dominance (control when needed) has a meaning.

The IT technology for running total virtual computing systems were in commercial use in the 1970s.
[e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VM_(operating_system)]
Today's modern commercial aircraft are almost entirely software driven and therefore simply another virtual
machine. Flight simulators clearly operate on this principle.

I would suggest that MH370 night flight was more likely the class case study with a tribe of top Chinese technologists being
re-routed on a flight out of Malaysia to "Paradise Island" (Diego Garcia) before the plane was either ditched into the Indian
Ocean or re-cycled as a convenient relabeled option etc. In fact, from memory there were several interesting scenarios around
MH17 that included cadavers and other features. I'm not sure where these ended up in the wash.

The point being that unless there is something out the window in the real world to verify against (like position of sun etc)
then I'm sure for military purposes a large airliner could be totally enclosed in a virtual world simulation from the crew and
passenger perspective -- and quite possibly also satellite tracking for engine monitoring by suppliers.

Before MH370 and MH17 Malaysia was being rather difficult and independent (and critical of the Occupation of Palestine).
Apart from the geopolitical impacts, just the subsequent commercial impact on Malaysian Airlines brought a rather
sudden silence, compliance and silence from the Malaysian quarter. And here we are again, perhaps, simply a new cast of
actors as victims etc.

E Mo Scel , Jan 12 2020 9:11 utc | 391
It is correct that the FAA ban relates to the region and not just Tehran (FIR Tehran). I had checked that after my comment. It is still pointing to the fact that, as confirmed by statements by Iran, that there was a lot of movement in the airspace around Iran and possibly in Iran, and that civilian planes could be affected by misidentification - just the way it happened, but with almost 150 Iranians on board of the plane (some with dual citizenships). In my view, it is not feasible to assume the US did not respond to the Iranian strikes. The US hit hard and fast, just as Trump had said. The US outmaneuvered Iran from an angle they were not prepared for, right inside Iran, right in Tehran. The US come out of this clean. The lack of an overt response to the Iranian strikes can't be emphasized enough; same goes for the involvement of the CIA with Pompeo and Haspel.
uncle tungsten , Jan 12 2020 9:14 utc | 392
ADKC #342
Iran has been seduced by Trump and the illusory promise of symbolic actions/theatre. Iran has lost the phony war because it failed to see the US is not just a unwelcome visitor that will leave the Middle East when they are made to feel uncomfortable. The US cannot leave the Middle East because it would destroy itself if it did so.

I don't agree with your first proposition. I don't even think it is possible for Iran to have any illusions as to what they are up against militarily or the idiocy and malevolence of the USA. They are also aware of the near term chance to fracture the continuity of Trump as President and hope for a better or vaguely smarter person. If there is symbolism, then the Iranians made it clear 'this is a slap in the face'. That means an initial gesture of displeasure or challenge to a duel perhaps. It is not the revenge the Iranians have promised to extract from the occupying forces of the five eyes plus NATO plus Saudi sponsored ISIS. I anticipate there will soon be stage two of the vengeance extraction.

The USA will leave the Middle East either in tatters or with a smart withdrawal. The battlefield has just enlarged and entered new and murderous dimensions (thanks mainly to the assassination strategy of the USA) much as it did in Vietnam after the French were slaughtered at Dien Bien Phu. This will take some time to play out and there may be no victor but there will be a withdrawal of the USA.

You say the USA cannot withdraw due to its dependence on petrodollar cover of its currency. I say it has very little choice. The entire Shia and even perhaps some mighty angry Sunni are keen to kick the USA cadaver about the public square.

Osama Bin Laden was Sunni!! The forces of the USA are diustributed throughout the Sunni lands at their invitation ;- the USA occupies Sunni holy lands: this from NEO-

As of now, the US has 5,000 troops in the UAE; 7,000 in Bahrain; above 13,000 in Kuwait; 3,00o in Jordan; 3,000 in Saudi Arabia; 10,000 in Qatar; 5,000 in Iraq; around 1,000 in Syria -- all of course well within the range of Iranian missiles, making them an extremely attractive targets for the Iranian forces.

Only in Iraq, about 5,000 US troops could very well be sitting ducks if the Popular Mobilisation Forces were to launch a war of attrition. If history is any guide to future, it might be unrealistic to completely rule out a replay of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings

The USA can huff and puff as much as it likes but I suspect they will be displeased and shaken shitless if a couple of the vessels docked in Bahrain only a few kilometers from Iran suddenly are sitting on the seabed.

What is revenge ADKC? What if the new leader of Oman is persuaded to end the invasion of Yemen? This could leave the USA badly shaken. There is no certainty that the long war of revenge will produce good results for Iran but any other course would be craven surrender to both the USA and its Sunni running dogs and the Israeli paper tiger.

John Doe , Jan 12 2020 9:20 utc | 393
The Prime Suspect in Ukrainian PS752 Shootdown: Israel's Unit 8200
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/01/10/ps752/
Wtf , Jan 12 2020 9:23 utc | 394
How can you mistake a 737 for a cruise missile with and F band 3D doppler radar. The 737 has the signature of a friggin freight Train!
John Doe , Jan 12 2020 9:32 utc | 395
A shadowy tech firm with deep ties to Israeli intelligence and newly inked contracts to protect Pentagon computers is partnering with Lockheed Martin to gain unprecedented access to the heart of America's democracy.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/cybereason-israel-tech-firm-doomsday-election-simulations/263886/

Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 9:37 utc | 396
Wtf 391

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/computers/article/16726118/navy-continues-buying-radarspoofing-electronic-warfare-ew-equipment-from-mercury-systems
"Navy continues buying radar-spoofing electronic warfare (EW) equipment from Mercury Systems.
U.S. Navy airborne electronic warfare (EW) experts are continuing their support of radar-spoofing electronic warfare (EW)
technology from Mercury Systems Inc. that can fool enemy radar systems with false and deceptively moving targets."

At the time, Iran had many reports of incoming cruise missiles. By the sounds, US was hitting Iran with radar spoofing EW systems.

Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 10:02 utc | 399
Norwegian

There is the possibility of the uninterruptible auto pilot. It does exist but information on if
it is installed in many Boeing planes is vague. Others here have mentioned the number of incidents
Boeing aircraft have been involved in. I had thought of MH17 and MH370 but there is also 9 11 and
the Korean flight into soviet airspace. Many of the boeing aircraft are mechanical with hydraulic
assist controls so it would require something like the uninterruptible auto pilot to completely
take over the plane from the ground.
The Ukrainian NG has the mechanical controls, but its engines are computer controlled as are some other
functions in the aircraft plus I believe the aircraft has an automated data link back to boeing. This may
well have been sufficient for Boeing to turn of the Transponder and cut an engine so the plane would turn
towards the military site. This would be more than sufficient to ensure the downing of the aircraft under
the circumstances.
With an engine down the pilot would have immediately notified air traffic control and say he was turning back.
This would also explain why the Iranian government were initially certain the crash was due to technical issues.

somebody , Jan 12 2020 10:35 utc | 400
Posted by: E Mo Scel | Jan 12 2020 9:11 utc | 388

In my view, it is not feasible to assume the US did not respond to the Iranian strikes. The US hit hard and fast, just as Trump had said.

This is my sneaking suspicion. The way the news of this night were reported were 1. Iranian strike 2. Plane downed 3. 4.9 earthquake near Bushehr.

Epoch times - Falun Gong - even makes more of a connection

Israel wants the US to take out any Iranian nuclear programme. The escalation needed for such a hit was the only way to do that for Trump. Congress would never approve.

My guess is that Bushehr strikes failed to make an impression whatever they were intended to hit, so it is back to regime change.

Hausmeister , Jan 12 2020 10:45 utc | 402
If it could ever be proven that Boeing planes are being used as RC weaponized drones, the fallout would be epic.

Posted by: Sorghum | Jan 11 2020 23:18 utc | 312

No. It is enough to prove than one can switch off the transponder from a remote place. I have told in case you fly some aircraft over Germany and switch off the transponder it would take 2 minutes till you accompanied by a fighter jet.

Mao , Jan 12 2020 11:19 utc | 407
Boeing's "uninterruptible" autopilot "would be activated ... remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency."

https://www.flightglobal.com/diagrams-boeing-patents-anti-terrorism-auto-land-system-for-hijacked-airliners/70886.article

https://21stcenturywire.com/2014/08/07/flight-control-boeings-uninterruptible-autopilot-system-drones-remote-hijacking/

Pft , Jan 12 2020 11:42 utc | 408
Not sure how long this lasts before someone messes it up with a mile long link. Why b does not delete comments that disrupt the formatting is a good question.

In any event Iran played right into the US -Israeli hands. They should not have responded. I said at the outset they would be smart not to. They simply should have followed protocol under international law (feeble and futile as it would be). They accomplished nothing with their missiles and showed weakness (30% missed or were duds) If they felt the need to retaliate it should have been a covert op that provided plausible deniability.

I'm still baffled at the airline shoot down. Radar should have shown that the Boeing 737 was on a commonly used flight path heading away from the airport -- if it was inbound into the country it would be easier to explain misidentification . The Boeing 737 should have been transmitting a transponder identification code. If the equipment that picks that up, called an IFF interrogator, was malfunctioning, battery operators would have considered the path and speed of the plane on radar. The Flight was rising toward 8,000 feet at a leisurely 275 knots when flight tracking data from its transponder cut out, a normal profile for an airliner. So it is departing the area, climbing through medium altitude, not trying to hide its signature, looking like a routine operation and its shot down?

I'd say if they shot this plane down they are a mess and that perhaps there are some disloyal elements within the military who might want change and seized the opportunity to make them look bad. Sanctions take a toll on moral and support of the people. Thats the intention. Maybe its working.

I am sure the US and Israel will be ready to jump in and help restore peace and help with reconstruction after the coming revolution. That wont be cheap so we (they) will have to get 50% of the oil/gas, and maybe a Trump Tower in Tehran (after he leaves office).

ADKC , Jan 12 2020 11:51 utc | 409
Uncle Tunsten @392

The Iranian "slap in The face" was effectively arranged with the US. What does that mean?

The assassination of Soliemani was not a stupid irrational act - it was a warning to Iran, Iraq and Iran that there will be no rapproachment. What does that mean for the likelihood of Oman taking a stand against US interests?

You dismiss the petrodollar as it if has no real bearing, but it is everything - without the petrodollar the US crumbles. And, what you also fail to realise is that the US cannot extract itself from the petrodollar therefore it US trapped and compelled to to do anything it can to defend the petrodollar.

irate , Jan 12 2020 11:59 utc | 410
The MEK is the group Trump wants to replace the Iran regime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oIChqqSgzo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran

Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 12:05 utc | 411
Mao the uninterruptible auto pilot in the 21stcenturywire article is for fly by wire aircraft. Airbus are fly by wire as are some boeing models, but the 737s, apart from engine controls are not. 737 Max has fly by wire spoilers. On a fly by wire all that is required is to override or replace pilot input signals into the computer to take control of the flight controls.
The article speaks of embedded software being the uninterruptible auto pilot.
dave , Jan 12 2020 12:10 utc | 412
Nobody is asking questions why didn't Iran close down their airspace if they were expecting retaliation, perhaps because they needed a human shield in case Americans attacked? And they were expecting retaliation that is what the IRGC said.
pretzelattack , Jan 12 2020 12:11 utc | 413
i'm still not sure if some kind of hacking or cyberattack messed up the ability of iranian defense to respond to the plane. at any rate, the ultimate responsibility lies with the u.s. and israel who want regime change in iran and have tried to achieve that for decades.
dave , Jan 12 2020 12:14 utc | 414
@pretzelattack Iran also wanted regime change in the region through their export of the Islamic Revolution. Most likely Iranian defenses got hacked, their communications lines were down, but that does not excuse them for not closing the airspace (perhaps they needed a human shield in case Americans attacked).
dave , Jan 12 2020 12:23 utc | 415
People here writing stuff as if Iran and Russia are like ww2 allies. No they are not, even Putin said Russia is never going to allied herself with 1 country against another country in the middle east, that means Putin's Russia is seeking equilibrium in the middle east. It explains why Russia hesitated (after selling) to deliver the S-300 as agreed to Iran, while willing to sell S-400 to Iraq. That is because Russia wants the whole Middle East to be able to defend themselves against USA/Zionists and against each other -- that is equilibrium.
Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 12:29 utc | 416
dave
Iran's S-300s were delivered and deployed some time ago.
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2016-11/news-briefs/russia-completes-s-300-delivery-iran

https://auroraintel.net/middle-east/iranian-s-300-locations

pretzelattack , Jan 12 2020 12:29 utc | 417
they could have just screwed up, too, dave. that happens in war. that doesn't put them on some kind of equal footing with the u.s. and israel. iran hasn't attacked any other countries that i know of, what have they done exactly to topple other governments anywhere?
dave , Jan 12 2020 12:30 utc | 418
@Peter The S-300 has been delivered after a long long long delay (years) after payment. Iran was very very upset and angry about this..
dave , Jan 12 2020 12:35 utc | 419
@pretzelattack On what planet have you been living? Iran has been trying to export their Islamic revolution throughout the region and elsewhere where there are muslims ever since 1979. Iran has a neo-con and a conservative faction. The neo-cons are radicals who are seeking worldwide Islamic Revolution, the conservatives want to keep their revolution within their own borders, it is like Stalin vs Trotsky, Stalin wanted communism in 1 country, Trotsky wanted world wide revolution.
Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 12:37 utc | 420
dave
You have just been spreading shit that it was never delivered. Upgraded S-300 systems were delivered to Iran as soon as UNSC nuclear related sanctions were lifted.
pretzelattack , Jan 12 2020 12:37 utc | 421
again, dave, do you have any specifics? what governments has iran tried to topple, and how?
dave , Jan 12 2020 12:40 utc | 422
@pretzelattack No they haven't screwed up, they (Iranian government) denied IRQGC's request to close down the airspace. Same thing as with Ukraine, Ukraine did not close down their airspace while they knew beforehand (as has been proven by news articles before the MH17 shootdown) there was a BUK in hands of rebels (if that news is true), the rebels were also actively shooting down military jets with manpads. Yet the Ukraine did not close down the airspace, they were using the airliners as human shield as has been proven by the fact their jets were shadowing the airliners.
dave , Jan 12 2020 12:41 utc | 423
correction IRQGC --> IRGC
Russ , Jan 12 2020 12:45 utc | 424
dave 414

"Iran also wanted regime change in the region through their export of the Islamic Revolution."

1. Which governments was Iran at odds with other than Western colonial stooges working for Western imperial goals? Which leads to:

2. Any attempted "export" by Iran has been clear-cut self defense against relentlessly aggressive Western exportation of imperial globalized capitalism. It's even more clear-cut one-way US/Western aggression than in the case of the Cold War. Iran's 20th century experiences with Western aggression in all forms is far more than enough to justify anything they have done in response, which in any event has been relatively very modest.

415

"People here writing stuff as if Iran and Russia are like ww2 allies."

They may not be natural "allies", but they've long had a shared enemy in Western imperialism in the Mideast. They still have that shared interest, which is becoming increasingly existential whether Putin or the Iranians want to admit that to themselves or not. I know this berserker US government. It ain't going home willingly. It's not going to go gentle into that goodnight.

pretzelattack , Jan 12 2020 12:47 utc | 425
dave, i didn't say anything about closing down the airspace, although that could be another screwup; i was talking about shooting down the plane. but since you bring it up, do you have any evidence they were using planes as human shields, or any evidence about how the airspace was not closed in the first place? still waiting on the questions of what governments iran has tried to overthrow and how.
Kadath , Jan 12 2020 12:50 utc | 426
This is infuriating i just receieved an emergency alert regarding the picker nuclear power plant telling me to watch local media yet cbc news still has no information what happend in pickering its still wall to wall coverage of ithe iran air crash disaster
dave , Jan 12 2020 12:50 utc | 427
@pretzelattack Though nothing compared to what the Americans have been doing, they were spreading their Islamic ideology throughout the region ever since the Islamic revolution of 1979, by exporting the concept of suicide bombings to the Palestinian areas (Hamas, Islamic Jihad), their involvement with Yemen where houthi are trying to overthrow their government, they have been involved in Bosnia. The middle east has seen a Islamic revival thanks to the Iranians and the Americans who needed an Islamic block against secular and socialist block of the 3rd world and 2nd world.
Laguerre , Jan 12 2020 12:55 utc | 428
dave 414

"Iran also wanted regime change in the region through their export of the Islamic Revolution."

There wasn't any export that I was aware of. And certainly not regime change. The only question was the Shi'a of Iraq, and Sistani rejected the Iranian model of vilayat-i faqih.

Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 12:57 utc | 429
Kadath

https://sputniknews.com/world/202001121078015363-incident-reported-at-canadas-pickering-nuclear-power-plant/
The alert, issued at 7:20 am Sunday, assured Ontarians that "there has been NO abnormal release of radioactivity from the station and emergency staff are responding to the situation."
The bulletin also indicated that people nearby "do not need to take protective actions at this time."

dave , Jan 12 2020 13:01 utc | 430
@pretzelattack not closing down airspace while IRGC has asked for it because of possible retaliation, that to me sounds like their politicians wanted victims at the hands of the Americans in front of the world (for propaganda purposes). That is the same as in Sarajevo where Bosnian Muslim government forces placed heavy weaponry in the middle of the heavily populated city targeting Serb villages/positions around the city. That is classic human shield against enemy retaliation, also good for propaganda purposes and world opinion in case the enemy retaliates and creates casualties among civilians. UNPROFOR commander got really angry at the Bosnian forces and demanded withdrawal of the heavy weaponry from the heavily populated area, the UNPROFOR commander even threatened to bomb Bosnian Muslim positions because of this provocation by the Bosnian Muslim government forces.
pretzelattack , Jan 12 2020 13:05 utc | 431
the yemenis are being slaughtered by the saudis, i don't see the iran aid as regime change. and the u.s. had a secular block against the socialist world in saddam till they threw him under the bus. i'm not sure who came up with the idea of suicide bombing, but i don't associate it specifically with iran. it's just another tactic, no more objectionable than pushing typing something on a keyboard half a world away and blowing somebody up by drone, and i don't see how it relates specifically to iran trying to overthrow other governments. i don't support iran's theocratic leanings, but my impression is that prior to the u.s. and u.k. deposing mossaddegh iran was more of an inward looking country.
Russ , Jan 12 2020 13:06 utc | 432
Posted by: dave | Jan 12 2020 12:50 utc | 427

"The middle east has seen a Islamic revival thanks to the Iranians and the Americans who needed an Islamic block against secular and socialist block of the 3rd world and 2nd world."

Yes indeed, the Arabs and the Mideast in general originally wanted to go the route of secular nationalism and only turned to a more religious-oriented movement when the West made nationalist progress impossible. Islamic radicalism wasn't their first choice. From what I've read it sounds like Sayyid Qutb originally had less of an audience than my obscure blog. But they came to realize it was their only effective option.

That, too, is 100% on the West. All fundamentalisms are modern movements of reaction against the aggression of other movements within modernity, most obviously Western cultural, economic, military imperialism.

Russ , Jan 12 2020 13:11 utc | 433
dave 430

The US drove the Yugoslav firestorm by unilaterally recognizing Bosnian independence while the UN was still trying to work out a negotiated settlement. The US egged them on by implying or promising military support. The Bosnians were more like pawns and at any rate certainly were not Iranian proxies acting in accord with what you allege with zero evidence to be Iran's aggressive Islamist plan for world domination.

imo , Jan 12 2020 13:12 utc | 434
@ Pft | Jan 12 2020 11:42 utc | 408

"I'm still baffled at the airline shoot down. Radar should have shown that the Boeing 737 was on a commonly used flight path heading away from the airport -- if it was inbound into the country it would be easier to explain misidentification."

Look, I'm not in any position to say what did (or did not) happen. And neither is anyone else outside a very small covert closed group -- and that probably includes the Iranians with their (allegedly) modern rocket technology and somewhat 19th century thinking and governance systems.

What I do assume is: any technology that the public finds on the magazine/website du jour is already out dated by at least one cycle and probably edging into the release for commercial market phase.

In a previous post I suggested that any virtual software computer system (of which modern jet airliners are mostly -- with a bit of flying hardware attached) can be, in theory, easily separated out into an onion-layered virtual operating system environment which, for all intents and purposes, provides 100% of the simulated environment data/parameters between the layers and applications. The cybernetic world has run on this in the business world since the late 20th century. I doubt the military are in catch-up mode -- quite the opposite, I'd assume.

How do you or I know that what the Iranian 'saw,' or more importantly, thought they saw in that 10 second 'engineered' gap?

One does not need to go full-spectrum Matrix or SkyNet thinking (just yet) to see where this is headed. But I raise an eyebrow at any narrow thinking precluding advanced AI scenarios that synthesis real-world and psychological-world vectors to exploit and manipulate the situation in focus towards desirable outcomes.

Knowing the Iranian character and worldview, and the religious top-down control culture and systems of command (and their weaknesses), allows for strategic modelling of scenarios that, if not directly controlled and created in the virtual 'digital' software world -- probably a few years off yet except in niche environments (hello major MIC supplier Boeing!) -- then at least in terms of statistical 'swarms' of data that nudge the real world towards higher probability preferred scenario. Whether Bayesian statistics is relevant or not, there are advanced options to experiment with.

This cluster-fuck by the Iranian military, set off by an equivalent of 21st century "Archduke Franz Ferdinand" event is like watching (unfortunately, imo, and only because I believe a balanced multi-polar world is a safer scenario) a Mexican peasant running after his hat just blow off his head by a gust of wind. Comical if not so bloody dangerous for the global geopolitical and economic context.

NK is another case altogether. They have enough nuke or no-nuke (as does Israel apparently) binary options to be treated with some junk-yard guard dog 'respect'. But the romantic poets and intellectuals of Tehran (with their 4,000 years of increasingly irrelevant cultural history) are just being played with like a wounded mouse by a cat.

I had written off the USA in accord with the public narrative until this event. Now I've sat back and looked at it again and the pattern looks entirely different. Trump or not, this has coordinated psyops dimensions flashing red all over, imo.

If what I have set out here as a possible (plausible?) scenario is even anywhere near a reality then Iran (Mullah version) is on the edge of collapse. The people will rise up for any number of reasons -- but one critical emerging one will be simply utter frustration with trying to live and work in the modern global world with a state-based ideology suited for the Crusades of the Middle Ages. Why not just uniform up in 'British Red Coats' with a red cross labeled "shoot here!" across the heart? [*]

The last item of interest towards this view is the almost hysterical reaction by the US to Russia's S300/S400/S500... technology expanding into broader markets. I'd suggest, apart from being high-class radar and missile technology, it is also likely resistant to the digital manipulation risk that 'sees' a Boeing lilting sideways (and mapping mentally) as a cruise missile within a critical window of weakness etc. Perhaps one can see behind the Oz wizard curtain better?

----
[*] - Since 9/11 it has been clear to some in the systems/cybernetics fields that an emerging 'chaos' orientated global governance model was coming into play. The use of the periodic 'shock' is the key. Think defibrillation as the metaphor to keep a certain heart-beat rhythm going while chaos (systemic fibrillation) reigns -- and is even promoted in some contexts. The book to read on the theory is "Chaos: Making a New Science" by James Gleick (1987). He applies/explains the defibrillation principles. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos:_Making_a_New_Science )

dave , Jan 12 2020 13:17 utc | 435
USA has attacked secular Iraq, secular Lybia, they helped Al Qaeda and other Islamists in their battle against secular governments (Afghanistan), USA (democrats) are in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood, USA has helped the Muslim Brotherhood and instigated the revolution in overthrowing the secular/military government of Egypt. USA was involved with the Arab Spring which targeted secular governments.

Soviet Union and USA both supported Saddam's Iraq against Iran, then USA dumped Saddam starting in 1991.

The concept of suicide bombings comes from Iran, they were promoting and instigating suicide bombings against Israel. Sunni Islam never had a history of suicide bombings before. Al Qaeda took that concept of suicide bombings from Iran and got a CIA sponsor (in the afghanistan war). Iran also has a tradition of religious flagellation: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507355/Slashing-chained-blades-bloodied-Muslims-including-young-boys-flagellate-themselves.html

Emily , Jan 12 2020 13:18 utc | 436
Dave 427

Seems to me you need to swot up on the Sunni and Shia.
When you find out the differences come back.
This for instance...
Craig Murray 4th Jan
Quote
The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11, in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90% of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf satellites, and less than 10% of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to Iran.
This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which, regardless of party, are beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money. It is, the USA affirms, the Sunnis who are the allies and the Shias who are the enemy. Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni, every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni, the Benghazi attack was by Sunnis, Isil are Sunni, Al Nusra are Sunni, the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis.
Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which the Shia forces of Soleimani were responsible? Is there a list? It is of course a simple lie. Its tenuous connection with truth relates to the Pentagon's estimate – suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became the designated enemy – that back during the invasion of Iraq itself, 83% of US troop deaths were at the hands of Sunni resistance and 17% of of US troop deaths were at the hands of Shia resistance, that is 603 troops. All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani, remarkably.
Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion. The Iraqi Shia militias – whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion. The idea that the killing of invading American troops was somehow illegal or illegitimate is risible. Plainly the US propaganda that Soleimani was "responsible for hundreds of American deaths" is intended, as part of the justification for his murder, to give the impression he was involved in terrorism, not legitimate combat against invading forces. The idea that the US has the right to execute those who fight it when it invades is an absolutely stinking abnegation of the laws of war.
As I understand it, there is very little evidence that Soleimani had active operational command of Shia militias during the invasion, and in any case to credit him personally with every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense. But even if Soleimani had personally supervised every combat success, these were legitimate acts of war. You cannot simply assassinate opposing generals who fought you, years after you invade.

dave , Jan 12 2020 13:34 utc | 437
@Russ Yes Bosnia was primarily US proxy, Alija Izetbegovic, Bosnian Muslim leader, he staged a coup with US backing, before he organized the illegal arming of his political party with illegal weapons, they started the war by attacking Yugoslav forces, Alija Izetbegovic wanted an Islamic State according to the Iranian revolution (as he had written in his book "Islamic Declaration"), many Iranian mujahideen (including Solaymani himself) besides famous Al Qaeda members went to Bosnia to fight (together). The Clinton administration gave the green light to Iran for their support to the Bosnian Muslims (which also included Sunni Islamic radicals and known 911 hijackers). Iran is willing to support Sunni terrorists if that is in their geopolitical interests, just as they supported Sunni radicals in the Palestinian areas (suicide bombings). Now Iran is enemy with Sunni radicals/terrorists, but Iran always wanted to unite all Islamic forces against Israel (and Christian world). Russia is seeking equilibrium in the middle east, Putin does not want to allied himself with 1 country against another country in the middle east, Russia does not want to allied herself with Iran against Israel, or the other way around.
Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 13:47 utc | 438
dave
You are rapped up in the concept of suicide attacks. It is as old as war itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack#History,_pre-1980

Jack_garbo , Jan 12 2020 13:50 utc | 439
No more "whatabout" distraction from Iranian incompetence and guilt. One shootdown at a time. Iranian officers must be punished, commanders dismissed, compensation offered.
US and other Western crimes are separate, keep them separate.
Carciofi , Jan 12 2020 13:57 utc | 440
@269

"It is a mystery to me why the airport was not closed down that night, esp. in view of the FAA warning that specifically addresses Tehran."

This questions has been asked multiple times by numerous people, b included. Speculation only, but one possibility is that after the missile strike on the air bases the Iranian government was expecting a military response from the U.S., perhaps even Shock and Awe Ver 2. Maybe in that highly tense period somebody high up decided it would be better not to close the airspace immediately, thinking it would complicate matters for the U.S. And if a civilian plane did get hit in the cross-fire, the U.S. could be rightfully blamed.

Al Kiani , Jan 12 2020 13:59 utc | 441
Immediately after this horrific tragedy the leaders of the US Canada Austria Germany Holland as well as other Western leaders claimed that a missile had brought the plane down sighting "intelligence." How did the Western leaders know so quickly? Were their intelligence organizations privy in any way in bringing down the plane? Through hacking air defense radars or some other high-tech tools?

As the fog of War lifts, as we proceed forward I suspect we will know more. A lot more.

Sasha , Jan 12 2020 14:03 utc | 442
Some points...

-That now The Donald comes Twitting in Farsi is the obvious evidence that he does not manage his Twitter account, but one of his "ideologues", or a CIA agent...I bet Steven Miller...that nazi disguised in a gentleman suit trying, without success, to constrain his overwhelming rage againt everybody who do not profess his ideas...

-The regime in Oman will do nothing and will never join the Axis of Resistance, as a regime which resulted from a coup d´etat supported by the US/UK against its own father/monarch. We will be dándonos con un canto en los dientes if they remain somwhow "neutral"...
People who are more worried for their long time made up turbans, who hate getting untidy by any reason, do not usually take part in any fight, but like to remain as espectators...
That same could be said of the Swiss...who had the entrails to remain neutral during the nazi carnage, in the voew of all Europe being invaded, destroyed, submitted...hence they are now a rich country who act mainly as postman of the US...they had never to recover and rebuilt anything from smithereens as the rest of all....

-@Vintage Red, I join your expression of gratitude to bevin, although had to search for your numbered comments amongst the sea of trolls, but you notice the clear contrast with other alleged leftist resident of always ( notice how well they swim here in this sea of trolls and how they have taken advantage today to be prolific....)
That of bevin would be the common stance of any decent honest leftist, or person, in the world. The others resident here, who seem part time lefties, they really are not, but Trotskyite NATOist capitalist imperialist fifth column, the ones who have disintegrated and dismantled the genuine left in Europe and the whole West with their confussing stances, one day they say this, the other just the opposite....they criticize, slightly, the US, but then, at the first opprtunity, fall over any country or people from the resistance field as a hammer, justifying that way the evil deeds of the US and its cohort of criminal collaborating governments in Europe and North America.

-I continue finding the Russian stance in all these events shamefully mild, when not totally absent.

Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 14:07 utc | 443
The US and five eyes Orwellian hypocracy is far worse than any suicide attackers - in fact they now back the majority of them - the destruction a good part of the world in their war of terror, the humanitarian bombs and right to protect, weapons of mass destruction and vials of white powder regime changing friend and foe alike... the other day I had the pleasure of happening to be near a radio and had to listen to MH17 2.0 narrative ad nauseam. When Iran officials still thought the plane had come down due to technical problems fife new not only that it was downed by a surface to air missile, but that it was downed with a Tor missile.
With that it was completely obvious five eyes had pulled off another MH17 stunt.
And now shit head trolls like yourself and garbage man come to infest this site.
vk , Jan 12 2020 14:08 utc | 444
Now that Iran admitted downing the plane by mistake, some western journalists are pushing the narrative that it did it on purpose, and not by accident:

Iran keeps concocting fake news on downed jet

Stephen Bryen is the broken clock who was, for the first time in his life, right about the cause of the downing of the plane. Now he's riding on this excitement and is going one step further, echoing Trudeau's accusation one day earlier.

His main point of argument is that it is not possible the Tor operator had "only 6 seconds" to decide.

In the last thread, people who used the "it's too much coincidence" argument won the debate against all odds.

Now it's time for another "it's too much coincidence" argument: why, of all planes, it was a Boeing? Why, of all nationalities, it was Ukraine?

If Iran really downed the plane on purpose, then we're in counter-intelligence territory. The list of the names of the passengers is already out; some people here highlighted the fact that there were nuclear scientists in it; others highlighted the fact that the Americans can "mask" the signatures of a Boeing to make it look like a military plane; others got so far as to speculate about some kind of autopilot from afar. The correct question, though, should be: what did the Iranians discovered in or about that specific flight of such importance that they thought it better to publicly admit they downed it "by mistake"?

Kadath , Jan 12 2020 14:13 utc | 445
Re Peter Au,

Yes thats the same message that came with the alert no details on what happend though. Pickering has a terrible safety record so the government assurances mean very little to me if they felt this was important enough to send out an emergency warning saying you dont need to do anything they should at least give some explantion of what happend - as im typing they send out another emergency alert saying the first alert was sent in error what a bunch of monkeys what is going on another Hawaii missile drill

Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 14:28 utc | 446
vk "what did the Iranians discovered in or about that specific flight of such importance that they thought it better to publicly admit they downed it "by mistake"

Over the last years, Iran has gone to great pains to do things by the letter of international law. It has top quality diplomats and statesmen like Zarif. It wishes to trade with the world, be accepted by the world while retaining sovereignty and way of life. IT complied with the original stipulation of the nuke deal for a year after US pulled out, and with the introductions of US sanctions, European countries pulled out of deals and trade with Iran. Even now Iran is still within the terms of the nuke deal as the are stipulations on what can be done if a party pulls out or does not abide by the deal.
Iranian government for the first day or so where sure the plane had come down due to technical problems. When they found it had been shot down as their enemies were saying, it was a major blow. Those few days of denying it had been shot down undone much of the painstaking diplomatic work they had accomplished over a decade or so.
Also on the military side, Iranian military have proven to be very professional and high tech, but this shootdown will be used against them to try and show incompetence as many of the trolls here are doing.

Saraah , Jan 12 2020 14:30 utc | 447
Dave, for others to understand everything, please answer the only question. Are you one of those who are tolerantly called Zionists on this site?
ADKC , Jan 12 2020 14:51 utc | 448
Dave @422

"Ukraine did not close down the airspace, they were using the airliners as human shield as has been proven by the fact their jets were shadowing the airliners."

If we accept your view then we must accept that this was an intended win/win situation for Ukraine; Ukraine could use civilian aircraft for cover and, also, induce the rebels to shoot down a civilian aircraft. (I have a different view of MH17 but it would be OT to go into).

The MH17 scenario that you describe can only be comparable to Iranian shooting down PS752 if the US used similar tactics (presumably by use of electronic warfare) in order to induce Iran to shoot down PS752...

...or is it that your posts are full of fact-free, poorly researched whataboutism that should just be disregarded by any thinking person?

vk @444 asks the correct question? Perhaps, Iran know much more but a pre-requisite is that they must take responsibility for what they did - shooting down PS752) - and, perhaps, this is not what the US/west expected Iran to do? How would Iran know? Perhaps, Russian monitoring of US EW activity has revealed much more than the US expected? And, perhaps, Russia will not agree to any public relevation at present?

Sasha , Jan 12 2020 14:53 utc | 449
@Posted by: Emily | Jan 12 2020 13:18 utc | 436

To your list of Sunni terrorists´ victims, add all those resulting from terrorist attacks in Europe in the last years, by, then discovered, suspciously Sunni extremists related to mosques and mullahs funde by KSA for long time old known of the security services of any European country which has suffered these terrorist attacks....

Everybody a bit informed and their dogs knows by now that all these attacks were made to create "shock and awe" amongst the gullible population to jusitify European intevention in the illegal wars on Lybia, Syria and Iraq....What the gullible population do not know is that their governments were allying in all those invaded and slaughtered countries the same Sunni extremist terrorist who have slaughtered their own population in Europe, and not only, but morevoer they gave them prizes... like with the case of the UK MI6 founded/funded/trained White Helmets of HM...

BM , Jan 12 2020 14:59 utc | 450
There is a lot of tin hat conspiracy theorising in this thread (1) centred on an alleged FAA ban on US flights over "Tehran", and (2) that the Ukraine flight allegedly turned back to the airport before being hit by the missile.

The nonesense over the alleged FAA ban on US flights over "Tehran" has thankfully already been dealt with by the posting of the full text of the NOTAMs: the FAA ban, which applied only to US aircraft, was for all US flights in the whole of Iran airspace and the whole of Iraq airspace. Such a ban is fully to be expected in view of recent US military actions.

As regards the alleged turn of the aircraft. The Flightradar24 site shows the actual path of the Ukraine flight up to the point the transponder signals ceased (the point where the missile hit), and compare it both with the other 9 flights from Tehran that morning, and with the previous 45 scheduled flights by PS752. It is crystal clear that the only turn the aircraft made up to the point it was hit was 100% in line with it's scheduled flight plan. The only difference that could be drawn is that in terms of angle of climb it was well below average - almost but not quite the lowest of the 45 flights - because the aircraft was way overweight and therefore had difficulty climbing even on full power. The pilot Peter Haisenko wrote in detail about that. The turn, however, (up to the end of transponder transmissions) was only about 50 degrees, and was completely in line with other flights. The turn was also completed well before the missile hit - when the missile hit it was already established on straight and level flight.

The video of the Aerospace Commander's presentation shows a very sketchy hand-drawn diagram which is not to scale, with an exaggerated turn (but still depicted as less than the claimed 90 degrees). However the Aerospace Commander's sketch and the Flightradar24 charts are wholly in agreement despite the very inaccurate sketch - this is clear from the locality map given by Flightplan24, and further down the page the elevation plan, which shows the topography in 3-D.

In the latter picture you can clearly see the mountains in the background, and two smaller pointed hills in the foreground. From the video it is clear that the air defence base was at the top of the second (further) of these small hills, obviously utilising the high ground for the defence of Tehran. Virtually all the flights shown by Flightradar24 first start to turn at exactly the same point - level with the first hill - and turn towards a path going immediately to the left of the second hill where the air defence is mounted. This means that immediately on completion of the turn, all these flights would be pointing nearly directly at the air defence base, exactly as shown on the commander's sketch (except that the latter exaggerated somewhat the angle of turn). Comparing the map with the 3-D view this can be seen quite clearly.

This does not say anything about whether there was a turn after being hit - if the missile hit one engine this would automatically cause the aircraft to turn unless compensated for by the pilots, who may have been already dead - that is irrelevant to this issue.


I do share the gut feeling that the incident may have been set-up by the US, because there are a lot of grounds for suspicion, but as far as I know there is no concrete evidence in the public domain in support of that suspicion at this stage - certainly not in terms of an unusual turn before being hit by the missile.

Grounds for the Iranians to believe they had detected cruise missiles are likely very strong - the US uses electronic warfare measures (see the link posted by Peter AU) which cause the Iranian radar to see phantom images of moving objects. Many US aircraft were moving around the outside(??) of Iranian airspace, presumably creating these phantom radar images of cruise missiles, therefore the Iranians would presumably have "seen" these suspected cruise missiles in the border regions, assumed they then penetrated Iranian territory unseen by hugging the ground through the mountains, in which case they could suddenly appear subsequently at some stage where radar can detect them.

[Jan 12, 2020] It continue to be highly suspicious of the fact that it is a Ukrainian plane. Ukraine is firmly in the Anglo-Zionist camp,

Jan 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Tom_LX , Jan 11 2020 19:40 utc | 250

The fact that the plane was brought down because of the conflict initiated by Trump makes everything about it very suspicious. Just because Iran states that it is responsible does not disqualify the possibility that they were not made to make this mistake. We do not know the facts as to what the Iranian defense system saw as that Ukrainian plane was flying.

I continue to be highly suspicious of the fact that it is a Ukrainian plane. Ukraine is firmly in the Anglo-Zionist camp, period. Zelensky or not the deal was sealed when V. Nuland finished her work in Kiev. The only reason Ukraine made a deal with Russia is because it is in financial trouble and needs revenue. The West will not keep it afloat. So thinking that suddenly it is conducting its own foreign policy is incorrect.

As an aside. Does a sovereign country bring in a man like this to help it run its country ?

Mikheil Saakashvili - born 21 December 1967) is a Georgian and Ukrainian politician.[7][8] He was the third President of Georgia for two consecutive terms from 25 January 2004 to 17 November 2013. From May 2015 until November 2016, Saakashvili was the Governor of Ukraine's Odessa Oblast.[1][9][10] He is the founder and former chairman of the United National Movement party.
How about this one,
Natalie Ann Jaresko is an American-born Ukrainian investment banker who served as Ukraine's Minister of Finance from December 2014 until April 2016.[1] In 20 March 2017, she was appointed as executive director of the Financial Oversight & Management Board for Puerto Rico.
or this one,
Aivaras Abromavičius is a Lithuanian-born Ukrainian investment banker and politician. On 31 August 2019 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appointed Abromavičius the Director General of Ukroboronprom.[1] Previously he was Ukraine's Minister of Economy and Trade starting in December 2014 (Abromavičius announced his resignation on 3 February 2016). He did not retain his post in the Groysman Government that was installed in 14 April 2016.[2]

Ukraine is a Captured State.

Thus the possibility exists that that plane may have had some equipment placed in it in Kiev that could trick the Iranian Defense system to think a craft is a danger to it. Kiev would have been a safe place to do it (reasons above). If this were true does anyone here believe that announcing this fact Public opinion would believe it ? I for one don't. Russia knows how that worked out with Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17). No matter what Iran would have said that would have been spun in the West as attempting to blame someone else. Thanks to this all attention in the Media would have been on Iran which Trump would have loved. Again, Russia knows how this was played out in Malaysia MH17 case. The average CNN viewer in that case would not see how the BUKA Russian was being used as evidence that it was Russia that shot the plane down.

Iran did the right thing in admitted that it was responsible whether it was their fault or not. There was simply no way to win in the case of having being fooled into shooting the plane down.

E Mo Scél , Jan 11 2020 20:36 utc | 259

The FAA banned flights of commercial airplanes over Tehran 2 hours before the plane came down. Note, over Tehran, not over Iran. That's quite specific. Communication was lost when the officer had to make a decision. Communication jamming is part of modern warfare. Maybe this is a thwarted attempt by the US at a "disproportionate response" to Iranian strikes. Maybe this is why Trump is not that excited and had to take drugs before performing his Iran speech.
alaff , Jan 11 2020 21:00 utc | 265
Iran deserves respect, if only because it openly and honestly admitted its responsibility for what happened. This shows the maturity and courage of the political and military leadership of this country.
It is clear that the plane was shot down unintentionally. It is also obvious that Iran was provoked by the actions of the United States.

This is called life. That happens. And not only that. Human factor. We cannot avoid this and 100% eliminate all risks.

In 1914, an idiot killed a monarch, which led to a large-scale war and the death of millions of people. Human factor. Soldiers accidentally make the wrong buttons. Workers at an oil factory smoke in the wrong place, resulting in huge fires. People do not notice an extinct burner on a gas stove, resulting in an explosion, collapse of the house and death of people. Vacationers tourists did not extinguish after themselves a fire in the forest, as a result of which a giant fire covers thousands of hectares of territory. During the invasion of Iraq in 2003, American Patriot systems destroyed a friendly British Tornado fighter bomber (in addition to the destroyed American fighters). In February 2017, the Russian Aerospace Forces mistakenly attacked the Turkish military in northern Syria. In 2001, Ukrainian air defense, conducting military exercises, shot down a Russian passenger plane TU-154 over the Black Sea, 78 people died. So on and so on... The technique and equipment is imperfect. People all the more.

The Iranian situation is very similar to what happened in September 2018. Syrian air defense shot down a Russian military plane, provoked by deliberate actions by Israeli aviation. Just to remind that the Russian side has made it clear who is the true culprit of the tragedy. In the case of Iran, the same thing. It is one thing if the plane crashes as a result of a pilot error or a technical malfunction. But when it is now clear that plane was shot down, and the Iranian air defense acted as it was provoked by the actions of the United States, then the guilt of the United States only increases.

bevin , Jan 11 2020 19:27 utc | 242
Iran bears very little, if any responsibility in this matter.
The United States is entirely to blame-what has occurred is exactly what the
US government was aiming at. It has created an atmosphere of fear and panic
in the knowledge that it would create chaos-that normal government would break down
and mistakes be made.
The US plays with the lives of people. It plays God, a God dedicated to the principle of pure evil.
It plays with people's lives, the lives of the 'ants' that Harry Lime saw from above Vienna,
as a matter of course. In Gaza children with cancer cannot get treatment because the US and Israel
want to make life harder for their parents. The evil objective is to madden the people to the point
that they will rise up and kill those who oppose the Occupation. In Colombia, Bolivia, Honduras, Ecuador
and Brazil-even as we speak Death Squads-trained armed and financed-by the US and Israel stalk those
who want to reform their society. In Venezuela the supply of food and medicine is interrupted as far as
the power of the US and its allies extends.
Around the world where there are evil deeds being carried out, where children are starving, medicines are
withheld, protesters are being assassinated and militias are terrorising the population-the hands of the
United States and its allies are always evident. It was they who imported tens of thousands of wahhabis
into Afghanistan, Russia, China and the battlegrounds that we all know in order to kill, frighten and impoverish
the people. The people of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iran, Lebanon and far beyond- all of them have seen their
living standards diminished, their security removed their hopes of happiness systematically thwarted.
In order, evil order, to punish them, not for anything that they have done but in the hope that they will
surrender themselves to the United States and its agents, submit.
The truth is that human history has never seen a regime like that now ruling the United States and attempting
to rule the world. Nothing compares with it, the Nazis were simply malicious pygmies in comparison.
Many people from Trudeau to posters here refuse to admit what is crystal clear and what history will
confirm: all the deaths that come, daily, weekly, yearly from this assumption by the United States of
prerogatives, religion reserves for God; all the deaths that come from this juvenile playing with the lives of
ordinary people are entirely the choice of the US government.
Trudeau bears more responsibility for the deaths of these airline passengers than anyone in Iran. It was his choice to
keep the Embassy doors closed, to withdraw diplomatic representation and to join the US in its sanctions
against the Iranian people. He has made the same choice in Venezuela, where similar accidents may occur (have occurred
as in the sabotage of the power grid). People died then, people die daily and they do so because of choices made by
governments playing with the lives of the people.
Everyone of the victims would be alive today had not the mafia in Washington decided to smash up their society.
And they would almost certainly have been alive still had Trudeau and Freeland-and the four parties in Ottawa- done
, what most Canadians want them to do and disassociate themselves and Canada from the evil games Washington plays.

I hope that no Iranian is tricked into surrendering to evil. I hope that the tone of the Revolutionary Guards-one
of sincere regret and manly apology- does not inform their future moves which must be to re-double their commitment
to the defence of their country and the defeat of the most evil government the world has ever seen.

Ort , Jan 11 2020 19:30 utc | 243
Re: Trudeau's escalating attempts at scene-stealing

The odious, opportunistic popinjay Trudeau seems to have calculated that it's time for him to upgrade his "brand" from "dashing young Bonnie Prince Justin" to "Mature Statesman with Gravitas".

Thus, his predilection for elbowing his way to the head of the Western Hegemony Official Spokesperson line and bumptiously blowing off his big bazoo.

The new beard is a "tell"; some men, especially handsome but "baby-faced" men, are susceptible to an abiding adolescent impulse to grow facial hair in order to appear more mature. It can't be a coincidence that Trudeau's beard correlates with his increased penchant for making (fatuous) bold and aggressive pronouncements on geopolitical crises.

I know that Trudeau has a pedigree that nominally puts him in the top drawer of Canada's political aristocracy. Still, he reminds me a lot of the Venezuelan golpista boy-toy Juan "Random Guy" Guaidó.

Andromeda , Jan 11 2020 20:38 utc | 261
Prometheus - Thank you for your information. I previously thought the transponder signal would identify the plane as a civilian aircraft but one question remains for me: even without IFF would the airtraffic control not (verify the identity)and be in contact with the pilot when the course is changed? Is there no coordination between civlian and military air-control? (especially in such a tense situation)

(the Ukrainain plane turned around - why?)

Still ...despite the admission it is strange that an aviation expert like Peter Haisenko (retired Lufthansa pilot with special technical knowledge who knows Tehran airport well) came to a very different conclusion: (excerpt from German Original - my translation)

Weil mittlerweile bekannt ist, dass die Boeing nach dem ersten Aufprall noch etwa 500 Meter über den Boden geschrammt ist, darf man davon ausgehen, dass sie in flachem Winkel den Boden berührt hat, etwa wie bei einer Landung. Sie ist also nicht „ungespitzt" in den Boden gerammt.

Since it is now known the Boing grazed the ground for about 500 metres after impact it is reasonable to assume that she touched the ground at a flat-angle, like in a regular landing. [...]

Das deutet wiederum darauf hin, dass sich die Piloten in ihrer Notlage gar nicht bewusst waren, wie nahe sie dem Boden bereits sind und völlig unerwartet Bodenkontakt hatten. [...]

This is an indication that the Pilots were not aware of their emergency (how close to the ground they were) and unexpectedly touched the ground. [...]


Fest steht wohl, dass die ukrainische Boeing nach dem Start einen Motorschaden hatte. Und zwar einen soliden, mit Feuer und Totalausfall.

It appears to be certain that the Ukrainian Boeing suffered an engine breakdown after take-off, a severe one with fire and total failure.


Zunächst stelle ich fest, dass es nahezu unmöglich ist, ein Passagierflugzeug in dieser Flugphase abzuschießen. Man müsste schon jemanden mit einer kleinen Boden-Luft-Rakete im erwarteten Abflugkorridor platzieren, der dann dem abfliegenden Jet die Rakete hinterher schießt. Dieses hitzesuchende Projektil könnte dann einen Motor treffen, was aber kein zwingender Grund für einen Absturz ist. Mit einem Motor kann das Flugzeug weiter fliegen, wenn die Rahmenumstände entsprechend aller Vorschriften gesetzt worden sind. Eine größere, aufwendigere Flugabwehreinrichtung scheidet für diese Flugphase und den Ort aus. Nicht nur wegen der geringen Höhe über Grund, sondern auch, weil es solche Anlagen in dieser Gegend nicht gibt. Wenn, dann befinden sie sich im weiteren Umkreis, um Angriffe aus größerer Höhe weit vor der Stadt abzuwehren. Warum ist es dann überhaupt zu dem Absturz gekommen?

https://www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2020/ist-die-ukrainische-b-737-in-teheran-abgeschossen-worden/

Haisenko asserts that " it is nearly impossible to shoot down a passenger plane in this phase of the flight. In order to do that you'd need to place a (sort of) MANPAD in the expected flight-corridor and the heat-seaking missile could then destroy one of the engines.But this does not automatically lead to the crashing of the plane since it is able to fly with one engine [...] A bigger anti-aircraft system is not suitable for this phase of the flight ... these systems aim to intercept (destroy) targets flying at much higher altitutes and farther away from the cities ... So why did the crash happen?

Obviously he wrote that before the Iranian admission was published and with limited knowledge but still one wonders if electronic warfare played a role and certain parties wanted that plane to crash ... (at least a closer look at the passenger list seems advisable)


Emily , Jan 11 2020 21:01 utc | 266
Bevin 242

That is one of the best posts I have ever read and I have read more than a few.
Never a truer word.
If it needed a precis.......
Madeleine Albright.
The deaths of of 500,000 Iraqi children is a price worth paying.
This from a woman who had played a leading role in the destruction of Yugoslavia and the handing of the Serbian province of Kosovo to the KLA a forerunner of Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Today a narco criminal islamic state - and a base for the bloodletting and birthing of the European Caliphate.
And unlimited proxies for the USA War Of!! Terror across the Middle East.
Pure evil.

harold , Jan 11 2020 21:02 utc | 268
Sadly due to their own incompetence, Iran lost there moral high ground!
A great disappointment to those of us who supported Iran through thick and thin.

I'm not convinced this is a moral issue.

E Mo Scel , Jan 11 2020 21:03 utc | 269
am repeating my first comment for context sake:

The FAA banned flights of commercial airplanes over Tehran 2 hours before the plane came down. Note, over Tehran, not over Iran. That's quite specific. Communication was lost when the officer had to make a decision. Communication jamming is part of modern warfare. Maybe this is a thwarted attempt by the US at a "disproportionate response" to Iranian strikes. Maybe this is why Trump is not that excited and had to take drugs before performing his Iran speech.

Adding:

This would also explain why this is the first time the US did not respond to a state attacking US institutions/military bases. The Us, in fact, did respond: "Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!"

we have (!) targeted (that must mean there were plans for imminent actions in place, it's not saying "we will target") Iranian sites, some at a very high level (!), very fast (!) and very hard.

Their response went horribly wrong. Maybe a US drone was found. Maybe the US jammed communication systems. It's all speculation but it could be that the US response is the cause for the shooting down of the plane. It is a mystery to me why the airport was not closed down that night, esp. in view of the FAA warning that specifically addresses Tehran. The Iranian civil flights authority should have known about this, or is information of this kind proprietary, i.e. not shared across countries/systems? The FAA is a lead aviation agency, it's not as if the aviation agency of Tristan da Cunha had issued such a ban.

The FAA banning US aircraft flying over Tehran after Iran had struck the bases - my gut tells me the US had planned and were executing a response involving a target in Tehran which resulted in the plane being targeted by Iranian air defense systems... the jamming of communication systems (which would have been part of the US response) would be the direct cause for the plane being targeted. If this is true the US has this blood on their hands, not Iran. Again, that's why Trump was clearly under the influence of some drugs. Because that blood is on his hands, or rather, his big mouth and big ego.

...

"Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD."

somebody , Jan 11 2020 21:08 utc | 270
Daily Telegraph with explanations
(before Iran confessed)
How would the passenger plane have been accidentally targeted?

That is less clear, but is one of the challenges facing any missile operator. While military aircraft will plot course to avoid radar, civilian airliners are equipped with transponders that identify the craft and their flight path set and share it with military bases in the area.

Theoretically, the Ukrainian Boeing 737-800 should have been identified as a civilian craft on any radar. But if the Western assessment is true, this incident will join other tragic incidents of civilian planes being shot down by anti-aircraft weaponry.

In 2014, Malaysia Airline Flight 17 was suspected to have been inadvertently shot down by Russian missiles, though Moscow has consistently denied any involvement. And in 1988, a US warship engaging with Iranian gunboats in the Persian Gulf, the USS Vincennes, shot down an Iranian passenger plane after mistaking it for a jet fighter, killing all 290 people on board.

They have a nice map of Iran's rocket range. The map explains the Russian attitude towards Iran which is complex. Iran's rockets do NOT reach the USA but they reach the whole of the Middle East and a large part of Russia.

mikh , Jan 11 2020 21:29 utc | 272
To all the smart asses:Yes Iran should have closed the airport but other have some responsibility too. The Ukraine for example. Allowing planes to fly in to what is practically a war zone. Not that thei have done it before..
Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 21:34 utc | 274
Iranian military presentation which shows flight path, at what position in the turn
the aircraft was hit and location of SAM site in relation to the plane.
https://twitter.com/AbasAslani/status/1215942737557671936

The aircraft was hit when it had turned directly towards the Tor unit, at that point a
turn of nearly ninety degrees which I take it was located at the military site.

Bill Smith , Jan 11 2020 21:46 utc | 281
According to this Iran has fired this system at other civilian aircraft. From the news in 2012:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/world/middleeast/wary-of-israel-iran-is-said-to-blunder-in-strikes.html

"Iranian air defense units have taken inappropriate actions dozens of times, including firing antiaircraft artillery and scrambling aircraft against unidentified or misidentified targets," noted a heavily classified Pentagon intelligence report, which added that the Iranian military's communications were so inadequate and its training deficiencies so significant that "misidentification of aircraft will continue."

Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 22:14 utc | 291
E Mo Scel 284

The Ukraine plane was the target and the operation was successfull.
this was the only way US could strike Iran without Iran striking US bases throughout the regin plus Israel.
When Trump threatened strikes against 52 cultural sites if Iran retaliated for the killing of Soleimani, Iran said Isreal would also be hit (it has been noticeable US and Isreal have beeing trying pass of US as threatening Iran as indipendent of Isreal).
This is when the Trump admin and Israel would have settled on the takedown of a civian craftby Iran air defence. This makes Iran look fools in the eyes of fools as has occurred here and not the highly professional force they truly are.

Sam , Jan 11 2020 22:21 utc | 292
Iranians have gathered in the streets of Tehran to demand the resignation of Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei after the regime admitted it had mistakenly shot down a civilian passenger plane.

Angry crowds gathered on Saturday night in at least four locations in Tehran, chanting 'death to liars' and calling for the country's supreme leader to step down over the tragic military blunder, video from the scene shows.

What began as mournful vigils for Iranian lives lost on the flight soon turned to outrage and protest against the regime, and riot police quickly cracked down, firing tear gas into the crowd.

'Death to the Islamic Republic' protesters chanted, as the regime's security forces allegedly used ambulances to sneak heavily armed paramilitary police into the middle of crowds to disperse the demonstration.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7876363/Iranian-protesters-Tehran-turn-against-regime-military-admits-shooting-plane.html

I don't blame the Iranians protesting the unnecessary deaths of their compatriots through sheer incompetence and lack of coordination among civil and military officials. They clearly should have grounded all commercial flights. Their air defense units should have at least the basic ability to discern between a commercial jet and military aircraft & missiles. If they are this incompetent or their systems are so poor how do they expect to withstand the onslaught of an air attack by the US that would include thousands of missiles and thousands of sorties a day! Tehran will be flattened.

E Mo Scel , Jan 11 2020 23:19 utc | 313
Peter AU1 291

We agree that there was a US response, and that the plane was involved in this response. You think it was the idea from the beginning to trick Iranian air defense into shooting this particular plane down, I think there was a different target and things did not go according to plan, while the plane played a role. Both of us are speculating. You think the operation was successful, I say no, things went wrong. The US could not continue with their operation as this would have made it obvious they had utilized the plane in some way. It's different from the incident where Syria shot down a Russian military plane when Israeli jets used it as cover - this here was a civilian plane. So, speculation from my side.

It's also to be observed that 146 people on the plane were Iranian citizens; this could speak for your theory as this is a problem for the government of Iran (protests) ("One-hundred forty-six victims held Iranian passport, ten Afghan, five Canadian, four Swede and two Ukrainian. All nine crew members consisting of three cockpit crew and six cabin crew were Ukrainian. Note: A number of victims could have had multiple nationalities, so other news reports might introduce them with different nationalities than the ones in this report. The above list concerns the passport with which they left the Islamic Republic of Iran air border.") https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Iran-CAO-PS752-Initial-Report.pdf

I have no means to know. I am sure, though, that the big mouthed announcement of Trump is real. There was a response. I hope the dams won't hold for this one.

Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 23:32 utc | 314
E Mo Scel

Various MSM have stories of victims. The British and Canadian victims I saw in these articles all had Iranian names. Students expats ect returning to Iran for a visit.
One couple to get married in Iran.
Seemed to be a large number of university students including a couple of professors.

Vasco da Gama , Jan 11 2020 23:39 utc | 317
Regarding the FAA NOTAMS restricting airspace a list is provided here . It is not accurate to claim only Tehran was restricted:

KICZ A0001/20 - SECURITY..UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FLIGHT PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN FLIGHTS IN THE BAGHDAD FLIGHT INFORMATON REGION (FIR)
(ORBB) - 07 JAN 23:45 2020 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 07 JAN 23:49 2020

KICZ A0002/20 - SECURITY..UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FLIGHT PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN FLIGHTS IN THE TEHRAN FLIGHT INFORMATON REGION (FIR) (OIIX) - 08 JAN 00:10 2020 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 08 JAN 00:07 2020

Notice these cover national airspace, it is not limited to the cities they refer to. The timezones are UTC.

Zanon , Jan 11 2020 23:41 utc | 318
Well Israel and neocons sure have a good laugh how well it turned out for them past week. Not sure how Iran will be able to get back from this anytime soon, now being attacked both from abroad and internally. Not to mention the collaboration between protesters and the west.
Qparticle , Jan 11 2020 23:51 utc | 321
This site and its comments have been an unfortunate repository of ridiculous, reflexive anti-American nonsense over the past few weeks. The speculation about the flight, and inability to accept Iranian responsibility, was one of the more silly charades.

Posted by: Daniel Lennon | Jan 11 2020 16:46 utc | 185

I would add anti-Semitic too....
In my own country can't criticise Mossad actions on the news.. it would be anti-Semitic too...

So here what came from a Forbes article that helped uncover a huge Mossad Operation targeting Cyprus Larnaka airport (their Cypriot allies)
The 2 "ex" agents identified is only probably the tip of the proverbial iceberg...

"A Multimillionaire Surveillance Dealer Steps Out Of The Shadows . . . And His $9 Million WhatsApp Hacking Van"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/08/05/a-multimillionaire-surveillance-dealer-steps-out-of-the-shadows-and-his-9-million-whatsapp-hacking-van#5787fb8231b7

Youtube: https://youtu.be/Tl3mpywMYFA

9.5 million smart phones it is estimated were hacked by the Mossad Stingray like tech discuised as plain ambulances alone in Larnaka air port during the time of the operation.

Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 1:10 utc | 346
This is looking to be a very complex operation the US and five eyes is pulling off. Rather than simply reacting to events after the killing of Soleimani, the killing was inteded to set up circumstances to induce Iran into firing at a civilian aircraft. The act of war in killing the Iranian military official and diplomat followed by threats against Iranian cultural sites. With Iran air dfences on high alert, all it required was to cut air defence coms and turn an aircraft at the same time. Once that is aclomplashed, making Iran look incompetent in the eyes of the world it is straight into the pre-organised regime change operation.
I hope Russia and China will be giving Iran a bit of an assist in this because they are facing a very dangerous moment. Anything can happen now that US thinks it has Iran on the backfoot. And I think Iran is on the backfoot at the moment. What has happened has shocked them. Zarif and others, saying the plane definitely was not shot down and then realising they were wrong.
Very dangerous period for Iran as US will now press its attack harder, and perhaps in more unexpected ways. Hopefully the crew that fired will not be punished because of this. If they are, air defense crew will be hesitant to make decisions anytime their coms are cut.
The IRGC said they had asked for all flights to be grounded but the request was not acted on. This is the area hopefully the Iranian investigation will focus on.
Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 1:38 utc | 353
VK "Right after the assassination of Soleimani, Pompeo went publicly and said Iran was "one step closer to regime change""

The Assassination was the first step. Trump threats against Iran cultural sites the second step. Iran retaliation against the US bases the third step. Downing the civilian aircraft step four. And guess what... regime change operation kicks into gear.

stevelaudig , Jan 12 2020 1:43 utc | 354
But for Trump's murder of Soleimani, the Iranians would not have been so jumpy.
Trump's murder of Soleimani, was a significant factor in making the Iranians jumpy.
These deaths go on Trump's death count card along with all the dead in Syria.

[Jan 12, 2020] The petrodollar is the way in which the US gets the rest of the world to fund its wars

Notable quotes:
"... Economic growth is more about financialising goods and services that were previously free or are/were social goods. There is no real growth; just taxing the living. ..."
"... So, in my view, the only restraint on destroying Iran is capability, is the cost and the risk of retaliation (not just from Iran) - not the destruction of Iran's capital - better for Iran's capital to be destroyed than for Iran to be independent or a competitor. ..."
Jan 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

ADKC , Jan 12 2020 2:10 utc | 359

vk @334

My comment @342 should have read: "The petrodollar is the way in which the US gets the rest of the world to fund its wars,"

---------

Your comment about capitalist accumulation doesn't hold (as a motivator for the US) when we have a capitalist monopolist situation. Rate of profit is not about growth (of real goods); it is about reducing competition and scarcity. When you are the monopolist you can charge what you like but profit becomes meaningless - the monopolist power comes from the control of resources - the monopolistic capitalist becomes a ruler/monarch. You no longer need ever-increasing customers so you can dispense with them if you so chose (by reducing the population). One bottle of water is far more valuable and a lot less trouble to produce that 100 millions bottles of water. There is no point in AI to provide for the needs of "the many"; AI becomes a means to dispense with "the many" altogether.

Economic growth is more about financialising goods and services that were previously free or are/were social goods. There is no real growth; just taxing the living.

So, in my view, the only restraint on destroying Iran is capability, is the cost and the risk of retaliation (not just from Iran) - not the destruction of Iran's capital - better for Iran's capital to be destroyed than for Iran to be independent or a competitor.

[Jan 12, 2020] Utter incompetence and criminal negligence of Iran authorities

So they warned Americans about incoming missile strikes, but did not cancel passenger flights... "As Iran has already notified the Swiss embassy prior to attack on American bases, it is curious why Iran did not close its airspace and ground flights following the attack."
Still it does seems an extraordinary lack of common sense that commercial civilian flights were allowed to fly around under conditions of such high tension in the country. Also night take-offs. Better to wait until morning . . .
Notable quotes:
"... To let the civilians planes to flight while expecting they could have an US retaliation is a big mistake, because, as the Israeli did in the shooting-down of the IL-20 in Syria, the US plane could choose to be "radar-shadowed" by the civilians planes and use the civilians planes as shields before bomb the Iranian targets ..."
"... They should have grounded all commercial flights. Really, Really dumb on Iran's part. And I see the saker has been mum on the whole affair. ..."
"... It definitely shoots some holes in his propping up of the Iranian military/government to show how ready and focused they are for an American invasion. ..."
"... Why did the US keep info under wraps in the intelligence briefing to members U.S. Congress ... afterwards they specifically said there was. NO intelligence Ukraine airliner was shot down ... lots to learn for all. Not following the Putin playbook. Or other cover-ups like NATO downing an Italian passenger jet near Ithaca. Ukraine themselves have accidentally shot down a Siberian airliner by exercises above the Black Sea. ..."
"... Pretty hard to believe an accident this stupid. Sorry. ..."
Jan 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
David , Jan 11 2020 11:58 utc | 107
The Iranian Armed Forces General Staff just admitted (in Farsi, English translation ) that its air defenses inadvertently shot down the Ukrainian flight PS 752 shortly after it took off on January 8 in Tehran :
2- In early hours after the missile attack [on US' Ain al-Assad base in Iraq], the military flights of the US' terrorist forces had increased around the country. The Iranian defence units received news of witnessing flying targets moving towards Iran's strategic centres, and then several targets were observed in some [Iranian] radars, which incited further sensitivity at the Air Defence units.

3- Under such sensitive and critical circumstances, the Ukrainian airline's Flight PS752 took off from Imam Khomeini Airport, and when turning around, it approached a sensitive military site of the IRGC, taking the shape and altitude of a hostile target. In such conditions, due to human error and in an unintentional move, the airplane was hit [by the Air Defence], which caused the martyrdom of a number of our compatriots and the deaths of several foreign nationals.

4- The General Staff of the Armed Forces offers condolences and expresses sympathy with the bereaved families of the Iranian and foreign victims, and apologizes for the human error. It also gives full assurances that it will make major revision in the operational procedures of its armed forces in order to make impossible the recurrence of such errors. It will also immediately hand over the culprits to the Judicial Organization of the Armed Forces for prosecution.

The Pentagon had claimed that Iran shot down the airliner but the evidence it presented was flimsy and not sufficient as the U.S. tends to spread disinformation about Iran.

To let the civilians planes to flight while expecting they could have an US retaliation is a big mistake, because, as the Israeli did in the shooting-down of the IL-20 in Syria, the US plane could choose to be "radar-shadowed" by the civilians planes and use the civilians planes as shields before bomb the Iranian targets

Nemesiscalling , Jan 11 2020 4:29 utc | 1

At the very least, it does show us that anxieties were running very high that evening/early morning with no "in-the-know" arrangement for how the deescalation was going to pan out.

They should have grounded all commercial flights. Really, Really dumb on Iran's part. And I see the saker has been mum on the whole affair.

It definitely shoots some holes in his propping up of the Iranian military/government to show how ready and focused they are for an American invasion.

Bodes poorly.

Mark , Jan 11 2020 4:53 utc | 4
Sadly due to their own incompetence, Iran lost there moral high ground!
A great disappointment to those of us who supported Iran through thick and thin.

/Slow clap

Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 5:01 utc | 7
So much for engine malfunction. fives eyes said it was a missile so I thought it would have been their proxies like Ukraine, but not the case this time. Downing the drone firing only one missile, precision strikes on the US base... shit happens especially when the US and five eyes are involved and creating the fog of war. Hope it doesn't make the Iranians hesitate when they next need to fire one.
Sam , Jan 11 2020 5:05 utc | 8
@1

Yes, why didn't Iran ground all commercial flights while there was hostilities and the potential for reprisal missile and air attacks? Their air defenses can't be that good if they can't distinguish between a commercial jet and a military jet.

Indeed does not bode well in the event of war with the US which would destroy much of Iran.

Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 5:14 utc | 10
For the trolls currently infesting this site - Iraq, a relatively small country when it comes to superpowers has been successfully fending off the US for fourty years. Fourty years when they could be attacked by the US at any time. They have developed their own air defences plus high tech missiles that accurately hit a US base within an Iraqi base. Trump is intent on destroying Iran. The US regime wouldn't hesitate to use a civilian plane to try and penetrate Iran's defences. US is as culpable of this downing as was the crew of the US ship that far from home and on Iran's doorstep downed the Iranian passenger jet.
SharonM , Jan 11 2020 5:15 utc | 11
@4 Mark

I'm pretty sure Iran will never lose the moral high ground against the U.S. and Israel;)

pleasebeleafme , Jan 11 2020 5:15 utc | 12
Well. Looks like Iran will have to lay low for awhile or at least until the US starts the war for real. Not necessarily a bad thing?
At least the victims families get some closure. Iran should propose that some of their frozen assets be released to pay restitution.
The downing of the plane probably helped avoid an American retaliation for the missile strikes.
Sam , Jan 11 2020 5:17 utc | 13
Iran cleared up the crash site where the passenger jet came down and before admitting its responsibility on Friday, said it wanted to handle the black box data itself.

The debris of the Boeing 737 has been removed from the crash site near Tehran before Ukrainian investigators have even arrived , sparking fears of a cover-up.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7875505/Iran-ADMITS-shooting-Ukrainian-jetliner.html

It was a dead giveaway yesterday when Iran started clearing the debris from the crash site before any independent investigators arrived. When you add that to video that showed the Ukranian airliner exploding in the air, it would have indicated a decent probability that Iran was hiding something. But....most everyone in the earlier threads on the downing of the jet were finding all kinds of excuses why it couldn't have been an Iranian air defense missile.

Lysander , Jan 11 2020 5:30 utc | 18
Yes this is a horrible tragedy and I wish Iran had grounded all flights until they were certain all was clear. But in real life accidents and mistakes happen, sometimes very tragic and costly.

But all this talk of Iranian 'incompetence' and 'loss of moral high ground' is utter nonesense.

Iran handled this tragic mistake about as well as anyone could. Indeed far better than many others have. Especially when you consider that they knew that their enemies would use everything in an inform8war against them. Given the circumstances, Iran handled the aftermath as well as possible. 'Why did it take Iran so long to admit it?' Well, 'so long' is 3 days. And even before that, they invited experts from Boeing and even the NTSB to help with the investinvestigation.

And now those who wished to use this incident against Iran are stuck. What can they say? The US making a fuss about it will only offer an opportunity to remind everyone of IA655. Iran has already admitted it and apologized. Not much more to use.

And none of this changes the fact that Iran is the only country to openly retaliate against the US military and have the US back down.

tucenz , Jan 11 2020 5:37 utc | 20
The following link has interesting info about some of the people killed in the Ukrainian flight PS 752. Originally, I wasn't going to mention this article because in it it said "...A crash which US authorities are now saying was caused by Iran's own missile defence systems. An explanation which Iran seems to be accepting for the moment. ..." but as that seems to be the case. This tragic shootdown will make Russia cautious in supplying Iran with missiles.

https://postmanproductions.wordpress.com/2020/01/10/uss-cvn-aotearoa-a-lockheed-weapons-platform/

Fundas , Jan 11 2020 5:45 utc | 23

It only took 2 Days! US never publicly accepted responsibility for IR655. Iran promise to punish not honor or reward the guilty. MH17 any takers yet?

IronForge , Jan 11 2020 6:01 utc | 28
My Ship was headed to the Gulf on the Monday after the Friday Vincennes Incident.

I was in my Homeport in Japan that Evening. Spent Supper and Watched Music Videos at the Officers' Club. As I got off my Bike at the Pier - an Associate told me that We shot down an Iranian F-14.

We already had Skirmishes the Previous Summer with the USS Stark, which Kicked Off the Naval Convoys of Operation Earnest Will.

We know that the IRNians were harassing the Vincennes with their Gunboats. The Vincennes were told to leave the Area several times afterwards; but Disobeyed - Seeking to Destroy. The Air Warfare Team were hell bent on the Hunt, they Deluded Themselves to believe that a Hostile Aircraft was approaching. With no Comms/Responses and no one checking Commercial Flight Paths, they Shot Down the Airliner.

I confirmed this with the Officer leading the Anti Surface Team on the Vincennes that Day - when I met him during an MBA Prospective Tour at Harvard years later.

Human Error - Rushed Judgement. Now we need to see if the Aircraft did Deviate from the Path / Warnings+Comms were ongoing - and to see if it wasn't a Cover for Intel Photo Ops over the Base.

Oui , Jan 11 2020 6:03 utc | 29
The United States KNEW about the tragic event from the moment it happened. Military satellites in the sky can make sharper photo's than reporters on the ground of the crash site. The intelligence was shared with 5 Eyes plus ... incl. at least Israel and The Netherlands (PM Mark Rutte if MH-17 fame).

Why did the US keep info under wraps in the intelligence briefing to members U.S. Congress ... afterwards they specifically said there was. NO intelligence Ukraine airliner was shot down ... lots to learn for all. Not following the Putin playbook. Or other cover-ups like NATO downing an Italian passenger jet near Ithaca. Ukraine themselves have accidentally shot down a Siberian airliner by exercises above the Black Sea.

Pft , Jan 11 2020 6:41 utc | 40
Pretty hard to believe an accident this stupid. Sorry.

Could an Iranian have been turned by foreign agents to shoot down a passenger airliner, and then claim it was an accident?

Or could Iran have been enticed to make a false admission to protect Boeings reputation and/or the Ukraine airlines reputation. Perhaps a carrot of lesser severity in the new sanctions?

There is no way to know really. I suppose its simplest to just take Irans admission as truth. If US fighters were flying over Irans airspace I suppose thats an adequate defense.

Still, its hard to see it. I mean if that was the case and enemy aircraft were intruding over Irans airspace local civilian planes wouldn't have been cleared to take off by ATC because there is no way to guarantee the flight path is clear. They just wouldn't. And if they did Iran has just basically admitted how incompetent they are. I mean they knew what was coming since they launched the missiles into Iraq. They had to have a plan on if there was a retaliatory response They had to be tracking any incoming flights very carefully as potential targets. A flight taking off from Tehran cant possibly be confused as an attacker unless their air defense system and training of operators is FUBAR

I'm going back and watch Fake Wrestling. Its more believable

Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 9:11 utc | 72
somebody
five eyes will come at you covered in any type of sheep clothing. Australian aid to east timor, UK's white helmets, plenty of stories of CIA inserting itself into aid agencies. Operation northwoods was one scheme put forward but not carried out. Sounds like the Ukraine plane may have made a sudden turn to head back to the airport but towards a protected site without allowing time for air defences to be notified.
There may be more to this story when flight records are retrieved.
Zanon , Jan 11 2020 10:50 utc | 89
Wow,

'I wish I was dead': Senior IRGC commander accepts full responsibility for downing Ukrainian plane, apologizes to nation
https://www.rt.com/news/478011-irgc-accepts-guilt-downing/

Zanon , Jan 11 2020 10:54 utc | 91
According to the commander of the Aerospace Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Amir Ali Hajizadeh, Iranian air defence systems mistook the Boeing 737 for a cruise missile. The plane was shot down with a short-range projectile, he added.
https://sputniknews.com/world/202001111078005863-iran-says-ukrainian-aircraft-brought-down-by-human-error-ap-reports/#article_item_1078007210
jiri , Jan 11 2020 10:58 utc | 92
Sounds very much like the situation with the Russian Il-20 that was brought down in Syria last year. Was someone trying to use the Ukrainian jet as a cover to attack the IRGC site?

Hostile planes in the area.

Flight 752 making an approach "positioning itself at the altitude and form of a hostile flight".

Maybe some experts will explain how common is it for an airliner to have an altitude and trajectory consistent with a hostile flight (of an attacking missile).

Apparently the plane first took on extra fuel because it was overloaded and then offloaded cargo because then it was even more overloaded. This seems illogical. What is the standard practice in these cases?

And then there was someone who was there early in the morning ready to take video of the flight.

And we had pictures of the missile fragment very soon after the crash. Someone knew what to look for and searched for it.

Remote controlled hijacking???

Many questions-few answers.

Perhaps the solution is to have a S-300 or S-400 system put in place just like Putin did after the IL-20 shootdown.


Quote from Farsnews

***
"Following threats by the criminal US president and military commanders to strike a large number of targets on the Islamic Republic of Iran's territory in case of an Iranian attack and due to the unprecedented aerial movements in the region, the Islamic Republic of Iran's Armed Forces were on highest levels of alert to respond to any possible threats," the statement said.

"In the early hours after the missile attack, military flights of the US terrorist forces increased around the country and defense units received some reports about flying objects that were moving towards the country's strategic centers as several targets appeared on radar screens which made the air defense units more sensitive," it added.

"Under such sensitive and critical circumstances, flight number 752 of the Ukrainian airline company left Imam Khomeini airport and then approached a sensitive military center after a turn, positioning itselt at the altitude and form of a hostile flight and was hit because of a human error and unintentionally under such conditions, and as a result a number of our country men and women and some foreign citizens lost their lives," it added.
****

End quote

https://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13981021000078

Jen , Jan 11 2020 11:01 utc | 93
Johwa @ 92:

My first thought on seeing the news that the Iranian military had admitted to shooting down UIA Flight PS752 was similar to yours.

By making this admission, the Iranians nip in the bud any conspiracy theories and narratives that their enemies might try to weave and convince the public around the world (and especially diaspora Iranians) insinuating their guilt, whether actual or not, in the plane crash.

Supposing the Iranians did deliberately shoot down the plane, there may be a reason why they decided to say it was an accident: such an admission not only absolves them from accusations of cold-bloodedness which might cost them the trust of their neighbours (and others beyond their neighbourhood) but also relieves them of having to explain the real reason for shooting down the plane - because that reason may very well be something involving Ukraine in a regime-change activity or operation against Iran or one of its allies.

Chechens are known to be in Ukraine, and to be fighting for and against Kiev. What other groups not normally resident in Ukraine might have arrived there in the years since Yanukovych's ousting as President in February 2014, being trained as fighters to fight in other lands that have committed the unholy sin of defying the United States and the masters Washington DC serves?

What the Iranians have done in admitting culpability is sure to displease a lot of people, not satisfy them. They sure didn't see that one coming.

somebody , Jan 11 2020 11:09 utc | 96
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 11 2020 10:51 utc | 99

I am sure they will fix the problem.

Why did the US not bother to warn other airlines ?

But shortly before the crash , the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration announced an emergency flight restriction for U.S. airlines flying over areas of Iraq and Iran. The FAA warned of the " potential for miscalculation or misidentification " of civilian planes because of increased military tensions in those areas.
Ghost Ship , Jan 11 2020 11:17 utc | 97
Iran will now be taken to the cleaners. The entire IRGC is classified by Washington as a terrorist organisation so I imagine some US vulture law firm is already looking at taking action in American courts against Iran in the full expectation that each victim's estate will be awarded billions of dollars compensation and the US law firm will earn billions in fees. Iran should get ahead of this game and make offers of substantial compensation (far more than the legal minimum) to the families of all the victims.
Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 12:10 utc | 115

"Russian anti-aircraft missile "Tor" hit the liner in the lower part of the front of the fuselage, directly under the cockpit.

A direct hit and the cabin flared up inside. Instantly turned off the transponder of the aircraft, which gives signals about the flight. Instantly lost contact.

While there is no data, one or two missiles have caused such damage. It is possible that the second missile also hit the fuselage from below close to the first. But all this remains to be clarified."

If this is the case, it is doubtful the pilots and perhaps the cockpit controls would have been in any condition to turn the aircraft after the first hit.

Red Ryder , Jan 11 2020 12:16 utc | 116
This is one good reason to make certain Iran does not get nuclear weapons.

Russia and China absolutely are working to keep Iran from getting nukes. And those are Iran's closest "allies", who are risking sanctions to help Iran survive the maximum pressure hybrid war.

Time to get real about Iran.

The regime should have let the Russians sell them the S-400, and let the Russians build an integrated defense system with communications for all units. It might have prevented such a tragedy. But the regime is full of pride and wants its weapons to be built by Iran. Thus, tragedy has befallen Iran. Needlessly.

They need to come up with a diplomatic, negotiating strategy (like listen to Putin) and change the present terms of engagement. The US will crush them economically otherwise. Trump doesn't have to fire a shot. Iran is stumbling backward, not just on a back foot.

Jonathan W , Jan 11 2020 12:43 utc | 125
The Daily Mail says right in the first paragraph that the communications were jammed, so let us look beyond the flight patterns to electronic warfare. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7875505/Iran-ADMITS-shooting-Ukrainian-jetliner.html?ito=facebook_share_article-top&fbclid=IwAR29exjv4giGs-UtLosaUXbynVfwsBg65VLyvryIhgw1wr-qTNnUQmLaiBg

[Jan 11, 2020] 'Brought to Jesus' the evangelical grip on the Trump administration US news The Guardian

Jan 11, 2020 | www.theguardian.com

'Brought to Jesus': the evangelical grip on the Trump administration The influence of evangelical Christianity is likely to become an important question as Trump finds himself dependent on them for political survival

Julian Borger in Washington

Fri 11 Jan 2019 02.00 EST Last modified on Fri 18 Jan 2019 16.51 EST Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email Donald Trump at the Republican national convention in Cleveland, Ohio, on 18 July 2016. Photograph: Mike Segar/Reuters I n setting out the Trump administration's Middle East policy, one of the first things Mike Pompeo made clear to his audience in Cairo is that he had come to the region as "as an evangelical Christian".

In his speech at the American University in Cairo, Pompeo said that in his state department office: "I keep a Bible open on my desk to remind me of God and his word, and the truth."

The secretary of state's primary message in Cairo was that the US was ready once more to embrace conservative Middle Eastern regimes, no matter how repressive, if they made common cause against Iran.

His second message was religious. In his visit to Egypt, he came across as much as a preacher as a diplomat. He talked about "America's innate goodness" and marveled at a newly built cathedral as "a stunning testament to the Lord's hand".

ss="rich-link"> 'Toxic Christianity': the evangelicals creating champions for Trump Read more

The desire to erase Barack Obama's legacy, Donald Trump's instinctive embrace of autocrats, and the private interests of the Trump Organisation have all been analysed as driving forces behind the administration's foreign policy.

The gravitational pull of white evangelicals has been less visible. But it could have far-reaching policy consequences. Vice President Mike Pence and Pompeo both cite evangelical theology as a powerful motivating force.

Just as he did in Cairo, Pompeo called on the congregation of a Kansan megachurch three years ago to join a fight of good against evil.

"We will continue to fight these battles," the then congressman said at the Summit church in Wichita. "It is a never-ending struggle until the rapture. Be part of it. Be in the fight."

For Pompeo's audience, the rapture invoked an apocalyptical Christian vision of the future, a final battle between good and evil, and the second coming of Jesus Christ, when the faithful will ascend to heaven and the rest will go to hell.

For many US evangelical Christians, one of the key preconditions for such a moment is the gathering of the world's Jews in a greater Israel between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. It is a belief, known as premillenial dispensationalism or Christian Zionism – and it has very real potential consequences for US foreign policy .

It directly colours views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and indirectly, attitudes towards Iran, broader Middle East geopolitics and the primacy of protecting Christian minorities. In his Cairo visit, Pompeo heaped praise on Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, for building the new cathedral, but made no reference to the 60,000 political prisoners the regime is thought to be holding, or its routine use of torture.

Pompeo is an evangelical Presbyterian, who says he was "brought to Jesus" by other cadets at the West Point military academy in the 1980s.

https://www.theguardian.com/email/form/plaintone/4300

"He knows best how his faith interacts with his political beliefs and the duties he undertakes as secretary of state," said Stan van den Berg, senior pastor of Pompeo's church in Wichita in an email. "Suffice to say, he is a faithful man, he has integrity, he has a compassionate heart, a humble disposition and a mind for wisdom."

As Donald Trump finds himself ever more dependent on them for his political survival, the influence of Pence, Pompeo and the ultra-conservative white Evangelicals who stand behind them is likely to grow.

"Many of them relish the second coming because for them it means eternal life in heaven," Andrew Chesnut, professor of religious studies at Virginia Commonwealth University said. "There is a palpable danger that people in high position who subscribe to these beliefs will be readier to take us into a conflict that brings on Armageddon."

Chesnut argues that Christian Zionism has become the "majority theology" among white US Evangelicals, who represent about a quarter of the adult population . In a 2015 poll , 73% of evangelical Christians said events in Israel are prophesied in the Book of Revelation. Respondents were not asked specifically whether their believed developments in Israel would actually bring forth the apocalypse.

The relationship between evangelicals and the president himself is complicated.

Trump himself embodies the very opposite of a pious Christian ideal. Trump is not churchgoer. He is profane, twice divorced, who has boasted of sexually assaulting women. But white evangelicals have embraced him.

Eighty per cent of white evangelicals voted for him in 2016, and his popularity among them is remains in the 70s. While other white voters have flaked away in the first two years of his presidency, white evangelicals have become his last solid bastion.

Some leading evangelicals see Trump as a latterday King Cyrus, the sixth-century BC Persian emperor who liberated the Jews from Babylonian captivity.

The comparison is made explicitly in The Trump Prophecy , a religious film screened in 1,200 cinemas around the country in October, depicting a retired firefighter who claims to have heard God's voice, saying: "I've chosen this man, Donald Trump, for such a time as this."

Lance Wallnau , a self-proclaimed prophet who features in the film, has called Trump "God's Chaos Candidate" and a "modern Cyrus".

"Cyrus is the model for a nonbeliever appointed by God as a vessel for the purposes of the faithful," said Katherine Stewart , who writes extensively about the Christian right.

She added that they welcome his readiness to break democratic norms to combat perceived threats to their values and way of life.

"The Christian nationalist movement is characterized by feelings of persecution and, to some degree, paranoia – a clear example is the idea that there is somehow a 'war on Christmas'," Stewart said. "People in those positions will often go for authoritarian leaders who will do whatever is necessary to fight for their cause."

Trump was raised as a Presbyterian, but leaned increasingly towards evangelical preachers as he began contemplating a run for the presidency.

Trump's choice of Pence as a running mate was a gesture of his commitment, and four of the six preachers at his inauguration were evangelicals, including White and Franklin Graham, the eldest son of the preacher Billy Graham, who defended Trump through his many sex scandals, pointing out: "We are all sinners."

Having lost control of the House of Representatives in November, and under ever closer scrutiny for his campaign's links to the Kremlin, Trump's instinct has been to cleave ever closer to his most loyal supporters.

Almost alone among major demographic groups, white evangelicals are overwhelmingly in favour of Trump's border wall, which some preachers equate with fortifications in the Bible.

Evangelical links have also helped shape US alliances in the Trump presidency. As secretary of state, Pompeo has been instrumental in forging link with other evangelical leaders in the hemisphere, including Guatemala's Jimmy Morales and the new Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro . Both have undertaken to follow the US lead in moving their embassies in Israel to Jerusalem .

Trump's order to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv – over the objections of his foreign policy and national security team – is a striking example of evangelical clout.

ss="rich-link"> Sheldon Adelson: the casino mogul driving Trump's Middle East policy Read more

The move was also pushed by Las Vegas billionaire and Republican mega-donor, Sheldon Adelson, but the orchestration of the embassy opening ceremony last May, reflected the audience Trump was trying hardest to appease.

The two pastors given the prime speaking slots were both ardent Christian Zionists: Robert Jeffress, a Dallas pastor on record as saying Jews, like Muslims and Mormons, are bound for hell ; and John Hagee, a televangelist and founder of Christians United for Israel (Cufi), who once said that Hitler and the Holocaust were part of God's plan to get Jews back to Israel , to pave the way for the Rapture.

For many evangelicals, the move cemented Trump's status as the new Cyrus, who oversaw the Jews return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple.

The tightening of the evangelical grip on the administration has also been reflected in a growing hostility to the UN, often portrayed as a sinister and godless organisation.

Since the US ambassador, Nikki Haley, announced her departure in October and Pompeo took more direct control, the US mission has become increasingly combative, blocking references to gender and reproductive health in UN documents.

Some theologians also see an increasingly evangelical tinge to the administration's broader Middle East policies, in particular its fierce embrace of Binyamin Netanyahu's government, the lack of balancing sympathy for the Palestinians – and the insistent demonisation of the Iranian government.

ss="rich-link"> US will expel every last Iranian boot from Syria, says Mike Pompeo Read more

Evangelicals, Chesnut said, "now see the United States locked into a holy war against the forces of evil who they see as embodied by Iran".

In a speech at the end of a regional tour on Thursday, Pompeo reprised the theme, describing Iran as a "cancerous influence".

This zeal for a defining struggle has thus far found common cause with more secular hawks such as the national security adviser, John Bolton, and Trump's own drive to eliminate the legacy of Barack Obama, whose signature foreign policy achievement was the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, which Trump abrogated last May.

In conversations with European leaders such as Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May, Trump has reportedly insisted he has no intention of going to war with Iran. His desire to extricate US troops from Syria marks a break with hawks, religious and secular, who want to contain Iranian influence there.

But the logic of his policy of ever-increasing pressure, coupled with unstinting support for Israel and Saudi Arabia, makes confrontation with Iran ever more likely.

One of the most momentous foreign policy questions of 2019 is whether Trump can veer away from the collision course he has helped set in motion – perhaps conjuring up a last minute deal, as he did with North Korea – or instead welcome conflict as a distraction from his domestic woes, and sell it to the faithful as a crusade.

Topics Donald Trump Evangelical Christianity Trump administration US foreign policy Religion US politics Christianity features

[Jan 11, 2020] Can The US Assassination Of Qassem Soleimani Be Justified by Barkley Rosser

Notable quotes:
"... We know from various Congressional folks that briefers of Congress have failed to produce any evidence of "imminent" plans to kill Americans Soleimani was involved with that would have made this a legal killing rather than an illegal assassination. ..."
"... As Sergey Lavrov and President Putin have stated for a long time (and long before President Trump came along), the USA is 'agreement incapable'. However, now you have to wonder if any country really trusts any agreement they will make with the USA. Without trust on any level, cooperation/trade treaties and so on on are impossible or eminently disposable, i.e., not worth the paper upon which they are written. ..."
"... 603 Americans killed in Iraq, he says Trump supporters claim, but we had millions of Iraqi's, Syrians, Libyans and others killed or their lives uprooted by Bush and Obama and company – yet they were not assassinated. ..."
"... NO. Shockingly bad decision; you can just manage to glimpse around the edges of the war propaganda the embarrassment and backpedaling for having willingly stepped into such a gigantic steaming pile of excrement. The parade of smooth-faced liars on the MSM asserting that the US is now safer (the "war is peace" crowd) is sickening. Some even have the gall to assert that the enormous crowds in Iran are forced to attend by the repressive regime. Of course, there's no evidence of a provocation and they'll never produce any. ..."
"... I find it interesting that Pompeo was "disappointed" – what did he think would happen? For a Secretary of State, he's obviously extremely out of touch with the rest of the world if he didn't have some realistic idea of how this would go down. ..."
"... One other glaring omission from the article – the only reason there was a US military contractor in Iraq available to be killed in the first place is due to the illegal war based on false premises launched almost two decades ago by the US, which continues to occupy the country to this day. ..."
"... Pretty clear who the terrorists are on this case. ..."
"... Fascinating developments on this issue today. Pompeo admits that nothing was "imminent." Given the very specific definitions of Imminence that draw red lines between what is or is not legal in international law, this could get big very quickly. ..."
"... War hawks dressed in red or blue can become mercenaries and create Go Fund Me drives to protect their investments and any particular country which they have a personal affinity or citizenship. ..."
"... Lest we forget: "War is a racket." ..."
"... How does this meet the internationally recognized legal requirement of "imminent" danger to human life required to kill a political or military leader outside of a declared war? All public statements by the U.S. political and military leadership point to a retaliatory killing, at best, with a vague overlay of preemptive action. ..."
"... If you agree that the "Bethlehem Doctrine" has never been recognized by the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, or the legislatures of the three rogue states who have adopted it, the assassination of Suleimani appears to have been a murder. ..."
"... "I cross-checked a Pentagon casualty database with obituaries and not 1 of the 9 American servicemen killed fighting in Iraq since 2011 died at the hands of militias backed by Suleimani. His assassination was about revenge and provocation, not self-defense." ..."
"... The unsuccessful operation may indicate that the Trump administration's killing of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani last week was part of a broader operation than previously explained, raising questions about whether the mission was designed to cripple the leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or solely to prevent an imminent attack on Americans as originally stated. ..."
"... For some "exceptional" reason we don't recognize international law! We are the terrorists not them. ..."
Jan 11, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Can The US Assassination Of Qassem Soleimani Be Justified? Posted on January 10, 2020 by Yves Smith Yves here. Even though the angst over "what next" with the US/Iran confrontation has fallen a bit, there is still a depressingly significant amount of mis- and dis-information about the Soleimani assassination. This post is a nice high level treatment that might be a good candidate for circulating among friends and colleagues who've gotten a hefty dose of MSM oversimplifications and social media sloganeering.

Update 6:50 AM: Due to the hour, I neglected to add a quibble, and readers jumped on the issue in comments. First, it has not been established who launched the attack that killed a the US contractor. The US quickly asserted it was Kat'ib Hezbollah, but there were plenty of groups in the area that had arguably better motives, plus Kat'ib Hezbollah has denied it made the strike. Second, Kat'ib Hezbollah is an Iraqi military unit.

By Barkley Rosser, Professor of Economics at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. Originally published at EconoSpeak

We know from various Congressional folks that briefers of Congress have failed to produce any evidence of "imminent" plans to kill Americans Soleimani was involved with that would have made this a legal killing rather than an illegal assassination. The public statements by administration figures have cited such things as the 1979 hostage crisis, the already dead contractor, and, oh, the need to "reestablish deterrence" after Trump did not follow through on previous threats he made. None of this looks remotely like "imminent plans," not to mention that the Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi has reported that Soleimani was on the way to see him with a reply to a Saudi peace proposal. What a threatening imminent plan!

As it is, despite the apparent lack of "imminent plans" to kill Americans, much of the supporting rhetoric for this assassination coming out of Trump supporters (with bragging about it having reportedly been put up on Trump's reelection funding website) involves charges that Soleimani was "the world's Number One terrorist" and was personally responsible for killing 603 Americans in Iraq. Even as many commentators have noted the lack of any "imminent plans," pretty much all American ones have prefaced these questions with assertions that Soleimani was unquestionable "evil" and "bad" and a generally no good guy who deserved to be offed, if not right at this time and in this way. He was the central mastermind and boss of a massive international terror network that obeyed his orders and key to Iran's reputed position as "the Number One state supporter of terrorism," with Soleimani the key to all of that.

Of course, in Iran it turns out that Soleimani was highly respected, even as many oppose the hawkish policies he was part of. He was viewed as crucial to the victory over ISIS/ISIL/Daesh in Iraq, much feared by Iranians. Shia take martyrdom seriously, and he is viewed as a martyr. It appears that even Trump took notice of the massive outpouring of mourning and praise for Soleimani there up to the point of people dying in a stampede in a mourning crowd in his hometown. But, hey, obviously these people simply do not understand that he was The World's Number One Terrorist! Heck, I saw one commenter on Marginal Revolution claiming Soleimani was responsible killing "hundreds of thousands." Yes, this sort of claim is floating around out there.

A basic problem here is that while indeed Soleimani commanded the IGRC al Quds force that supported and supplied various Shia militias in several Middle Eastern nations, these all were (and are) ultimately independent. Soleimani may have advised them, but he was never in a position to order any of them to do anything. Al Quds itself has never carried out any of the various attacks outside of Iran that Soleimani is supposedly personally responsible for.

Let us consider the specific case that gets pushed most emphatically, the 603 Americans dead in Iraq, without doubt a hot button item here in the US. First of all, even if Soleimani really was personally responsible for their deaths, there is the technical matter that their deaths cannot be labeled "terrorism." That is about killing non-combatant civilians, not military personnel involved in combat. I do not support the killing of those American soldiers, most of whom were done in by IEDs, which also horribly injured many more. But indeed this awful stuff happened. But in fact this was all done by Iraqi -based Shia militias. Yes, they were supported by Soleimani, but while some have charged al Quds suppplied the IEDs, this turns out not to be the case. These were apparently made in Iraq by these local militias. Soleimani's al Quds are not totally innocent in all this, reportedly providing some training and some inputs. But the IEDs were made by the militias themselves and planted by them.

It is also the case that when the militias and Americans were working together against ISIS/IISIL/Daesh, none of this happened, and indeed that was still the case up until this most recent set of events, with the death setting off all this an American civilian contractor caught on a base where several Iraqis were killed by a rocket from the Kat'b Hezbollah Iraqi group. Of course with Trump having Soleimani assassinated, this cooperation has ceased, with the US military no longer either fighting ISIS/ISIL/Daesh nor training the Iraqi military. Indeed, the Iraqi parliament has demanded that US troops leave entirely, although Trump threatened Iraq with economic sanctions if that is followed through on.

As it is, the US datinrg back to the Obama administration has been supplying Saudi Arabia with both arms and intelligence that has been used to kill thousands of Yemeni civilians. Frankly, US leaders look more like terrorists than Soleimani.

I shall close by noting the major changes in opinion in both Iran and Iraq regarding the US as a result of this assassination. In Iran as many have noted there were major demonstrations against the regime going on, protesting bad economic conditions, even as those substantially were the result of the illegal US economic sanctions imposed after the US withdrew from the JCPOA nuclear deal, to which Iran was adhering. Now those demonstrations have stopped and been replaced by the mass demonstrations against the US over Soleimani's assassination. And we also have Iran further withdrawing from that deal and moving to more highly enrich uranium.

In Iraq, there had been major anti-Iran demonstrations going on, with these supported to some degree by the highest religious authority in the nation, Ayatollah Ali Sistani. However, when Soleimani's body was being transferred to Iran, Sistani's son accompanied his body. It really is hard to see anything that justifies this assassination.

I guess I should note for the record that I am not a fan of the Iranian regime, much less the IGRC and its former and new commander. It is theocratic and repressive, with many political prisoners and a record of killing protestors. However, frankly, it is not clearly all that much worse than quite a few of its neighboring regimes. While Supreme Jurisprudent Khamenei was not popularly elected, its president, Rouhani, was, who obeyed popular opinion in negotiating the JCPOA that led to the relaxation of economic sanctions, with his power reduced when Trump withdrew from the agreement. Its rival Saudi Arabia has no democracy at all, and is also a religiously reactionary and repressive regime that uses bone saws on opponents and is slaughtering civilians in a neighboring nation.

xkeyscored , January 10, 2020 at 6:12 am

with the death setting off all this an American civilian contractor caught on a base where several Iraqis were killed by a rocket from the Kat'b Hezbollah Iraqi group.
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this, but it appears to be presented here as a fact.
Kat'b Hezbollah have denied responsibility for that rocket attack. To the best of my knowledge, no proof whatsoever has been presented that it was not an attack by jihadis in the area, whom Khat'b Hezbollah were fighting, or by others with an interest in stirring the pot.

Cat Burglar , January 10, 2020 at 12:37 pm

They are having a hard time coming up with public evidence to support any justification, aren't they?

The latest was Pence's "keeping it secret to protect sources and methods" meme. Purely speculating here, but I immediately thought, "Oh, Israeli intelligence." Gotta protect allies in the region.

xkeyscored , January 10, 2020 at 1:38 pm

Debka, run by supposedly-former Israeli military intelligence, was enthusing about upcoming joint operations against Iran and its allies a month or two ago. In contrast, they've been uncharacteristically quiet, though supportive of the US, regarding recent developments.

Trump and Netanyahu confirm US-Israel military coordination against threatened Iranian attack

A US-Iran military front is fast shaping up on the Syrian-Iraqi border – with a role for the IDF

Dwight , January 10, 2020 at 6:32 am

Secretary of State Pompeo claimed that Soleimani was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Syria. Basically blaming Iran for all deaths in the Syrian war.

Donald , January 10, 2020 at 8:35 am

People more commonly do this with Assad. A complicated war with multiple factions fighting each other, armed by outside sources including the US, most with horrific human rights records, but almost every pundit and politician in the US talks as though Assad killed everyone personally.

Once in a while you get a little bit of honesty seeping in, but it never changes the narrative. Caitlin Johnstone said something about that, not specifically about Syria. The idea was that you can sometimes find facts reported in the mainstream press that contradict the narrative put out by pundits and politicians and for that matter most news stories, but these contradictory facts never seem to change the prevailing narrative.

ChrisFromGeorgia , January 10, 2020 at 9:15 am

That sounds suspiciously like sour grapes and another possible motive for the killing – revenge.

Soleimani led a number of militias that were successful in defeating the Saudi (and CIA) sponsored Sunni jihadis who failed to implement the empire's "regime change" playbook in Syria.

No doubt a lot of guys like Pompeo wanted him dead for that reason alone.

Thuto , January 10, 2020 at 6:36 am

The simple answer NO, killing a sitting army general of a sovereign state on a diplomatic mission resides in the realm of the truly absurd. Twisting the meaning of the word "imminent" far beyond its ordinary use to justify the murder is even more absurd. And the floating subtext to all this talk about lost American lives is that the US can invade and occupy foreign lands, engage in the sanctimonious slaughter of locals and whoever else gets in the way of feeding the bloodlust of Pompeo and his ilk (to say nothing of feeding the outsized ego of a lunatic like Trump), and yet expect to suffer no combat casualties from those defending their lands. It's the most warped form of "exceptional" thinking.

As an aside, I wonder if the msm faithfully pushing the talk about Iran downing that Ukrainian commercial jet is designed to take the heat off a beleaguered Boeing. The investigation hasn't even begun but already we have the smoking gun, Iran did it.

Olga , January 10, 2020 at 8:27 am

Even the question is wrong. The killing was cowardly, outside all international norms (this from a country that dares to invoke "international order" whenever it is suitable), a colossal mistake, a strategic blunder, and plain destructive.
The more one learns about QS' activities, the more it seems that he was "disposed of" precisely because of his unique talent and abilities to bring together the various local factions (particularly, in Iraq), so that then – unified – they could fight against the common enemy (guess who?). He was not guilty of killing amrikans – nor was he planning to – his "sin" was to try and unite locals to push the us out of ME. It was always going to be an uphill battle, but in death he may – in time – achieve his wish.

Susan the other , January 10, 2020 at 11:49 am

I'm in this camp too. But with a twist. Pure speculation here – and I'm sure it would never be exposed, but is there even any proof we did it? Was it an apache helicopter or a drone; whom have we supplied with these things? Who is this bold? Since our military has been dead-set-against assassinating Soleimani or any other leader it seems highly unlikely they proposed this to Trump. Mattis flatly refused to even consider such a thing. So I keep wondering if the usual suspect might be the right one – the Israelis. They have the proper expertise. And the confusion that followed? If we had done it we'd have had our PSAs ready to print. Instead we proffered an unsigned letter and other "rough drafts" of the incident and then retracted them like idiots. As if we were frantic to step in and prevent the Rapture. We could have taken the blame just to prevent a greater war. Really, that's what it looks like to me.

bold'un , January 10, 2020 at 5:19 pm

Surely the whole point of the strike is that it was illegal: that is to say that it was a message to the Iraqis that they are NOT allowed to help Iran evade sanctions, NOT allowed to do oil-for-infrastructure deals with China and NOT allowed to invite senior Iranians around for talks: i.e. Iraq is not yet sovereign and it is the US that makes the rules around there; any disobedience will summarily be punished by the de facto rulers even if that violates agreements and laws applicable in Iraq.

If you disagree, then what should the US do if Iraq does not toe the Western line?

makedonamend , January 11, 2020 at 4:29 am

Hiya Olga & t'Others,

" The killing was cowardly, outside all international norms (this from a country that dares to invoke "international order" whenever it is suitable), a colossal mistake, a strategic blunder, and plain destructive "

I think the immediate impact which has long terms implications for how other countries view USA foreign policy is simply that any high ranking individual from any other country on earth has got to be aware that essentially no international norms now exist. It's one thing to 'whack' a bin Laden or dispose of a Gaddafi but another whole kettle of fish to assassinate a high ranking official going about their business who's no immediate security threat to the USA and when no state of war exists.

For example, might a EU general now acquiesce to demands about NATO? Not saying this is going to happen by a long shot, but still a niggling thought might linger. Surely the individual will be resentful at the very least. I'm also reminded of a story about John Bolton allegedly telling a negotiator (UN or European?) that Bolton knew where the negotiator's family resided. These things add up.

As Sergey Lavrov and President Putin have stated for a long time (and long before President Trump came along), the USA is 'agreement incapable'. However, now you have to wonder if any country really trusts any agreement they will make with the USA. Without trust on any level, cooperation/trade treaties and so on on are impossible or eminently disposable, i.e., not worth the paper upon which they are written.

This is where the middle term ramifications start to kick-in. We know that Russia and China are making some tentative steps towards superficial integration in limited areas beyond just cooperation. Will they find more common ground? Will European countries (and by extension the EU) really start to deliver on an alternative financial clearing system? How will India and Japan react? Does nationalism of the imperial variety re-emerge as a world force – for good or bad?

Will regional powers such as Russia, China, India, France or Iran quietly find more common ground also? But alliances are problematic and sometimes impose limitations that are exploitable. So, might a different form of cooperation emerge?

Long term its all about advantage and trust. Trust is a busted flush now. (My 2 cents, and properly priced.)

vlade , January 10, 2020 at 6:40 am

As Thuto above says, the simple answer is "No". IF S was guilty of all those things ascribed to him, he'd have been judged and sentenced (yes, I do realise Iran would never extradite him etc. etc. – but there would have been a process and after the process, well, some things would be more justifiable). But we have the process because it's important to have a process – otherwise, anyone can find themselves on a hit list for any reason whatsoever.

If the US doesn't want to follow and process, then it can't be suprised if others won't. Ignoring the process works for the strongest, while they are the strongest. And then it doesn't.

timbers , January 10, 2020 at 6:53 am

603 Americans killed in Iraq, he says Trump supporters claim, but we had millions of Iraqi's, Syrians, Libyans and others killed or their lives uprooted by Bush and Obama and company – yet they were not assassinated.

I think – just a guess – the reason Soleimani was killed can be summed up in one word:

Netanyahu.

That, and on a broader, bird's eye view level in broad strokes – Michael Hudson's recent article outlining U.S. policy of preserving USD hegemony at all costs, that has existed since at least the 1950's, which depicts Soleimani's assassination as not a Trump qwerk but a logical application of that policy.

You might say the swamp drainers came to drain the swamp and ended filling it up instead.

Darius , January 10, 2020 at 8:04 am

The mostest terriblest guy in the history of this or any other universe, but the average Joe never heard of until they announced they killed him. His epochal terribleness really flew under the radar.

Wukchumni , January 10, 2020 at 8:14 am

A joke I heard on the slopes yesterday: Nobody had ever heard of Soleimani, and then he blew up overnight, so now everybody knows who he is.

Philo Beddoh , January 10, 2020 at 8:13 am

The swamp drainers are so busy guzzling as much as they can quaff, without drowning; writhing each others' dead-eyed, bloated feeding frenzy; that obscene media distractions need to escalate in sadistic, off-hand terror. But, it's so ingrained into our governance, we just call it democracy?

Susan the other , January 10, 2020 at 12:05 pm

Hudson's take on USD hegemony is reasonable, but I don't think we'd assassinate Soleimani in anticipation of losing it. We have dealt with all the sects in the middle east for a long time and we have come to terms with them, until now. In a time that requires the shutting down of oil and gas production. I think (Carney, Keen, Murphy, etc.) oil is the basis for our economy, for productivity, for the world, that's a no brainer. But my second thoughts go more along the lines that oil and natural gas will be government monopolies directly – no need to use those resources to make the dollar or other currencies monopolies. Sovereign currency will still be a sovereign monopoly regardless of the oil industry. That also explains why we want hands-on control of this resource. And with that in mind, it would seem Soleimani might have been more of an asset for us.

Yves Smith Post author , January 10, 2020 at 8:48 pm

I hate to tell you but as much as we are fans of Hudson, he's all wet on this one. The dollar is the reserve currency because the US is willing to run sustained trade deficits, which is tantamount to exporting jobs. Perhaps more important, my connected economists say they know of no one who has the ear of the military-intel state who believes this either. This may indeed have been a line of thought 50 years ago but it isn't now.

rusti , January 10, 2020 at 7:18 am

much of the supporting rhetoric for this assassination coming out of Trump supporters (with bragging about it having reportedly been put up on Trump's reelection funding website)

I thought I had a pretty strong stomach for this stuff, but it's been really nauseating for me to see the displays of joy and flag waving over the assassination of someone the overwhelming majority of people were wholly unaware of prior to his death. My guess is that it's mostly just a sort of schadenfreude at the squirming of Democrats as they (with few exceptions) fail to articulate any coherent response.

The response should be clear without any caveats, "Trump is a coward who would never gamble with his life, but will happily gamble with the lives of your kids in uniform." This should resonate with most people, I don't believe that neocons really have any grassroots support.

carl , January 10, 2020 at 7:27 am

NO. Shockingly bad decision; you can just manage to glimpse around the edges of the war propaganda the embarrassment and backpedaling for having willingly stepped into such a gigantic steaming pile of excrement. The parade of smooth-faced liars on the MSM asserting that the US is now safer (the "war is peace" crowd) is sickening. Some even have the gall to assert that the enormous crowds in Iran are forced to attend by the repressive regime. Of course, there's no evidence of a provocation and they'll never produce any.

PlutoniumKun , January 10, 2020 at 7:49 am

Politico Europe is reporting that behind Europes seemingly supine response, officials and politicians are 'seething' over the attack. Its clearly seen around the world as not just illegal, but an appalling precedent.

So far, American efforts to convince Europeans of the bright side of Soleimani's killing have been met with dropped jaws .

The Historian , January 10, 2020 at 10:30 am

The silence from other countries on this event has been deafening. And that should tell Trump and Pompeo something, but I doubt if they are smart enough to figure it out.

I find it interesting that Pompeo was "disappointed" – what did he think would happen? For a Secretary of State, he's obviously extremely out of touch with the rest of the world if he didn't have some realistic idea of how this would go down.

Eclair , January 10, 2020 at 11:17 am

One wonders it this will be recalled as the episode in which the US finally jumped the shark.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , January 10, 2020 at 2:56 pm

On one hand, the life of each and every victim of head-separation and droning is as precious as that of one Soleimani.

On the other, the general's is more precious and thus, the behind the scene seething by Europe's politicians and officials. (They and many others are all potential targets now, versus previously droning wedding guests – time to seethe).

Which is it? More precious or equally precious?

Harry , January 10, 2020 at 7:57 am

The more I think about it, the more it seemed like the Administration and its allies were probing to see how far they could go. They bombed PMUs and appeared to get away with it. So then they upped the ante when the Iraqis complained and finally got some moderate push-back. Not taking American lives in the missile strike seems to prove they Iranians didn't want to escalate. Still, I dont know about the Pentagon, but I was impressed with the accuracy.

Procopius , January 10, 2020 at 7:01 pm

I was impressed with the accuracy.

Yes. From the picture at Vineyard of the Saker, they hit specific buildings. There were comments after the drone attack on Abqaiq and Khurais oil fields in KSA that they showed surprising accuracy, but perhaps this time surprised the intelligence agencies. Perhaps that was why Trump declared victory instead of further escalating. This is speculation, of course.

The Rev Kev , January 10, 2020 at 7:23 pm

There is also a good article giving more detail of these attacks and underlining the fact that not a single solitary missile was intercepted. What percentage did the Syrians/Russians manage to intercept of the US/UK/French missiles attack back in 2018? Wasn't it about seventy percent?

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2020/01/the-strike-ttg.html

Yves Smith Post author , January 10, 2020 at 8:51 pm

The Iranians are not done retaliating. They have a history of disproportionate retaliation, but when the right opportunity presents itself, and that routinely takes years. The limited strike was out of character and appears to have been the result of the amount of upset internally over the killing.

Darius , January 10, 2020 at 8:12 am

I have more a lot more respect for the strategic acumen of the Iranian regime than I do for that of the American regime. Now it's led by a collection of fragile male egos and superstitious rapture ready religious fanatics. Before them the regime was led by cowardly corporate suck ups. They all take their cues from the same military intelligence complex.

lyman alpha blob , January 10, 2020 at 8:18 am

One other glaring omission from the article – the only reason there was a US military contractor in Iraq available to be killed in the first place is due to the illegal war based on false premises launched almost two decades ago by the US, which continues to occupy the country to this day.

Pretty clear who the terrorists are on this case.

Amfortas the hippie , January 10, 2020 at 8:55 am

Aye! This!
assume a ladder on a windy day, with a hammer irresponsibly left perched on the edge of the top rung.
if i blithely walk under that ladder just as the wind gusts and get bonked in the head by the falling hammer whose fault is it?
we shouldn't be there in the first damned place.

and as soon as the enabling lies were exposed, we should have left, post haste .leaving all kinds of money and apologies in our wake.
to still be hanging around, unwanted by the locals, all these years later is arrogant and stupid.

during the Bush Darkness, i was accused to my face(even strangled, once!) of being an american-hating traitor for being against the war, the Bush Cabal, and the very idea of American Empire.

almost 20 years later, I'm still absolutely opposed to those things not least out of a care for the Troops(tm) .and a fervent wish that for once in my 50 years i could be proud to be an American.

what a gigantic misallocation of resources, in service of rapine and hegemony, while my fellow americans suffer and wither and scratch around for crumbs.

Mikel , January 10, 2020 at 8:32 am

Another of many questions that remain involve the warped interpretation of "imminent" of the Bethlehem Doctrine. What institution will put a full stop to that doctrine of terror?
It is a global hazard to continue to let that be adopted as any kind of standard.

Susan the other , January 10, 2020 at 12:15 pm

Under the Bethlehem Doctrine the entire political class in the USA, and possibly a few other countries, could be assassinated. What is legal or justified for one is justified for all.

David , January 10, 2020 at 8:33 am

Rosser is an economist rather than a philosopher or. jurist, and so he doesn't appear to realize that "justification" in the abstract is meaningless. An act can only be justified or not according to some ethical or legal principle, and you need to say what that principle is at the beginning before you start your argument. He doesn't do that, so his argument has no more validity than that of someone you get into a discussion with in a bar or over coffee at work.
Legally, of course, there is no justification, because there was no state of armed conflict between the US and Iran, so the act was an act of state murder. It doesn't matter who the person was or what we was alleged to have done or be going to do. There's been a dangerous tendency developing in recent years to claim some kind of right to pre-emptive attacks. There is no such legal doctrine, and the ultimate source of the misrepresentation – Art 51 of the UN Charter – simply recognizes that nothing in the Charter stops a state resisting aggression until help arrives. That's it.
Oh, and of course if this act were "justified" then any similar act in a similar situation would be justified as well, which might not work out necessarily to America's advantage.

Carolinian , January 10, 2020 at 8:36 am

Via ZH site this article is an interesting take on the situation

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2020/01/donald-trump-has-just-blown-up-his-goal-of-isolating-iran/

General Jonathan Shaw, former commander of UK forces in Iraq, put it well: Iran's objectives are political, not military. Their aim is not to destroy any American air base, but to drive a wedge between the US and its Arab allies -- and the Soleimani assassination has achieved more to this end than anything that could have been cooked up in Tehran. The Sunnis are standing down and the US and Israel now once again face being without real friends in the region. When push came to shove, all Kushner's efforts amounted to nothing. How elated the Iranians must be, even in the midst of such a setback.

Which if true means that instead of divide and conquer Trump and Pompeo may instead be practicing unite and be conquered when it comes to US meddling in the Middle East.

The Rev Kev , January 10, 2020 at 10:07 am

I think that I see a danger for Israel here with a very tight pucker factor. I had assumed that if there was a war between Israel and Hezbollah, that Hezbollah would let loose their older rockets first to use up the Israeli anti-missile ordinance that they have. After that would come their modern accurate missiles.

But part of that Iranian attack on those US bases was the use of older missiles that had been retro-fitted with gear for accurate targeting which obviously worked out spectacularly. Israel could assume that Iran would have given Hezbollah the same technology and the implication here is that any first wave of older Hezbollah missiles would just be as accurate as the following barrages of newer missiles.

Susan the other , January 10, 2020 at 12:36 pm

I wonder if it is remotely possible that all countries, say at the UN, could design acceptable language to make oil and natural gas a universal resource with a mandated conservation – agreed to by all. Those countries which have had oil economies and have become rich might agree to it because the use of oil and gas will be so restricted in future that they will not have those profits. But it would at least provide them with some steady income. It would prevent the oil wars we will otherwise have in our rush to monopolize the industry for profit; it would conserve the use of oil/gas and extend it farther out into the future so we can build a sustainable worldwide civilization and mitigate much of the damage we have done to the planet, etc. How can we all come together and make energy, oil and natgas access a universal human right (for the correct use)?

The Rev Kev , January 10, 2020 at 8:38 am

Actually Soleimani was guilty of the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Tens of thousands of ISIS fighters that is. Do they count? The Saudis, Gulf States and the CIA may shed a tear for them but nobody else will. When Soleimani arrived in Baghdad, he was traveling in a diplomatic capacity to help try to ease off tensions between the Saudis and the Iranians. And this was the imminent danger that Trump was talking about. Not an imminent danger to US troops but a danger that the Saudis and Iranians might negotiate an accommodation. Michael Hudson has said similar in a recent article.

I think that what became apparent from that attack last year on the Saudi oil installations was that they were now a hostage. In other words, if the US attacks Iran, then Iran will take out the entirety of Saudi oil production and perhaps the Saudi Royal family themselves. There is no scenario in an Iran-US war where the Kingdom come out intact. So it seems that they have been putting out feelers with the Iranians about coming to an accommodation. This would explain why when Soleimani was murdered, there was radio silence on behalf of the Saudis.

Maybe Trump has worked out that all of the Saudi oil facilities becoming toast would be bad for America too but, more importantly, to himself personally. After all, what is the point of having the Saudis only sell their oil in US dollars if there is no oil to sell? What would such a development do to the standing of the US dollar internationally? The financial crisis would sink his chances for a win this November and that is something that he will never allow. And I bet that he did not Tucker Carlson to tell him that.

nippersdad , January 10, 2020 at 10:17 am

Fascinating developments on this issue today. Pompeo admits that nothing was "imminent." Given the very specific definitions of Imminence that draw red lines between what is or is not legal in international law, this could get big very quickly.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/477664-pompeo-says-we-dont-know-when-we-dont-know-where-soleimani-had

And the Iraqi's are not backing down.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/policy-strategy/477651-iraqi-prime-minister-tells-pompeo-to-prepare-a-mechanism-for

Without a SOFA in place that leaves us open to charges of war crimes; prolly not something that Trump wants to see during an election year.

JTMcPhee , January 10, 2020 at 11:36 am

What percent of the presumed Trump base, and imperial Big Business and Banksters, not to mention the sloshing mass of other parts of the electorate subject to "spinning" in the Bernays Tilt-a-Whirl, would give a rat's aff about "war crimes" charges? Drone murders to date, the whole stupid of profitable (to a few, externalities ignored) GWOT, all the sh!t the CIA and CENTCOM and Very Special Ops have done with impunity against brown people and even people here at home, not anything more than squeaks from a small fraction of us.

And Trump is the Decider, yes, who signed off (as far as we know) on killing Soleimani that was lined up by the Borg, but really, how personalized to him would any repentance and disgust or even scapegoat targeting by the Blob really be, in the kayfabe that passes for "democracy in America?"

I always though de Tocqueville titled his oeuvre on the political economy he limned way back when as a neat bit of Gallic irony

xkeyscored , January 10, 2020 at 11:54 am

I don't know. Might Trump benefit from charges of war crimes, spinning them as further proof that the United Nations, International Criminal Court, etc. are controlled by commies and muslims out to get the USA?
As for the imminence of the hypothetical attacks, "There is no doubt that there were a series of imminent attacks being plotted by Qassem Soleimani," Pompeo told the Fox News host. "We don't know precisely when and we don't know precisely where, but it was real."
Remember that imminent=possible at some time in the near or distant future, and
Vice President Dick Cheney articulated shortly after 9/11: in Mr. Suskind's words, "if there was even a 1 percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction -- and there has been a small probability of such an occurrence for some time -- the United States must now act as if it were a certainty." That doctrine didn't prevent Bush's re-election.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/books/20kaku.html

shinola , January 10, 2020 at 10:19 am

The assassination was carried out by the Good Ol' USA – ipso facto it was justified.

Shiloh1 , January 10, 2020 at 12:10 pm

Declare victory and bring them all home. Leave behind W's Mission Accomplished banner and pallets of newly printed $100s with Obama's picture.

Along the lines of Bismarck, not worth the life of a single Pomeranian grenadier. Not my 20 year old, not anybody else's in my name, either, especially since this began before they were born.

And to whom will they sell their oil and natural gas? Who cares – its a fungible commodity of perhaps only of concern to our "allies" in Western Europe. Not my problem and great plan to mitigate carbon emissions!

War hawks dressed in red or blue can become mercenaries and create Go Fund Me drives to protect their investments and any particular country which they have a personal affinity or citizenship.

Synoia , January 10, 2020 at 12:13 pm

It is US election year, and much money is to be had by pandering to various piles of money.

Wacking an effective Iranian General is good news to some pile of money, and would encourage the pile of money to the Wacking party.

I see this incident as no more that the behaviors of criminal gangs.

The real question is Quo Bono. The answer appears to be the Israel Supporters giving $ to Trump.

JTMcPhee , January 10, 2020 at 12:47 pm

Lest we forget: "War is a racket."

Monty , January 10, 2020 at 2:36 pm

The whole episode reminds me of a Martin Scorsese plot line. A disagreement among "Made Men". The unfortunate symbolism and 'disrespect' of the embassy protest demanded a response, especially after all the fuss Trump made about Benghazi. Some things cannot be allowed. The Iranians, Russians and Americans probably decided between themselves what would be sufficient symbolism to prevent a war, and so Soleimani was sacrificed to die as a hero/martyr. A small price to prevent things spiraling out of control. The Iranian response seems to add weight to this hypothesis.

Rosario , January 10, 2020 at 12:54 pm

Forgive me for taking this a little more in the direction of theory, but can the rest of the world justify the assassination of CIA/Pentagon/CENTCOM officials in a similar manner given the opportunity? Are these organizations not an analog to Quds? That seems to be more in line with the type of questions we need to be asking ourselves as US citizens in a multi-polar world. This article, despite its best intentions, still hints at an American exceptionalism that no longer exists in the international mind. The US could barely get away with its BS in the 90s, it definitely can't in 2020.

The US no longer has the monopoly on the narrative ("Big Lie") rationalizing its actions, not to say the other countries have the correct narrative, just that, there are a whole bunch of narratives ("Lies") out there being told to the world by various powers that are not the US, and the US is having a difficult time holding on to the mic. The sensible route would be to figure out how to assert cultural and political values/power in this world without the mafiosi methods. Maybe some old fashioned (if not icky, cynical) diplomacy. It is better than spilled blood, or nuclear war.

The US military/intelligence wonks overplayed their hand with Soleimani. I think the Neo-Cons gave Trump a death warrant for Soleimani, and Trump was too self-involved (stupid) to know or care who he was offing. His reaction to the blow back betrays that.

Now he is f*****, along with the chicken-hawks, and they all know it. They just have to sit back and watch Iran bomb US bases because the alternative is a potential big war, possibly involving China and Russia, that can't be fought by our Islamist foreign legions. It'll demand the involvement of US troops on the ground and the US electorate won't tolerate it.

Ashburn , January 10, 2020 at 12:57 pm

Anyone who has worked in the counter-terrorism field knows that when a credible and imminent threat is received the first act is to devise a response to counter the threat. It may involve raising security measures at an airline security checkpoint, it may involve arrests, if possible, of the would-be terrorist(s). It may involve evacuating a building and conducting a search for a bomb. It may involve changing a scheduled appearance or route of travel of a VIP.

The point is to stop the operators behind the threat from completing their terrorist act. What it certainly does NOT involve is assassinating someone who may have given the order but is definitely not involved in carrying out the act. Such an assassination would not only be ineffective in countering the threat but would likely be seen as increasing the motivation behind the attack. Such was the assassination of Soleimani, even if one believes in the alleged imminent threat. This was simply a revenge killing due to Soleimani's success at organizing the opposition to US occupation.

David in Santa Cruz , January 10, 2020 at 1:08 pm

We don't know precisely when and we don't know precisely where, but it was real.

How does this meet the internationally recognized legal requirement of "imminent" danger to human life required to kill a political or military leader outside of a declared war? All public statements by the U.S. political and military leadership point to a retaliatory killing, at best, with a vague overlay of preemptive action.

If you agree that the "Bethlehem Doctrine" has never been recognized by the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, or the legislatures of the three rogue states who have adopted it, the assassination of Suleimani appears to have been a murder.

This is absolutely chilling. These "End Times/Armageddon" lunatics want to destroy the world. Who would Jesus have murdered? They stand the lessons of his state-sanctioned murder on their heads

xkeyscored , January 10, 2020 at 1:13 pm

Mintpress has an interesting article: Study Finds Bots and MAGA Supporters Pushing #IraniansDetestSoleimani Hashtag

A social media disinformation expert studied 60,000 tweets from nearly 10,000 accounts using the hashtag #IraniansDetestSoleimani and found that the most common phrases in those users' biographies were "Make America Great Again" and "Trump."
https://www.mintpressnews.com/study-bots-maga-supporters-iraniansdetestsoleimani-hashtag/264024/

Monty , January 10, 2020 at 2:37 pm

Shocking! /s

Tom Bradford , January 10, 2020 at 1:56 pm

My two-pennyworth? The US press and the circles surrounding Trump are already crowing that he 'won' the exchange. If, as speculated, he went against military advice in ordering this assassination, his 'victory' will only confirm his illusions that he is a military genius, which makes him even more dangerous. There are some rather nasty parallels with the rise of Hitler appearing here.

mauisurfer , January 10, 2020 at 2:03 pm

The claim that Soleimani had killed hundreds of Americans was repeated, word for word, in many articles in the papers of record (e.g., New York Times, 1/7/20; Washington Post, 1/3/20, 1/3/20) as well as across the media (e.g., Boston Globe, 1/3/20; Fox News, 1/6/20; The Hill, 1/7/20).

These "hundreds of Americans" were US forces killed by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) during the Iraq War, supposedly made in Iran and planted by Iranian-backed Shia militias. As professor Stephen Zunes pointed out in the Progressive (1/7/20), the Pentagon provided no evidence that Iran made the IEDs, other than the far-fetched claim that they were too sophisticated to be made in Iraq -- even though the US invasion had been justified by claims that Iraq had an incredibly threatening WMD program. The made-in-Iran claim, in turn, was the main basis for pinning responsibility for IED attacks on Shia militias -- which were, in any case, sanctioned by the Iraqi government, making Baghdad more answerable for their actions than anyone in Tehran. Last year, Gareth Porter reported in Truthout, (7/9/19) that the claim that Iran was behind the deaths of US troops was part of Vice President Dick Cheney's plan to build a case for yet another war.

J7915 , January 10, 2020 at 8:47 pm

IIRC the "sophistication claim" was made years ago. Apparently the basic technology is applied in oilfields to pierce oil well lining tubes at the oil layer. So the Iraqis knew all about the basic technique, only needed some more information.

Bill Carson , January 10, 2020 at 2:21 pm

About those "603 American deaths" that Soleimani is posthumously being charged with .

"I cross-checked a Pentagon casualty database with obituaries and not 1 of the 9 American servicemen killed fighting in Iraq since 2011 died at the hands of militias backed by Suleimani. His assassination was about revenge and provocation, not self-defense."

Robert Mackey on Twitter

mauisurfer , January 10, 2020 at 2:24 pm

Larry Johnson:

"The U.S. Government and almost all of the media continue to declare that Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism. That is not true. That is a lie. I realize that calling this assertion a lie opens me to accusations of being an apologist for Iran. But simply look at the facts."
"The Trump Administration needs to stop with its infantile ranting and railing about Iran and terrorism. The actual issues surrounding Iran's growing influence in the region have little to do with terrorism. Our policies and actions towards Iran are accelerating their cooperation with China and Russia, not diminishing it. I do not think that serves the longterm interests of the United States or our allies in the Middle East"

read whole story here:

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2020/01/the-facts-about-iran-and-terrorism-by-larry-c-johnson.html

Bill Carson , January 10, 2020 at 2:24 pm

Also this -- -

"On the night the US killed Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani, it tried to kill another senior Iranian military official in Yemen, two sources say"

CNN Breaking News on Twitter

Somebody's got some 'splainin' to do.

xkeyscored , January 10, 2020 at 4:00 pm

Thank you, Bill.

The strike targeting Abdul Reza Shahlai, a financier and key commander of Iran's elite Quds Force who has been active in Yemen, did not result in his death, according to four U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The unsuccessful operation may indicate that the Trump administration's killing of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani last week was part of a broader operation than previously explained, raising questions about whether the mission was designed to cripple the leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or solely to prevent an imminent attack on Americans as originally stated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/on-the-day-us-forces-killed-soleimani-they-launched-another-secret-operation-targeting-a-senior-iranian-official-in-yemen/2020/01/10/60f86dbc-3245-11ea-898f-eb846b7e9feb_story.html

sierra7 , January 10, 2020 at 2:29 pm

"Justification"????? You're kidding right? "They", those who we firstly "embrace" for our own interests are "for us" until we decide we are "against them"! What a farce our foreign policies are!

For some "exceptional" reason we don't recognize international law! We are the terrorists not them.

rjs , January 10, 2020 at 7:09 pm

NB: the comment i had removed from this post is now posted on a copy of the same post at Angry Bear

oaf , January 10, 2020 at 7:23 pm

the more that is at stake, the less one should listen to advisers

Jack Parsons , January 10, 2020 at 8:25 pm

Prediction for this stupidest of all worlds: Iraq really does boot us out, T-bone siezes on this for its obvious popularity among his base, and uses "He Kept Us Out Of War" for re-election.

Shiloh1 , January 11, 2020 at 10:37 am

Feature, not bug.

Where is my peace dividend after fall of Berlin Wall and Soviet Union?

Poppy and MIC wouldn't have it, hence April Galaspie's "no instructions" response to Saddam's initial inquiry over the Iraq / Kuwait surveying and mineral rights dispute on Kuwait's drilling at the border 30 years ago.

[Jan 11, 2020] How Trump made the decision to kill Soleimani Daylight Reporters

Jan 11, 2020 | daylightreporters.com

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defence Secretary Mark Esper, and General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had gone to Palm Beach, Florida, to brief Trump on airstrikes the Pentagon had just carried out in Iraq and Syria against Iranian-sponsored Shiite militia groups.

Read full story at https://daylightreporters.com/2020/01/04/how-trump-made-the-decision-to-kill-soleimani/

[Jan 11, 2020] How Pompeo convinced Trump to kill Soleimani and fulfilled a decade-long goal - KRDO

Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo has forged "very close relationships" with Haspel and Esper, alliances that bolstered his ability to make the case to Trump. "They all work together very, very closely," said the former Republican national security official. ..."
Jan 11, 2020 | krdo.com

... ... ...

As planning got underway, Pompeo worked with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Army Gen. Mark Milley and the commander of CENTCOM Marine Gen. Kenneth McKenzie to assess the profile of troops in the field. Multiple sources also say that hawkish Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, were kept in the loop and also pushed Trump to respond.

Trump was not at all reluctant to target Soleimani, multiple sources said, adding that the President's other senior advisers -- Esper, Milley, CIA Director Gina Haspel and national security adviser Robert O'Brien -- "were all on board."

Pompeo has forged "very close relationships" with Haspel and Esper, alliances that bolstered his ability to make the case to Trump. "They all work together very, very closely," said the former Republican national security official.

That said, the former official expressed concern about the lack of deep expertise in Trump's national security team. Several analysts pointed to this as one factor in Pompeo's outsized influence within the administration.

The government is so compromised by Trump and by all the vacancies and lack of experience, this former official said, that "everything is being done by a handful of principles -- Pompeo, Esper, Milley. There are a lot of things being left on the floor."

'Such a low bar'

Pompeo is arguably the most experienced of the national security Cabinet, the former national security official said, "but it's such a low bar."

"It's such a small group and there's so much that needs to be done," the former official said. "Everyone in this administration is a level and a half higher than they would be in a normal administration. They have no bench," they said.

The Trump administration has been handicapped by the President's refusal to hire Republicans who criticize him. Other Republicans won't work for the administration, for fear of being "tainted" or summarily fired, the former official said.

As layers of experience have been peeled away at the White House, some analysts say safeguards have been removed as well. CNN's Peter Bergen has written in his new book, "Trump and his Generals," that former Defense Secretary James Mattis told his aides not to present the President with options for confronting Iran militarily.

Randa Slim, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, argues that since the departure of Mattis, former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and former White House chief of staff and retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, there are very few voices at the White House to offer "deeply considered advice."

"We don't have those people who have that experience and could look Trump in the eye and who have his respect and who could say, 'Hey, hey, hey -- wait!'," Slim said.

[Jan 11, 2020] Pompeo and Pence reportedly pushed Trump to kill Soleimani. Pentagon leaders were 'stunned' Trump agreed.

Jan 11, 2020 | theweek.com

For years, "Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals," the Post explains . "Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad," and "at the State Department, he is a voracious consumer of diplomatic notes and reporting on Iran, and he places the country far above other geopolitical and economic hot spots in the world." Read more at The Washington Post . Peter Weber

[Jan 11, 2020] "When They Kill One Sureimani, A Thousand More Are Born": spectacular betrail by Trump of his voters

Notable quotes:
"... Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and editor of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
Jan 03, 2020 | fpif.org

Originally published in OtherWords .

Trump's Iran Aggression Deserves Full-Throated Opposition - FPIF By Peter Certo

Trump is betraying his voters and threatening millions of lives.

In a full-blown U.S. war with Iran, up to a million people could die initially.

Hundreds of thousands more could die in the vacuum to follow. Millions would be made refugees. That's the conclusion of experts surveyed by Vox reporter Alex Ward . "The worst-case scenarios here are quite serious," Middle East scholar Michael Hanna warned.

With the brazen assassination of Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in Iraq, President Trump has brought us leaps and bounds closer to that conflagration -- a decision Trump appears to have made while golfing at Mar-a-Lago .

Lawmakers need to move before it's too late.

The Iranians may respond cautiously , perhaps forestalling a full-blown conflict. But there can be no doubt the White House has been driving in that direction from day one.

In a few short years, Trump has blown up the Iran nuclear deal, put a horrific economic stranglehold on the country, and sent a stunning 14,000 new troops to the Middle East since just last spring. Some 3,500 more are now on their way.

"Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran," John Bolton tweeted about the assassination . Bolton may have left the White House, but clearly his spirit lives on.

What next? Get ready to hear a lot about what a " bad guy " Soleimani was, and how Iran is a "state sponsor" of terrorism.

No doubt, Soleimani had blood on his hands -- he was a general. Yet after two decades of U.S. wars in the Middle East, that's the pot calling the kettle black. It was the U.S. who invaded Iraq, started a civil war, and paved the way for a literal terrorist state, ISIS, to occupy the country afterward (a force Soleimani himself was instrumental in dismantling).

That senseless war caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, exploded the terrorist threat, and is destabilizing the region to this day. Yet somehow, war hawks like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo can go on TV and -- with a straight face -- predict ordinary Iranians will essentially thank the U.S. for murdering their general.

"People not only in Iraq but in Iran will view the American action last night as giving them freedom," Pompeo said the morning after the assassination. You couldn't caricature a better callback to Dick Cheney's infamous prediction that Iraqis would "greet us as liberators" if you tried.

This war-mongering should be as toxic politically as it is morally . Trump rode into office promising to end America's wars, winning him crucial votes in swing states with large military and veteran populations. Huge bipartisan majorities, including 58 percent of Republicans, say they want U.S. troops out of the Middle East.

Trump is betraying them spectacularly.

Yet too many Democrats are merely objecting to Trump's failure to consult them. Speaker Nancy Pelosi complained the strike "was taken without the consultation of the Congress." South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg offered colorlessly that "there are serious questions about how this decision was made." Others complained about the apparent lack of a "strategy."

It's illegal for a president to unilaterally launch a war -- that's important. But these complaints make it sound like if you want to kill a million people for no reason, you just have to go to the DMV first. As if Trump's base doesn't love it when he cuts the line in Washington.

Senator Bernie Sanders, who warned that "Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars," came closer to communicating the real threat.

Millions of lives are at stake. Trump's aggression demands -- and voters will more likely reward -- real opposition. Call him on it before it's too late.

Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and editor of Foreign Policy In Focus.

[Jan 11, 2020] The resonances with the MH17 atrocity are uncanny.

Jan 11, 2020 | off-guardian.org

Jan 11, 2020

David Macilwain ,

Your post merely adds to the feeling something very very odd has gone on here, as the resonances with the MH17 atrocity are uncanny. If the Ukrainian army had come out and admitted, in only two days, that their unit from Lviv had accidentally hit MH17 instead of the plane Putin was allegedly travelling in over the same area, then things may have been very different. But of course they didn't, and didn't need to, as fighter jets had done the job for them anyway. On the other hand, had the Separatists trying to defend the population from Kiev's air campaign from fighter jets and military transports accidentally hit MH17 they would have been the first to admit it. Those claiming they were responsible, before Higgins concocted his silly story, admitted that it would have been a "tragic accident" – as Morrison has described this latest crash – but soon started blaming them. Talk of Kiev being partly responsible for allowing MH17 to fly, off course, over an active war zone, also went unheard.

But of course the two events are not the same, and not connected, or are they?

Did the Ukrainian plane have its transponder turned on? Was it the first plane to leave Tehran following the Iranian missile volleys? Would a cruise missile have been launched from Afghanistan towards the firing site in Kermanshah, passing over Tehran? What went on in the control tower of Imam Khomeini airport?
Nothing is clear yet, except "cui bono".

[Jan 11, 2020] DISCUSS Iran Admit to Shooting Down Ukrainian Passenger Flight OffGuardian

Jan 11, 2020 | off-guardian.org

Editor

(Photo by Akbar TAVAKOLI / IRNA / AFP)

Earlier today, President Rouhanie of Iran formally admitted that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps had shot down the Ukrainian passenger jet leaving Tehran a few days ago.

Speculation has been rampant, but here are the alleged facts of the case, at this time:

In the early hours of the 8th January, Iran launched missiles at two US-occupied bases in Iraq. This was done in retaliation for the death of General Qassem Soleimani. Ukraine Airlines flight PS 752 departed Tehran airport on 8th January. Three minutes later it crashed. There were 176 passengers/crew on board. Mostly Iranians, Ukrainians and Canadians. Within hours, Western media were quoting anonymous "Iraqi intelligence officials" that Iran had shot the plane down "likely by accident". The US State Dept, and their proxy NGOs, echoed this theory. A great rundown of who said what and when can be found on Moon of Alabama . Despite at first denying these accusations, the Iranian government has since admitted to "accidentally" downing the plane. Their statement can be read here (or here in the original Farsi). Iran claim the missiles were launched by an individual who was out of radio contact with his commander and "panicked" upon seeing the fast-moving object on radar. Response to the admission has come from many world leaders. Justin Trudeau called for "further investigation", Vladimir Zelensky demanded Iran take "full responsibility", whilst Boris Johnson called it "an important first step". The US has already announced further sanctions. Reports are already coming in of "unrest" and "protests" in the wake of this admission. The Guardian and Newsweek, among others, claiming young people especially are tired of the leadership demanding "resignations and prosecutions" (we are, as yet unable to confirm these protests took place).

So what does this mean for the region as a whole?

Will this – as Boris Johnson said – be "first step to de-escalation" in the region? Will there be extensive protests? Will Iraq now rescind their demand the US leave their country?

As always, discuss below.

Protect ,

Sabotage can take many shapes and forms. Remember when the Syrian army was fooled into shooting down a Russian surveillance aircraft with 15 people onboard?
Those imposing punitive santions and continually threatening a desstructive war must definitely be held responsible for the extreme conditions they have created.

Charlotte Russe ,

The conditional word "if" often is used to begin describing the most horrific events. If they hadn't been driving the night the other car careened into their lane; if they didn't go into that store shortly before the robbery; if they didn't go sailing during an awful storm; if Trump didn't order the assassination of General Soleimani 176 innocent civilians would still be alive; and if all imperialist wars would stop collateral murder would also end.

An Iranian Officer mistook the plane for a hostile missile and made the "bad decision" to open fire. He said he "wished" he "was dead" when he learned about the downing of the aircraft. There were 82 Iranians aboard the Boeing Jet.

Most on the plane were graduate students from Canada. I was not aware that Canada is home to a large Iranian diaspora, with some 210,000 citizens of Iranian descent.

"The country is also a popular destination for Iranian graduate and postdoctoral students to study and conduct research abroad, which is why many students were on the flight, returning to university following the winter break.

There is also no direct flight between Canada and Iran, and the Ukraine International Airlines flight from Tehran to Kiev and then to Toronto is popular because it is one of the most affordable options for the journey."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51053220

KneelB4Zod! ,

Not mentioned before – and it is another reason why I still consider that the incident is not just human error but sabotage: In 6 months embargo on weapon sales to Iran will expire and the country will be able to buy S-400, Iskanders or fighter jets. Quite good reason to awake sleeping agent

Philpot ,

Are the Integrity Initiative hard at work on here?

David Macilwain ,

Your post merely adds to the feeling something very very odd has gone on here, as the resonances with the MH17 atrocity are uncanny. If the Ukrainian army had come out and admitted, in only two days, that their unit from Lviv had accidentally hit MH17 instead of the plane Putin was allegedly travelling in over the same area, then things may have been very different. But of course they didn't, and didn't need to, as fighter jets had done the job for them anyway. On the other hand, had the Separatists trying to defend the population from Kiev's air campaign from fighter jets and military transports accidentally hit MH17 they would have been the first to admit it. Those claiming they were responsible, before Higgins concocted his silly story, admitted that it would have been a "tragic accident" – as Morrison has described this latest crash – but soon started blaming them. Talk of Kiev being partly responsible for allowing MH17 to fly, off course, over an active war zone, also went unheard.

But of course the two events are not the same, and not connected, or are they?

Did the Ukrainian plane have its transponder turned on? Was it the first plane to leave Tehran following the Iranian missile volleys? Would a cruise missile have been launched from Afghanistan towards the firing site in Kermanshah, passing over Tehran? What went on in the control tower of Imam Khomeini airport?
Nothing is clear yet, except "cui bono".

Dimly Glimpsed ,

Matt,

Have you considered the arguments and evidence which show the BUK missile in the MH17 case came from the Ukranian government-controlled battery?

Also, from what I can recall, the Americans and NATO countries routinely lie about everything. Mike Pompeo, the American Secretary of State, for example, in a April, 2019 speech at Texas A&M, made the following statement about the CIA:

"I was the CIA Director – We Lied, We Cheated, We stole".

Trump lies so routinely that lying is now becoming normalized in American society.

The "Allies" appear to be lying not only about MH17, but also about the Skripal case, the charges (backed up by lies by the U.N. agency OPCW) that Assad used sarin and/or chlorine in Douma, that Huawei technology is insecure because there are hidden back doors (true of Cisco with CIA back doors, but no one can prove any exist in Huawei), etc.

Perhaps you recall that the "Allies" launched a war of aggression against Iraq, based on the false charge that Saddam had nuclear weapons, and backed up by a sloppy and juvenile "sexed up dossier" that Tony Blair's government used as justification, and lies such as the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassdor claiming that Saddam's soldiers threw babies out of incubators.

Perhaps you recall that the USA used illegal chemical weapons such as white phosphorus in its extermination of the civilian city Fallujah during the American attack on Iraq. Perhaps you are aware that the "Allies" hide and deny Israel's proven use of white phosphorus on the captive Palestinian population, along with using the Palestinians as human shields and killing unarmed Palestinian women and children targeted intentionally by snipers.

If your interest is an objective view of matters, the hopefully you'll consider the track records of the players involved. Iran has invaded no other country in hundreds of years. The US is the world champion of invading other countries, and Britain and France have disgraceful histories of colonization and genocidal crimes against native peoples, as does America and other members of the "Allies", including Australia and Canada.

I could go on, and on, and on. The "Allies" are much more guilty of killing and lies than Iran.

As you may know, the CIA has assassinated a number of country leaders, including several in South America, by bombing planes. Rumor is that is what the CIA had planned for Evo Morales, which is why he fled to Mexico, knowing the USA and traitors in the Bolivian army were planning just such an assassination.

I'm also having a bit of difficulty recalling many lies by the Iranians. On the other hand, from mere recollection alone, I could keep typing for yours adding to a list of lies I do recall by America and the Europeans, many of which were coverups of bloody insurrections, assassinations and murders.

Bottom line: I don't trust anything America or the Europeans say. They are biased, have a track record of lying, and have a history of unclean hands. The Iranians, on the other hand, have a much better record in all those areas.

Paul ,

It was the same in Iran back in 1953 with the sudden appearance of angry and armed 'anti a Communists' protesting the government, winding up the political time bomb. It cost the State Department a lot of money – although not as much as spent on the Shah! Later these mercenary protesters, often special forces types seeped in brutality upped the PR with flowers and colours as symbols. In other places, where they faced serious opposition they reverted to the dirtiest of tricks involving snipers creating havoc, as in Kiev in 2014. Something similar seems to be happening in Hong King and Tehran but then did anybody expect the Empire to roll over?!

Brian Steere ,

I don't see reason to doubt this. A suspicious mind can conjecture – but why would Iran admit this unless they verified that it happened?

If combatants are killed in the line of duty it is part of the risk of combat.
When civilians are killed in error it is tragic.

War and fear of attack are extremely dangerous. 'Friendly fire' so called, is not uncommon.

In this sense the token 'revenge' has backfired.

But the full facts may not be known.

KneelB4Zod! ,

As I wrote, it's strangely convenient for the hegemons. Now Trump even tweets in Farsi, supporting Tehran protest.

I have no doubt that the plane was downed by Iranian missile. But was it an error? It's not outside of realm of possibilities that it was a sabotage. Mole withing air defense unit nearby Tehran's civil airport.

Under the current circumstances it's less damaging for Iran to take responsiblity for the tragedy then admit that the internal security was severely breached and infiltrated by hostile forces.

Jack_Garbo ,

As has already been stated, the Iranian attacked on two US bases was not the "revenge" for Soleimani's assassination, but a show of 1. Iranian tactical ability (warned first, no casualties), 2, the beginning of revenge for Soleimani and others killed by the US presence. It has only begun.
Don't think like a (short-term) Westerner, but like a long term Easterner. The US will eventually be driven out, the Iranians will them them good-bye.

KneelB4Zod! ,

Considering the fact how convenient the whole airliner incident is for the hegemons I still have doubts if it was just human error.

Pompeo tweeting support for Tehran protest which follows today's announcement. British ambassador arrested amid participation in it. It pseaks loud imo

JudyJ ,

If the footage of the missile striking the plane is genuine, I remain unclear as to why someone would have been, it would appear, randomly pointing a phone camera at a black night sky on the outskirts of Tehran at 6.30 in the morning and, by sheer coincidence, caught the moment of impact. The way the camera was being aligned would suggest the person behind the camera was anticipating a particular event and was eager to capture it on film. Maybe I'm being unduly suspicious. Of course we don't know for sure that the footage in question was indeed genuine.

Mike Leach ,

I don't think there's any such thing as 'unduly suspicious' in the present state of the world.

Derek ,

Iran claim the missiles were launched by an individual who was out of radio contact with his commander and "panicked" upon seeing the fast-moving object on radar.

More than one missile was launched so is it not possible that's why the person was filming?

Loverat ,

One thing I think I mentioned on another thread as cynical as it is, this plane possibly might have been shot down deliberately by Iran. If you think about it, this event has distracted and possibly taken the 'sting' out of the main event. And of course if the West knows the plane was shot down by Iran deliberately it could have been a message not to retaliate for the air base attack. Iran admitting it accidentally shot down the plane might take some of the force out of my argument/ possible theory but then again this might be an effort to take out the 'secondary sting or risk of retaliation. Hope that makes some sense!

Let's face it, there are other states aside from US and UK might create or stage 'events'. As for demos in Iran, can't really see why this would be a major issue for Iranians, or if so likely to be significantly talked up by Pompeo and extremist war rags like the Guardian.

But who really knows at this stage?

Martin Usher ,

Actually, it ruined what should have been a perfect response. I honestly thought their air defenses were more sophisticated than they were, in particular that there was a level of coordination between individual units and a command and control center that could verify whether a threat was real or not. We can speculate about whether this event was engineered or not but as far as I'm concerned its a screwup of the same order as the Vincennes incident. (The only different being that the Iranians didn't have a news crew taping 'our boys' in action while they paniced and overreacted.)

Sad as this is I don't think it will happen again. Needless to say we in the US will make as much political capital about it as we can but then its our job.

[Jan 11, 2020] A leak from the Ukrainian side about the investigation: Compare the behaviour of Iranian authorities and Ukrainian Provitional Goverment(junta) in case of MH17

Jan 11, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Another leak (ukr) from the Ukrainian side of the investigation gives some hints on how the plane came down (machine translation):

"We took up the restoration of fragments of the aircraft. It was necessary to determine how these pieces of metal dumped into a huge pile should be interconnected.

The intrigue remained until late. The fact is that there were no damages on most parts of the aircraft. There was no explosion and no fire in the engines or on the wings. It is possible that the plane could fall almost intact. Unlike the remains of the Boeing MN-17, there were no immediately visible signs of defeat by combat elements on the fuselage and wings. A lot of damage to the case is the result of a fall. But after laying out all the fragments of the aircraft, it became obvious that the bottom of the cockpit was missing.

Among the wreckage, fragments of the upper part of the cabin were identified. And then the find finally took place - at about 22 hours. On a fragment of the cockpit, we found holes in the damaging elements of the warhead of the rocket, which pierced the skin. We found! For the first time, direct evidence appeared in this case, which made it possible to prove what caused the death of the aircraft. For us it was a turning point.

So what we now understand:

Russian anti-aircraft missile "Tor" hit the liner in the lower part of the front of the fuselage, directly under the cockpit.

A direct hit and the cabin flared up inside. Instantly turned off the transponder of the aircraft, which gives signals about the flight. Instantly lost contact.

While there is no data, one or two missiles have caused such damage. It is possible that the second missile also hit the fuselage from below close to the first. But all this remains to be clarified.

We continue to lay out fragments of the aircraft until the complete collection of all surviving parts.

We expect that today we will gain access to all objective control data.

In cooperation with Iranian colleagues, we get the impression that those who contact us sincerely want to help themselves and figure it out, in general, there are no problems. Let's hope that such a mood and working contacts remain with us now."

[Jan 11, 2020] Iran didn't cancel flights because they most likely had an agreement with the ZioAmericans allowing them to attack the US bases, and were told there would be no retaliation.. Were Iran communications disrupted by the cyberattack?

Notable quotes:
"... 5 eye propaganda is vile. Other people's propaganda is not much better. No one sane trusts their government. ..."
"... Why was Zelensky ( Pres. of the Ukraine ) being so reasonable and calm about the whole situation, telling everyone not to jump to conclusions, when his handlers ( zioamerica ) were crying shoot down almost from the beginning. ..."
"... What was the reason for the plane's hour long delay at the airport ? ..."
"... Zelensky is out of the US orbit as his sponsor Kholomojsky seems to have decided that his business interests are with Russia - but apart from that, Zelensky is a Russian speaker, with a Jewish background, and not part of the Western Ukraine Bandera proto-fascists. ..."
"... Don't commercial aircraft have radar identification beacons on them ? ..."
"... As Iran has already notified the Swiss embassy prior to attack on American bases, it is curious why Iran did not close its airspace and ground flights following the attack. ..."
"... It is also wise that Iran accepts the guilt and apologizes. I am sure that they will do more. ..."
"... The IRGC must learn this: modern warfare is not fought with bravery, but with cold-blooded rationality. We're not in ancient warfare anymore: this is industrial warfare, waged with machines which kill humans (and destroy other machines) in a mass scale with maximum efficiency, operated by mathematical calculations at superhuman speeds. This is the era of the nerds, not of the macho men. ..."
"... So, before indoctrinating its soldiers with random religious texts and tales of martyrdom, the IRGC better teach them to fill a fucking log and keep their nerves in place first. And welcome to the 21st Century. ..."
"... According to reports, SIX of these people were NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS. Visiting IRAN. At the same time. on the same plane. What are the chances that it's coincidence? ..."
"... Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists ..."
"... There is only so much human error can explain. If the missile in the famous video is what caused the crash, note that it was flying EAST. The jamming incident explains a lot. Several outbound civilian flights had taken off in the late afternoon following the same flight pattern, so WHY at that time? Also, why does Trump not want to share the intel, saying people have no right to see it? ..."
"... Lots of idiots here. Be glad they accepted responsibility within a reasonable time frame. This is what happens in a WAR. Who drove the Iranians to this point? They certainly have my respect, unlike those cowboys. ..."
"... Still it does seems an extraordinary lack of common sense that commercial civilian flights were allowed to fly around under conditions of such high tension in the country. Also night take-offs. Better to wait until morning . . . ..."
"... Staying in the domain of facts rather than speculation and having worked on the design of air defence systems, I can add a tidbit of info. TOR system can be in a configuration without a surveillance radar, with only a tracking radar. Then when not integrated into a wide area system with centralised control, the crew of such system cannot track aircraft, they can only detect aircraft. Detecting an approaching aircraft/target, tracking it from the moment of detection and not really knowing where it originated from is probably why the crew had to make a faithful decision in a very short time. ..."
"... General note to self: never fly Boeing and stay away from flights which approach any of the war zones that JUSA regularly creates. ..."
"... On the reported taking advantage by Germany to target Iran as terrorist state and ask for more sanctions, we must recall Germany's responsibility along with the US, Canada and current Ukrainian regime, for the terrorist events which gave place to the nazi coup d´etat in the Ukraine, amongst them, the Maidan Snippers event, but not only, also those enumerated by me in another comment above. ..."
"... Given Pompeo's curriculum, it was probable that the CIA had the wrong conjunctural assessment of Iran. They expected that a "silent majority" would revive the riots of some months ago, leaving the theocracy one step closer to collapse. Unless there was indeed serious consideration about using "tactical" nukes, that's the only rational explanation for Soleimani's murder. ..."
"... Right after the funeral day, Trump quickly sought contact with the Ayatollah to negotiate a scale down. Rumor says he even agreed with a "proportional" retaliation against an American target. And then the Iraqi parliament debacle happened, which put the USA in a very embarassing situation. ..."
"... It would be very optimistic to assume that JUSA would just gloat at this accident and milk it for its maximum propaganda value ..."
"... " An attacker could potentially pivot, Santamarta says, from the in-flight entertainment system to the CIS/MS to send commands to far more sensitive components that control the plane's safety-critical systems, including its engine, brakes, and sensors. Boeing maintains that other security barriers in the 787's network architecture would make that progression impossible." ..."
"... IRGC Aerospace Cmdr.: We were at that time ready for an all-out war with US. We had reports of cruise missiles fired at Iran. It was an individual's error that caused this tragedy. ..."
"... Certainly they were on high alert and it could have been an individual error combined with a system malfunction, the aircraft straying out of its commercial lane or any confluence of events. Something may be lurking beneath the surface. The media jumped on and pushed the story hard and that always leaves me suspicious. The borg was correct and knew what happened immediately and reported it truthfully. An even stranger event. ..."
"... What an epic mistake to not close the airspace. I'm impressed that the IRGC admitted full responsibility and even gave a detailed description of the human error. Adding in the EW jamming and it is easy how this could happen. What a horrible tragedy. ..."
"... "The cyberattacks -- a contingency plan developed over weeks amid escalating tensions -- disabled Iranian computer systems that controlled its rocket and missile launchers, the officials said. Two of the officials said the attacks, which specifically targeted Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps computer system, were provided as options after Iranian forces blew up two oil tankers earlier this month." ..."
Jan 11, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

somebody , Jan 11 2020 12:46 utc | 126

Posted by: ChasMARK | Jan 11 2020 12:26 utc | 122

Of course they did. But Iranians should have seen that coming. Some people still think they can continue with this stupidity - like Jerusalem Post on the tit for tat "Kindergarten" strategy .

What they are doing is "showing capabilities" and testing weapons systems. They had a "game" of conventional war justified by "not killing anybody". Well they did. Both parties. Real all out conventional war is impossible without mass casualties on all sides. And all out unconventional/assymetric war just draws out the misery.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 11 2020 12:21 utc | 119

I was talking about the ability to be sad and apologize. I prefer not to have a religious authority dictating my private life.

5 eye propaganda is vile. Other people's propaganda is not much better. No one sane trusts their government.

William Gruff , Jan 11 2020 12:49 utc | 127

Norwegian @120

Sadly, no facts. Perhaps if we had full bios on the passengers we could tally up how many had done undergrad studies at George Washington University, but spooks usually have fictional biographies so I am not sure how much help that would be.

Fog of War , Jan 11 2020 13:02 utc | 128
Some points to consider:
  • Iran didn't cancel flights because they most likely had an agreement with the ZioAmericans allowing them to attack the US bases, and were told there would be no retaliation..
  • Don't commercial aircraft have radar identification beacons on them ?
  • Why was Zelensky ( Pres. of the Ukraine ) being so reasonable and calm about the whole situation, telling everyone not to jump to conclusions, when his handlers ( zioamerica ) were crying shoot down almost from the beginning.
  • What was the reason for the plane's hour long delay at the airport ?
somebody , Jan 11 2020 13:15 utc | 129
Posted by: Fog of War | Jan 11 2020 13:02 utc | 128

Zelensky is out of the US orbit as his sponsor Kholomojsky seems to have decided that his business interests are with Russia - but apart from that, Zelensky is a Russian speaker, with a Jewish background, and not part of the Western Ukraine Bandera proto-fascists.

Don't commercial aircraft have radar identification beacons on them ?

If your system is not compromised and can read it.

The Boeing was hit by a Tor system, related to the BUK of MH17 fame. There were a lot of flights over Teheran airport at the time. Can anyone find out if the Ukraine Airlines flight was the only Boeing and is the hack specific to Boeing?

Innocent Civilian , Jan 11 2020 13:16 utc | 130
It is sad that the real victims of this escalation so far has been 176 souls that have nothing to do with this affair. As Iran has already notified the Swiss embassy prior to attack on American bases, it is curious why Iran did not close its airspace and ground flights following the attack.

I personally put the blame on USA for its disproportionate responses in the entire affair as it created the conditions that lead to this horrible accident, but Iran could have been more careful by considering that human factors can prove catastrophic under tense circumstances.

It is also wise that Iran accepts the guilt and apologizes. I am sure that they will do more.

vk , Jan 11 2020 13:17 utc | 131
IRGC Aerospace Cmdr.: The officials, including Aviation authorities, who kept denying the missile hit, are not guilty. They made those remarks based on what they knew . We are to blame for everything.

Well well - there's always the human factor. As the saying goes: there's no fool-proof plan. Days of investigative speculation undone by (probably) a small bureaucratic error which resulted in a lack of communication.

The IRGC must learn this: modern warfare is not fought with bravery, but with cold-blooded rationality. We're not in ancient warfare anymore: this is industrial warfare, waged with machines which kill humans (and destroy other machines) in a mass scale with maximum efficiency, operated by mathematical calculations at superhuman speeds. This is the era of the nerds, not of the macho men.

So, before indoctrinating its soldiers with random religious texts and tales of martyrdom, the IRGC better teach them to fill a fucking log and keep their nerves in place first. And welcome to the 21st Century.

somebody , Jan 11 2020 13:18 utc | 132
Posted by: somebody | Jan 11 2020 13:15 utc | 129

add: Is Boeings Friend or Foe System different from other Airlines? Or does commercial Boeing simply look a lot like military Boeing?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_AEW%26C

dave , Jan 11 2020 13:22 utc | 133
1/2

According to reports, SIX of these people were NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS. Visiting IRAN. At the same time. on the same plane. What are the chances that it's coincidence?

https://twitter.com/Kerryactivism/status/1215413680281718785

dave , Jan 11 2020 13:22 utc | 134
Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists
Jonathan W , Jan 11 2020 13:28 utc | 135
There is only so much human error can explain. If the missile in the famous video is what caused the crash, note that it was flying EAST. The jamming incident explains a lot. Several outbound civilian flights had taken off in the late afternoon following the same flight pattern, so WHY at that time? Also, why does Trump not want to share the intel, saying people have no right to see it?
Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 13:40 utc | 139
129 "Can anyone find out if the Ukraine Airlines flight was the only Boeing and is the hack specific to Boeing?"

One Embraer, seven Airbus, two Boeing.https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/ukrainian-flight-ps752-crashes-shortly-after-take-off-from-tehran/

The other Boeing took off headed for Hong Kong only seconds before the Ukraine flight. Looks to be the green flight path that turns back east southeast shortly after takeoff. The Ukraine flight was the only Boeing that took the northern flight path.

Ian2 , Jan 11 2020 13:46 utc | 141
Lots of idiots here. Be glad they accepted responsibility within a reasonable time frame. This is what happens in a WAR. Who drove the Iranians to this point? They certainly have my respect, unlike those cowboys.
Really?? , Jan 11 2020 13:46 utc | 142
Jan @ 40

"Or could Iran have been enticed to make a false admission to protect Boeing's reputation and/or the Ukraine airline's reputation. Perhaps a carrot of lesser severity in the new sanctions?"

This doesn't seem to comport with what we know/have been told about how the Iranian govt and religious leadership works.

Still it does seems an extraordinary lack of common sense that commercial civilian flights were allowed to fly around under conditions of such high tension in the country. Also night take-offs. Better to wait until morning . . .

I am so, so saddened to hear of the cause of this terrible incident, and I do blame it on the USA, which started this provocation of Iraq-Iran.

Kiza , Jan 11 2020 13:47 utc | 143
Staying in the domain of facts rather than speculation and having worked on the design of air defence systems, I can add a tidbit of info. TOR system can be in a configuration without a surveillance radar, with only a tracking radar. Then when not integrated into a wide area system with centralised control, the crew of such system cannot track aircraft, they can only detect aircraft. Detecting an approaching aircraft/target, tracking it from the moment of detection and not really knowing where it originated from is probably why the crew had to make a faithful decision in a very short time.

Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) looks great in theory but has many drawbacks (relatively easy spoofing) therefore is generally not relied upon, especially not by the second grade EW countries. I remind everybody how, during 1st Gulf War, US air defence in Kuwait shot down (at least) one British bomber (killed pilot);returning from a mission in Iraq. That much for IFF even within first EW grade countries of NATO.

Stand-alone air defence units (not integrated) in a very complex air space environment (with civilian air traffic in the air, possible drones, cruise missiles, low observability military planes, etc etc) are a definite recipe for disaster. Trying to avoid the cost of air traffic disruption (or loss of overflight fees) despite high risk of an even bigger cost happened in Ukraine already (MH17) and Iran did not learn from it. (It does not matter who shot down MH17 Ukraine is responsible). Whoever did not close down the civilian air traffic after shooting missiles at US targets is really responsible for this tragedy, slightly more than JUSA. But governments never learn because their power protects them from the need to learn.

General note to self: never fly Boeing and stay away from flights which approach any of the war zones that JUSA regularly creates.

Sasha , Jan 11 2020 13:52 utc | 144
On the reported taking advantage by Germany to target Iran as terrorist state and ask for more sanctions, we must recall Germany's responsibility along with the US, Canada and current Ukrainian regime, for the terrorist events which gave place to the nazi coup d´etat in the Ukraine, amongst them, the Maidan Snippers event, but not only, also those enumerated by me in another comment above.

Also we must add Germany's responsibility in the war information which gave place to the justification of the destruction of former Yugoslavia as a way of getting rid of an European superpower inclined to the Est which could oppose current German hegemony in Europe, which, being Germany an Us occupied country, only means US hegemony over Europe.

Go preparing for the "renaissance" of the IV Reich and its evolution, and not only in hairdos....

Germany, along with UK, is responsible for all the evil has happened in Europe since the falling of the Spanish Empire. GLADIO and many other operations come to mind.

Thus, better shut up when labelling others as terrorists...

A P , Jan 11 2020 13:59 utc | 145
Time to remind the pro-US/Zionist trolls here that, as war criminal GHW Bush was quoted, the US will never admit it is wrong, let alone trying to fulfill stupid ancient texts for their sheeple Zionist Jew and right-wing Christian voters and political funders (think Rothschild, Adelson). The End of Days may not become reality, but a Yinon Plan/AIPAC, Greater Israel is all too likely a prospect. All because Lord Balfour didn't have the balls to tell Lord Rothschild to go pound salt, and the US was too stupid to avoid taking up the Zionist cause after WW2.

The US has SO MUCH more to apologize for, like LIES about WMD's, Syria gas attacks, Kuwaiti babies thrown from incubators, South American death squads, reaching back beyond "Remember the Maine".

So the US/ZATO needs to take the hundreds of logs out of their own eye before endlessly demanding Iran take the sliver from their eye.

The US is run by lying, hypocritical psychopaths, from the Oval Office down through Congress, to the bowels of the NSA/FBI/CIA/Mossad and the Pentagon.

Oū Sī / 區司/ Usman , Jan 11 2020 14:00 utc | 146
.
. The greatest irony of it all:
-- That the US almost never compensate the families or counties hit by 'mistakes' or killed as 'collateral damage'.
-- That the Iran authorities and judicial system make some compensation obligatory.
-- That Iran has been cut off from the means to aquire US dollars or Euro and have been cut off from all international payment systems: Any compensation would have to be paid in Iranian reals and used within Iran.
. Good for future tourism by airplane travel to Tehran?
Piotr Berman , Jan 11 2020 14:03 utc | 147
Saying Soleimani was a hero for fighting ISIS is just like saying Hitler was a hero for fighting Stalin.

The only world player that has been unselfishly good in recent memory is Cuba by sending its doctors throughout the.world and Venezuela under Chavez sending oil to poor people including those in the US.

Posted by: CognitiveDissonance | Jan 11 2020 5:25 utc | 15

--------

One can make any classifications of "good, but not unselfishly", "kind of good" and so on, but this is a pernicious type of whataboutery. Basically, we should find reasons to be obedient subjects of the Empire, yes, the Empire is not good but almost no one is much better, so find better deals for seeds for our little garden, focus on that, convince others not to do anything either.

To understand the Empire, one has to read stories about school bullying. A charismatic kid accumulates a circle of friends and a victim. The victim is harassed, his/her stuff damaged, and a creative combination of verbal humiliation, physical humiliations and outright assaults keeps the circle amused. If anyone defends the chosen victim, the efforts redouble against that person, so the majority is either actively sycophantic (bravo, Mr. Johnson, bravo, Mr. Trudeau!) or sullen. But not too sullen (OK job, Madam Merkel, we will punish you only mildly). That can raise the wrath of the dominant clique too.

It is often the case that the victim is "not perfect". And the removal of the top bully does not have to change the school into paradise. But doing nothing is a coward option, however "sensible". It is also stupid, nobody can deliver paradise, but avoiding hell is totally possible, so why we should be content with hell?

vk , Jan 11 2020 14:09 utc | 150
@ Posted by: CognitiveDissonance | Jan 11 2020 5:25 utc | 15

Evidence available strongly indicates Soleimani was indeed extremely popular in Iran.

It is probable the USA expected brand new and stronger anti-government manifestation in the streets of Tehran after he was murdered. Pompeo claimed right after - in cheerful tone - that "Iran is nearer regime change after Soleimani's assassination".

Given Pompeo's curriculum, it was probable that the CIA had the wrong conjunctural assessment of Iran. They expected that a "silent majority" would revive the riots of some months ago, leaving the theocracy one step closer to collapse. Unless there was indeed serious consideration about using "tactical" nukes, that's the only rational explanation for Soleimani's murder.

His hopes of regime change were quickly dashed by the millions who showed up in the streets of Tehran for his funeral. He was indeed very popular, the official propaganda was true: Soleimani's reputation really preceeded him.

Right after the funeral day, Trump quickly sought contact with the Ayatollah to negotiate a scale down. Rumor says he even agreed with a "proportional" retaliation against an American target. And then the Iraqi parliament debacle happened, which put the USA in a very embarassing situation.

In the greater scheme of things, this accidental downing of a commercial plane was a very small price to pay. It's one of those once in a blue moon incidents where the imponderable overcame what 99.99% of the then available evidence indicated. It doesn't change the morality of the conflict: the USA still has to get out of Iraq, and Iran's cause (regardless of its theocratic regime) is still just. Or do you expect a prosperous Iran to rise from an hypothetic American occupation of the country?

The days of the Marshall Plan are still over. The USA can't nation build anymore - it simply doesn't have the resources (as it had in 1946).

Kiza , Jan 11 2020 14:11 utc | 151
It would be very optimistic to assume that JUSA would just gloat at this accident and milk it for its maximum propaganda value . Unfortunately, it is likely that the leading shitbags of the World will not fail to use the shell shock state of the Iranian air defense to bomb soon for the benefit of lower losses due to Iranian FUD. I can only hope that the Iranian air defense will recover it's mental state quickly or the loss of life will be much much bigger than one plane load. Soleimani was a nasty military character, but his style of organisational skills is sorely needed for a quick reorganisation of the Iranian air defence under clear and present danger.
Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 14:12 utc | 152
Passenger list.
https://www.unian.info/society/10822121-uia-publishes-full-passenger-list-for-flight-ps752-crashed-in-iran.html
Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 14:20 utc | 153
143 "Stand-alone air defence units (not integrated) in a very complex air space environment (with civilian air traffic in the air, possible drones, cruise missiles, low observability military planes, etc etc) are a definite recipe for disaster."

From my understanding, all Russian and perhaps previous to that society defense systems are made to be able to operate as stand alone units incase the network goes down. This appears to be what happened in Iran Whoever was commanding that unit, with coms down had make a decision with no input from the wider defense network.

US, five eyes and mossad are very good at covering their tracks at times, but modus operandi and narrative give them away.

Jonathan W , Jan 11 2020 14:26 utc | 155
You can always blame the airport for not shutting down the traffic but that is usually easier to say after the fact. Of course, you could shut down all air traffic across the globe as a precautionary measure. It is convenient to speculate retrospectively that - after the Iranian strike in Iraq - Tehran should have shut down its airport ( which it had except for a few flights).

This is where the theory of Iranian misinformation boomerangs: even if the state media had shown the Iranian strikes in Iraq on TV, what reason did anyone have to believe it?

Farsnews reported that 80 American soldiers died in those strikes but now the US says that was not true either. So what reason had anyone to believe anything. This is not comparable to the crash in Ukraine at all. There the plane was flying above the warzone, here the distance between Tehran and Iraq was about 800 km. Of course, it would be convenient for the US to command every airport in Iran to shut down....

Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 14:31 utc | 156
"Now, nearly a year later, Santamarta claims that leaked code has led him to something unprecedented: security flaws in one of the 787 Dreamliner's components, deep in the plane's multi-tiered network. He suggests that for a hacker, exploiting those bugs could represent one step in a multi­stage attack that starts in the plane's in-flight entertainment system and extends to highly protected, safety-critical systems like flight controls and sensors."

" An attacker could potentially pivot, Santamarta says, from the in-flight entertainment system to the CIS/MS to send commands to far more sensitive components that control the plane's safety-critical systems, including its engine, brakes, and sensors. Boeing maintains that other security barriers in the 787's network architecture would make that progression impossible."
https://www.wired.com/story/boeing-787-code-leak-security-flaws/

What Boeing is saying here is admitting the plane can be taken over from the ground, or at least many things disrupted, but their security is that good nobody can break into it. I believe most Boeing aircraft send automated data back to Boeing (maintenance, faults and so forth) which may mean Boeing always has an open line into the aircraft. Boeing being part of US MIC.

Kiza , Jan 11 2020 14:49 utc | 157
Well Peter 153, you are right about the ability to operate stand-alone. But such is a fall-back tactic, not a to begin with tactic. When comms and the operations centre are destroyed no civilian aircraft are supposed to remain in the air. I did not read that all Iranian comms were down. I also did not read a statement that their radars were jammed. BTW, I have experienced radar and comms jamming by a US aircraft carrier and despite being targeted at military frequencies, it is disruptive to all civilian comms and civilian aircraft as well. Therefore, this plane would not have been flying under radio and radar jamming conditions.

I can only repeat the two obvious root causes: you expect a military retaliation but do not close down civilian air traffic and you scatter your air defense units unconnected to a centre (which essentially leaves considerable destructive power in the hands of below average brains connected to twitchy fingers at least somewhere in such scatter - imagine the statistical risk level).

Never assume that this could never happen in your country. Only countries without governments are safe. The only difference is whether the government admits or not, TWA800 anyone?

dltravers , Jan 11 2020 14:50 utc | 158
I can sit at home with my laptop and monitor almost all commercial air traffic in my area with an antenna, ABS software, and a RTL SDR donegal. It is not that difficult and the internet is not needed as long as the aircraft withing withing range of the antenna. They transmit in 1.090 gigahertz. RTL-SDR Tutorial: Cheap ADS-B Aircraft RADAR

IRGC Aerospace Cmdr.: We were at that time ready for an all-out war with US. We had reports of cruise missiles fired at Iran. It was an individual's error that caused this tragedy.

Certainly they were on high alert and it could have been an individual error combined with a system malfunction, the aircraft straying out of its commercial lane or any confluence of events. Something may be lurking beneath the surface. The media jumped on and pushed the story hard and that always leaves me suspicious. The borg was correct and knew what happened immediately and reported it truthfully. An even stranger event.


Sasha , Jan 11 2020 14:56 utc | 159
@Posted by: Sasha | Jan 11 2020 14:05 utc | 148

To add....I tried hard to change my connection to Moscow, but no way, just imagine what my mood was on travelling by Kiev connection on a flag airline of a now nazi state being myself a real left, pro-Russian activist...

While in the long queue to check in and baggage dropp in, I dedicated myself to, out of curiosity, observe my Ukrainian flight companions, and must say they all seemed to me, by their face´s expression, peaceful and patient stance, innocent people totally misdirected by a bunch of oligarchic and foreign interests, mainly residing in North America...

One would say they mostly seemed and innocent crowd who then provided a quite peaceful flight and connection, i must adit also quite effectiveness by the Kiev airport personel related to timely departure and baggage organization...

On harsh contrast, I suffered a quite disturbing incident protagonized by some Iranians coming from the US in a flight to Teheran....I had been the first to place my handbaggage in the compartment up my sit, when some US diaspora Iranian women( clearly way over-empoverished by the US life style even for an European like me.. ) arrived, dropped my baggage out the compartiment so as to place theirs, leaving mine on the floor, without leaving any place left for it in the compartment, which obly me to put it further from I was sat, something I usually try to avoid as long as possible by sometimes standing up in the line to boarding while others remain sat. I complained in English ( which they clearly understood...) adding Spanish temperament, to no avail, such was their stuborness to prevail...

Then, during the flight, they kept talking to me as if nothing unpolite had happened, including the one sat by my side....I got to the conclusion that they had been obviously brutalized by living in the US, since the attittude of Iranians in Iran during all my travel was astonishingly polite and hospitable....

Red Ryder , Jan 11 2020 14:57 utc | 160
@121

A little bit of factual history for you to learn the facts of the situation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34767012

"Russia has signed a contract to supply Iran with sophisticated S-300 surface-to-air missiles. The contract got the go-ahead after international sanctions on Iran were lifted earlier this year, following a deal over its nuclear programme. Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia are all opposed to the missile contract. Russian officials say the first batch could be delivered 18 months after Iran has specified the S-300 type that it wants. Technical talks are continuing.

"The deal to supply the S-300 to Iran has not only been signed between the parties but it has already come into force," said Sergei Chemezov, head of Russia's Rostec arms firm, speaking at the Dubai Airshow-2015.

The $800m (£545m) contract, signed in 2007, was frozen by Russia in 2010 because of the international sanctions. President Vladimir Putin unfroze it in April.

Israel and the US fear the missiles could be used to protect Iranian nuclear sites from air strikes. The missiles can shoot down jets and other missiles hundreds of kilometres away. The S-300 can be used against multiple targets including jets, or to shoot down other missiles.

The S-300B4 variant - delivered to the Russian armed forces last year - can shoot down any medium-range missile in the world today, flies at five times the speed of sound and has a range of 400km (248 miles), Tass reports."

When the Russian deal was suspended Iran filed a lawsuit seeking billions of dollars in damages. Mr Chemezov said Saudi Arabia had asked Rostec repeatedly not to supply the S-300 to Iran. But he insisted that it was a defensive weapon. "So if the Gulf countries are not going to attack Iran... why should they be threatened? Because this is defence equipment," Reuters news agency quoted him as saying."

As for the offer in 2016 to sell the S-400 to Iran, which it turned down, here is one source: https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2016/08/25/10158377.shtml

Minister of defence of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) Hossein Dehgan said: "We produce a system to ensure air safety at three levels. Available high-range deficiencies we made up for the purchase of s-300, we do not have any need to purchase other systems", -- quotes Agency Tasnim statement Dehgan.

The Iranian defense Minister Dehgan said that "Iran has the necessary defensive system that is able to ensure aerospace security of the country".


In the past year, 2019, Russia indicated it would offer to sell the S-400. "We are open for discussions on delivering S-400 Triumph air defense systems, including to Iran. Especially given that this equipment is not subject to restrictions outlined in UN Security Council's resolution issued on June 20, 2015," a representative of the press service of the Russian Federal Service of Military-Technical Cooperation told Sputnik on Friday."
Iran's own Presstv.com reported.
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/06/28/599649/Russia-Iran-S400

Sorghum , Jan 11 2020 14:59 utc | 161
Thanks b for the update and the excellent coverage.

What an epic mistake to not close the airspace. I'm impressed that the IRGC admitted full responsibility and even gave a detailed description of the human error. Adding in the EW jamming and it is easy how this could happen. What a horrible tragedy.

veto , Jan 11 2020 15:01 utc | 162
Posted by: William Gruff | Jan 11 2020 12:07 utc | 114

Yes, this was my first guess as well. Who was actually on that plane. Ukraine is CIA/Mossad territory, but the Russians may have ways to find out who are on a flight to Kiev, and they may choose to pass that information on. Then again, it might just be a mistake as admitted.

dorje , Jan 11 2020 15:03 utc | 163
I am very surprised by this admission. Are the Iranians just closing the door on this Passenger jet and shifting the focus of conversation? Was there an actual mistake made by their Air Defense?

Having apologized for an event that occurred under the Fog of War Iran will definitely get credit from most Westerners as our governments never apologize. Why would a vicious psychopath apologize? We are all Palestinians' to our governments in the 'Free West'?

I don't believe this admission changes the dynamic now under way: the U.S. has no defense in the M.E. from Missile attack, if they continue to move forces to the ME to get to 100,000 (I calculate the Iranians as being able to field 100,000+ regulares and militia)it will be viewed as an act of war as will bringing in Patriot systems.

All eyes must now be on what Washington DOES not what it says as, to most observers, it always appears to be lying.

Bonus points for all westerners: can anyone think of a Western hero since DeGaulle or JFK? I can't and I really wish it were otherwise.

Kiza , Jan 11 2020 15:07 utc | 164
My final comment on the topic. I blame both the war instigators and the local decision makers for this tragedy. Yet, it is my strong impression that the person who pressed the button, the US Cretin in Chief and Jonathan W here share about the same level of reasoning.

It is immensely comforting to know that one's life may be in the hands of such individual at some point in life, hope NOT.

Piotr Berman , Jan 11 2020 15:13 utc | 165
The obvious result of several generations of recruiting/hiring military and/or military technicians for loyalty and obedience instead of intelligence. It is lucky for everyone that they found that out now, before nuclear weapons were available.

Posted by: Mike-SMO | Jan 11 2020 14:23 utc | 154

Too late! Do you think that Pompeo got recruited/hired for intelligence? Or any believer of the esoteric cult recently named "inter-agency consensus"? Not to mention that brainwashing in educational programs of our finest institutions (check bio of Fiona Hill) can dampen deleterious side-effects of intelligence (independent thinking and crap like that). They got the nukes, and a galore of other toys to play with, as we had seen in the case of Suleimani. And this process of creating esoteric supremacist doctrine is quite a bit longer than the history of Iranian revolution.

I used the word esoteric to mean a doctrine with multiple levels of initiation and knowledge, with deference to the higher levels. As Pompeo was explaining, there was a full consensus among the people of the highest knowledge level, so Congressional blokes should know their place. Most of them did, with a notable exception of a yokel from Utah.

Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 15:15 utc | 166
kiza This is from last year. A good chance that after the Iranian missile strike, US would have been trying to disrupt IRGC command and communication systems. IRGC manned the Tor unit and according to Iran their coms were out at the time of the incident.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/06/23/us-struck-iranian-military-computers-this-week/

"The cyberattacks -- a contingency plan developed over weeks amid escalating tensions -- disabled Iranian computer systems that controlled its rocket and missile launchers, the officials said. Two of the officials said the attacks, which specifically targeted Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps computer system, were provided as options after Iranian forces blew up two oil tankers earlier this month."

Kiza, adding this sort of crap in each comment really does give you away. "which essentially leaves considerable destructive power in the hands of below average brains connected to twitchy fingers"

[Jan 11, 2020] Big Money in Politics Doesn't Just Drive Inequality. It Drives War. - FPIF

Notable quotes:
"... Citizens United ..."
Jan 11, 2020 | fpif.org

Big Money in Politics Doesn't Just Drive Inequality. It Drives War.

Military contractors have shelled out over $1 million to the 2016 presidential candidates -- including over $200,000 to Hillary Clinton alone.

By Rebecca Green , April 27, 2016 . Originally published in OtherWords .

Print Friendly, PDF & EmailPrint Military-Industrial Diagnosis

Khalil Bendib / OtherWords.org

The 2016 presidential elections are proving historic, and not just because of the surprising success of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders, the lively debate among feminists over whether to support Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump's unorthodox candidacy.

The elections are also groundbreaking because they're revealing more dramatically than ever the corrosive effect of big money on our decaying democracy.

Following the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision and related rulings, corporations and the wealthiest Americans gained the legal right to raise and spend as much money as they want on political candidates.

The 2012 elections were consequently the most expensive in U.S. history. And this year's races are predicted to cost even more. With the general election still six months away, donors have already sunk $1 billion into the presidential race -- with $619 million raised by candidates and another $412 million by super PACs.

Big money in politics drives grave inequality in our country. It also drives war.

After all, war is a profitable industry. While millions of people all over the world are being killed and traumatized by violence, a small few make a killing from the never-ending war machine.

During the Iraq War, for example, weapons manufacturers and a cadre of other corporations made billions on federal contracts.

Most notoriously this included Halliburton, a military contractor previously led by Dick Cheney. The company made huge profits from George W. Bush's decision to wage a costly, unjustified, and illegal war while Cheney served as his vice president.

Military-industrial corporations spend heavily on political campaigns. They've given over $1 million to this year's presidential candidates so far -- over $200,000 of which went to Hillary Clinton, who leads the pack in industry backing.

These corporations target House and Senate members who sit on the Armed Forces and Appropriations Committees, who control the purse strings for key defense line items. And cleverly, they've planted factories in most congressional districts. Even if they provide just a few dozen constituent jobs per district, that helps curry favor with each member of Congress.

Thanks to aggressive lobbying efforts, weapons manufacturers have secured the five largest contracts made by the federal government over the last seven years. In 2014, the U.S. government awarded over $90 billion worth of contracts to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman.

Military spending has been one of the top three biggest federal programs every year since 2000, and it's far and away the largest discretionary portion. Year after year, elected officials spend several times more on the military than on education, energy, and the environment combined.

Lockheed Martin's problematic F-35 jet illustrates this disturbingly disproportionate use of funds. The same $1.5 trillion Washington will spend on the jet, journalist Tom Cahill calculates , could have provided tuition-free public higher education for every student in the U.S. for the next 23 years. Instead, the Pentagon ordered a fighter plane that can't even fire its own gun yet.

Given all of this, how can anyone justify war spending?

Some folks will say it's to make us safer . Yet the aggressive U.S. military response following the 9/11 attacks -- the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the NATO bombing of Libya, and drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen -- has only destabilized the region. "Regime change" foreign policies have collapsed governments and opened the doors to Islamist terrorist groups like ISIS.

Others may say they support a robust Pentagon budget because of the jobs the military creates . But dollar for dollar, education spending creates nearly three times more jobs than military spending.

We need to stop letting politicians and corporations treat violence and death as "business opportunities." Until politics become about people instead of profits, we'll remain crushed in the death grip of the war machine.

And that is the real national security threat facing the United States today. Share this:

[Jan 11, 2020] Meet the CEOs Raking It in from Trump's Aggression Toward Iran - FPIF

Notable quotes:
"... Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-edits the IPS publication Inequality.org. Follow her at @SarahDAnderson1. ..."
Jan 11, 2020 | fpif.org

Meet the CEOs Raking It in from Trump's Aggression Toward Iran

Major military contractors saw a stock surge from the U.S. assassination of an Iranian general. For CEOs, that means payday comes early.

By Sarah Anderson , January 6, 2020 . Originally published in Inequality.org .

Print Friendly, PDF & EmailPrint military-industrial-complex-arms-contractors

Chris Devers / Flickr

CEOs of major U.S. military contractors stand to reap huge windfalls from the escalation of conflict with Iran. This was evident in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. assassination of a top Iranian military official last week. As soon as the news reached financial markets, these companies' share prices spiked, inflating the value of their executives' stock-based pay.

I took a look at how the CEOs at the top five Pentagon contractors were affected by this surge, using the most recent SEC information on their stock holdings.

Northrop Grumman executives saw the biggest increase in the value of their stocks after the U.S. airstrike that killed Qasem Suleimani on January 2. Shares in the B-2 bomber maker rose 5.43 percent by the end of trading the following day.

Wesley Bush, who turned Northrop Grumman's reins over to Kathy Warden last year, held 251,947 shares of company stock in various trusts as of his final SEC Form 4 filing in May 2019. (Companies must submit these reports when top executives and directors buy and sell company stock.) Assuming Bush is still sitting on that stockpile, he saw the value grow by $4.9 million to a total of $94.5 million last Friday.

New Northrop Grumman CEO Warden saw the 92,894 shares she'd accumulated as the firm's COO expand in value by more than $2.7 million in just one day of post-assassination trading.

Lockheed Martin, whose Hellfire missiles were reportedly used in the attack at the Baghdad airport, saw a 3.6 percent increase in price per share on January 3. Marillyn Hewson, CEO of the world's largest weapon maker, may be kicking herself for selling off a considerable chunk of stock last year when it was trading at around $307. Nevertheless, by the time Lockheed shares reached $413 at the closing bell, her remaining stash had increased in value by about $646,000.

What about the manufacturer of the MQ-9 Reaper that carried the Hellfire missiles? That would be General Atomics. Despite raking in $2.8 billion in taxpayer-funded contracts in 2018, the drone maker is not required to disclose executive compensation information because it is a privately held corporation.

We do know General Atomics CEO Neal Blue is worth an estimated $4.1 billion -- and he's a major investor in oil production, a sector that also stands to profit from conflict with a major oil-producing country like Iran.

*Resigned 12/22/19. **Resigned 1/1/19 while staying on as chairman until 7/19. New CEO Kathy Warden accumulated 92,894 shares in her previous position as Northrop Grumman COO.

Suleimani's killing also inflated the value of General Dynamics CEO Phebe Novakovic's fortune. As the weapon maker's share price rose about 1 percentage point on January 3, the former CIA official saw her stock holdings increase by more than $1.2 million.

Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy saw a single-day increase in his stock of more than half a million dollars, as the missile and bomb manufacturer's share price increased nearly 1.5 percent. Boeing stock remained flat on Friday. But Dennis Muilenberg, recently ousted as CEO over the 737 aircraft scandal, appears to be well-positioned to benefit from any continued upward drift of the defense sector.

As of his final Form 4 report, Muilenburg was sitting on stock worth about $47.7 million. In his yet to be finalized exit package, the disgraced former executive could also pocket huge sums of currently unvested stock grants.

Hopefully sanity will soon prevail and the terrifyingly high tensions between the Trump administration and Iran will de-escalate. But even if the military stock surge of this past Friday turns out to be a market blip, it's a sobering reminder of who stands to gain the most from a war that could put millions of lives at risk.

We can put an end to dangerous war profiteering by denying federal contracts to corporations that pay their top executives excessively. In 2008, John McCain, then a Republican presidential candidate, proposed capping CEO pay at companies receiving taxpayer bailouts at no more than $400,000 (the salary of the U.S. president). That notion should be extended to companies that receive massive taxpayer-funded contracts.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, for instance, has a plan to deny federal contracts to companies that pay CEOs more than 150 times what their typical worker makes.

As long as we allow the top executives of our privatized war economy to reap unlimited rewards, the profit motive for war in Iran -- or anywhere -- will persist. Share this:

  • Print

  • https://www.facebook.com/v2.3/plugins/share_button.php?app_id=249643311490&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D45%23cb%3Df36fb37a175ca3%26domain%3Dfpif.org%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Ffpif.org%252Ff1d50e8e50a940b%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&href=https%3A%2F%2Ffpif.org%2Fmeet-the-ceos-raking-it-in-from-trumps-aggression-toward-iran%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey

  • Share
  • Tweet

  • https://widgets.getpocket.com/v1/button?label=pocket&count=horizontal&v=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffpif.org%2Fmeet-the-ceos-raking-it-in-from-trumps-aggression-toward-iran%2F&title=Meet%20the%20CEOs%20Raking%20It%20in%20from%20Trump's%20Aggression%20Toward%20Iran%20-%20FPIF&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffpif.org%2Fmeet-the-ceos-raking-it-in-from-trumps-aggression-toward-iran%2F&r=0.8283299836378031

Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-edits the IPS publication Inequality.org. Follow her at @SarahDAnderson1.

[Jan 11, 2020] U.S. slaps fresh sanctions against Iran after missile attacks

By killing Soleimani the USA formally declared war of Iran. So sactions is jus secondary effect of this decition.
Notable quotes:
"... Since its unilateral exit from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, Washington has been mounting pressure on Tehran through a series of sanctions. Iran has maintained a tough stance and scaled back its nuclear commitments in response. ..."
Jan 11, 2020 | www.xinhuanet.com

The latest move included sanctions on metal manufacturing and other sectors of the Iranian economy, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin told reporters at a White House press briefing, noting that the sanctions are both primary and secondary.

Mnuchin also said the Treasury had designated eight senior Iranian officials, including Ali Shamkhani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Mohammad Reza Ashtiani, deputy chief of staff of Iranian armed force, and others.

"The United States is targeting senior Iranian officials for their involvement and complicity in Tuesday's ballistic missile strikes," Mnuchin claimed in a statement issued by the Treasury.

Also on Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump said in a White House statement that the punishing measures aimed at denying Iran's revenue that "may be used to fund and support its nuclear program, missile development, terrorism and terrorist proxy networks, and malign regional influence."

The Pentagon confirmed that Iran had launched 16 ballistic missiles against two military bases housing U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq earlier this week.

Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) had claimed responsibility for the missile attacks, saying that they were meant to retaliate the U.S. killing of Qassem Soleimani, former commander of the Quds Force of the IRGC.

Trump said Wednesday in an address to the nation that "the United States will immediately impose additional punishing economic sanctions on the Iranian regime. These powerful sanctions will remain until Iran changes its behavior."

Since its unilateral exit from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, Washington has been mounting pressure on Tehran through a series of sanctions. Iran has maintained a tough stance and scaled back its nuclear commitments in response.

[Jan 10, 2020] Mike Pompeo played loose with the facts and should step down as secretary of state: there were no eminent threat

He's played fast and loose with the facts, undermining his credibility on the world stage.
Democrats insist the move was hasty and claim there wasn't adequate intelligence to justify killing Soleimani. Essetually he was murged because Pompeo wanted to show the strength of the USA in view of the attack on the USA embassy (which did not have any victims)
Pompeo collected more campaign donations from the Kochs and their employees than any candidate in the country
Notable quotes:
"... In fact, military analysts say Soleimani's assassination by the US is tantamount to a declaration of war against regional superpower Iran. What is certain is that his death marks the beginning of a terrifying new and unpredictable era in an already turbulent region. ..."
"... Indeed, in retrospect it seems nothing short of astonishing that just a day earlier the ayatollah himself had mocked Trump about the violence outside the US embassy in Iraq, which Washington claimed was orchestrated by Iran. 'You can't do anything,' Khamenei said, in what will surely go down in history as one of the most ill-advised tweets ever posted by a country's leader. ..."
"... While most people in the West will not have known much, if anything, about Soleimani before the announcement of his death yesterday, in Iran he was the most revered military leader since the country's 1979 revolution. ..."
Jan 10, 2020 | dailymail.co.uk

Consequences: Donald Trump appears to have no strategy for dealing with the fall-out

In fact, military analysts say Soleimani's assassination by the US is tantamount to a declaration of war against regional superpower Iran. What is certain is that his death marks the beginning of a terrifying new and unpredictable era in an already turbulent region.

Unsurprisingly, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei warned that 'severe consequences' await the killers of Soleimani, while the country's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, denounced the assassination as an 'act of international terrorism'.

Meanwhile in the US, a number of major cities have increased security to protect prominent landmarks and civilians from possible revenge terrorist attacks.

Whether or not that US reaction is justified, it would be difficult to overstate just how big a loss Soleimani's death is for the Iranian regime, how seriously we should take its vows of revenge – or, just as crucially, how humiliatingly off-guard Iran's leaders were when Trump gave his kill order.

Indeed, in retrospect it seems nothing short of astonishing that just a day earlier the ayatollah himself had mocked Trump about the violence outside the US embassy in Iraq, which Washington claimed was orchestrated by Iran. 'You can't do anything,' Khamenei said, in what will surely go down in history as one of the most ill-advised tweets ever posted by a country's leader.

Meanwhile, so apparently unconcerned was Soleimani about his own safety that the general – famed for constantly outsmarting his enemies on the battlefield – did not bother to keep his travel plans secret.

While most people in the West will not have known much, if anything, about Soleimani before the announcement of his death yesterday, in Iran he was the most revered military leader since the country's 1979 revolution.

[Jan 10, 2020] Mike Pompeo Fed the Rats in the President* s Brain to Get What He Wanted by Charles P. Pierce

Jan 06, 2020 | www.esquire.com
America's top diplomat does not seem to think his job is to prevent war.

The Washington Post dives deeply into what is laughingly called the administration*'s "process" leading up to the decision to kill Qasem Soleimani with fire last week. In short, all the "imminent threat" palaver was pure moonshine. According to the Post, this particular catastrophe was brewed up for a while amid the stalactites in the mind of Mike Pompeo, a Secretary of State who makes Henry Kissinger look like Gandhi.

The secretary also spoke to President Trump multiple times every day last week, culminating in Trump's decision to approve the killing of Iran's top military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, at the urging of Pompeo and Vice President Pence, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Pompeo had lost a similar high-stakes deliberation last summer when Trump declined to retaliate militarily against Iran after it downed a U.S. surveillance drone, an outcome that left Pompeo "morose," according to one U.S. official. But recent changes to Trump's national security team and the whims of a president anxious about being viewed as hesitant in the face of Iranian aggression created an opening for Pompeo to press for the kind of action he had been advocating.

Poor Mike was morose. So, in an effort to bring himself out of the dumps, Mike decided to keep feeding the rats in the president*'s head.

Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But that mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor and injuring service members. On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.
The whole squad got involved on this one.
Alex Wong Getty Images
Trump's decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon's long-standing concerns about escalation and the president's aversion to using military force against Iran. One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.

First-in-His-Class Mike Pompeo knows his audience. There's no question that he knows how to get what he wants from a guy who doesn't know anything about anything, and who may have gone, as George V. Higgins once put it, as soft as church music. This, I guess, is a skill. Of course, Pompeo's job is easier because the president* is still a raving maniac on the electric Twitter machine. A handy compilation:

Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
They attacked us, & we hit back. If they attack again, which I would strongly advise them not to do, we will hit them harder than they have ever been hit before!
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without hesitation!

And, this, perhaps my favorite piece of presidentin" yet.

These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!

You have been informed, Congress. You have been informed, Iran.

No, really. It's down there below the cat videos.

Trump Dished Some Bullsh*t on Iran

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page here .

Charles P. Pierce Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976.

[Jan 10, 2020] Pompous killer

Notable quotes:
"... Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been revealed to be the puppet master behind POTUS Trump's motion to liquidate a top Iranian commander, CNN reported citing sources inside and around the White House, with the revelation indicating Pompeo's influential status in the Trump administration. ..."
"... The sources suggested that the Iranian general was Pompeo's fixation, so that he even sought to get a visa to Iran in 2016 when he represented Kansas in Congress, before assuming the role of CIA director and then his current one. ..."
"... Despite winning the moniker of "Trump whisperer" over the ties he has developed with POTUS, Pompeo's ability to sell an aggressive Iran strategy to Trump, who has commonly opposed any military confrontation, has caused a certain sway, the sources implied. ..."
"... "He's the one leading the way", according to the source in Pompeo's inner circle, discussing the showdown with Iran. "It's the president's policy, but Pompeo has been the leading voice in helping the president craft this policy. There is no doubt Mike is the one leading it in the Cabinet". ..."
"... While bragging about Washington's "big and accurate" missiles as well as US achievements during his tenure, he separately praised the "new powerful economic sanctions" aimed at Iran, promising that they would be in place until Tehran "changes its behaviour". Also, he invited NATO to get more deeply involved in what is going on in the Middle East, with the Transatlantic bloc reacting favorably to the suggestion. ..."
Jan 10, 2020 | sputniknews.com

Mike Pompeo has reportedly long cherished plans to take the Iranian general off the Middle East battlefield, as he is said to have for quite a while seen late Commander Soleimani as the one behind the spiralling tensions with Tehran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been revealed to be the puppet master behind POTUS Trump's motion to liquidate a top Iranian commander, CNN reported citing sources inside and around the White House, with the revelation indicating Pompeo's influential status in the Trump administration.

According to several sources, taking Iranian General Qasem Soleimani – the leader of the elite Quds Force, a powerful military group with vast leverage in the region - "off the battlefield" has been Pompeo's goal for a decade.

Pompeo "was the one who made the case to take out Soleimani, it was him absolutely", a source said, adding he apparently floated the idea when debating the US Embassy raid over New Year with Trump.

According to a number of sources close to Pompeo, the secretary of state has at all times believed that Iran is the root cause of the woes in the Middle East, and Soleimani in particular - the mastermind of terrorism raging across the region. This point of view is notably in tune with how Pompeo commented on the commander's assassination:

"We took a bad guy off the battlefield", Pompeo told CNN on 5 January. "We made the right decision". The same day, Pompeo told ABC that killing Soleimani was important "because this was a fella who was the glue, who was conducting active plotting against the United States of America, putting American lives at risk".

The sources suggested that the Iranian general was Pompeo's fixation, so that he even sought to get a visa to Iran in 2016 when he represented Kansas in Congress, before assuming the role of CIA director and then his current one.

Despite winning the moniker of "Trump whisperer" over the ties he has developed with POTUS, Pompeo's ability to sell an aggressive Iran strategy to Trump, who has commonly opposed any military confrontation, has caused a certain sway, the sources implied.

"He's the one leading the way", according to the source in Pompeo's inner circle, discussing the showdown with Iran. "It's the president's policy, but Pompeo has been the leading voice in helping the president craft this policy. There is no doubt Mike is the one leading it in the Cabinet".

Regardless of who inspired the drone attack that killed Soleimani, the two countries are indeed going through a stint of severe tensions, but no direct military confrontation. After Tehran's retaliatory attack, Trump announced a slew of more stringent economic limitations to be slapped on Iran.

While bragging about Washington's "big and accurate" missiles as well as US achievements during his tenure, he separately praised the "new powerful economic sanctions" aimed at Iran, promising that they would be in place until Tehran "changes its behaviour". Also, he invited NATO to get more deeply involved in what is going on in the Middle East, with the Transatlantic bloc reacting favorably to the suggestion.

[Jan 10, 2020] "Moqtada al-Sadr advices to prepare for the battle by closing all Hashd al-Shaabi offices to avoid offering easy targets to the #US when the decision of armed resistance is decided and if the US refuses to withdraw from Iraq."

Notable quotes:
"... Hopefully you are right on the Kurds and Sunnis, but the US ability to enlist proxies has always surprised me. ..."
"... Newspeak: IRAN APPEARS TO BE STANDING DOWN. Imperial words when attacked directly. ..."
"... Iran has been patiently demonstrating its capabilities. The following terms came into the vernacular and are associated with those capabilities: Stena Impero/Adryan Darya, Khurais and Abqaiq, RQ-4A Global Hawk, PMU/PMF and many others, and now, Ain al-Asad. ..."
"... US cannot afford to fight a war with Iran directly. If so, it would have to fight from Hindu Kush to the Mediterranean, so, just be ready for skirmishes here and there. I see RSH is posting here now. He has been predicting a war between the two nations by the end of 2010, end of 2011, end of 2012, and on and on, on other sites. Haven't read enough of his comments to see if it's now by the end of 2020? ..."
"... But I think both Iran and North Korea will keep the pressure on the US high throughout this election year, entirely intentional of course. ..."
"... Damn, I'm late to the party again. It's probably been said already, but Iran's response is pure genius. Early warning to try to avoid casualties, speaks volumes about the differences between the evil empire and the Iranians. ..."
"... Unless one entertains the belief that Iran's missile attacks all misfired and missed their human targets-which appears to be the view that the friends of Israel and those who believe in the indefatigability of the US military, hold- then what Iran has just provided is spectacular confirmation that, short of a nuclear attack, there is nothing that the US can do, but go. ..."
"... Clearly its bases cannot be defended, that is what the craters and smashed buildings are telling them. If the Secretary of Defense wants to wait for a written request to leave the country that is his privilege-he's lucky not to be living there- but there is no way that the US forces can stay there. They have become unwelcome guests. ..."
"... People voted for Trump primarily for two reasons: Obama and the D-Party had stabbed them in the back allowing millions to lose their homes while the fraudulent banksters got away scot-free and with $Trillions too-boot, and they knew Clinton was a deranged warmonger while Trump talked reasonably about the Outlaw US Empire's many Imperial Follies. In short, Trump was seen by many as the lesser of two evils. No, I voted Green. ..."
"... It sounds as though Abdel Mahdi is being forced into the popular opinion. The US is being reduced into its best defended bases. Where from there, when those bases are isolated? ..."
"... The US did not escalate today. Trump's speech was all bluster and falsehood, directed almost exclusively to American audience in the interest of domestic politics. ..."
"... It is also possible that what Pompeo and Esper and Netanyahoo are seeking to accomplish is to maintain the highest level of tension possible without precipitating actual war. This is because all parties recognize that actual war with Iran would entail the destruction of much of Israel's infrastructure and many thousands of Israeli casualties, and these are prices too high to pay for the overthrowing of even the "evil" Iranian "regime". ..."
"... The Iranians have just displayed that they can and will attack targets with precision. No message? Seriously? You've missed the bigger picture. Iran have scored one on the Strategic level. What you're also missing is that Iraq is moving even closer to Iranian and Chinese-Russian orbit. ..."
"... Iran communicated its intent to strike US targets in Iraq directly to the Iraqi Prime Minister a full two hours prior to the missiles being launched; Iraq then shared this information with US military commanders, who were able to ensure all US troops were in hardened shelters at the time of the attack. ..."
Jan 10, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Clueless Joe , Jan 8 2020 21:43 utc | 296

psychohistorian , Jan 8 2020 21:43 utc | 297
About whether any died in the Iran attack

Iran told the US they were going to attack and what areas.

Of course the US military is not going to abandon its radar installation is it? Maybe there were a few others stationed where survival was iffy. If they die then not surprising that their deaths were covered up because they were told those areas would be hit.

That is the reason we had the Trump presser today that was projection of, we got the message, don't do any more...stand down.

If the latest about bombs in the Baghdad Green Zone are accurate then either more Iran or some other factor wanting to trigger US response or ???

We are all still alive so China/Russia is backstopping Iran from nuclear attack seems clear

karlof1 , Jan 8 2020 21:44 utc | 298
Events continue

Bubbles , Jan 8 2020 20:18 utc | 231

With those poor disenfranchised American folks putting all their hope in trump and his agenda, are they realizing the benefits of their support yet? I've read 71% of young Americans can't afford to buy a home now the money men have inflated prices to the extreme. Trump's people, the money men.

Did they vote for him as a show of support for his granting every wish Netanyahu ever had?

Did they vote for him to support Netanyahu's aggression against his chosen foe, which clearly was an effort to cast the spear of fear into the hearts of Israeli's?

Demagogues and wannabes set about to rule by making the population afraid.

Peter AU1 , Jan 8 2020 20:25 utc | 233
Walter
Thanks for the explanation.In layman terms and I would guess many professions and trades, speed and velocity are interchangeable.

Laguerre. Hopefully you are right on the Kurds and Sunnis, but the US ability to enlist proxies has always surprised me. There always seem to be corruptible people anywhere, plus others interested in using the US for their small time ends. But Iraq has changed with the killing of Soleimani. Anti US may end up trumping local grievances for the majority.

Sakineh Bagoom , Jan 8 2020 20:26 utc | 235
Newspeak: IRAN APPEARS TO BE STANDING DOWN. Imperial words when attacked directly.

What is lost in all this debate whether this was Kabuki or not is that Iran went toe to toe with the empire -- directly. Pissed on the red lines set by the empire a day earlier. No need for proxies. No need for false flag from the enemies. Iran has justified legality under article 51 as Zarif pointed out.

Terror needed re-balancing, and for now, balance of terror has been established.

Iran has been patiently demonstrating its capabilities. The following terms came into the vernacular and are associated with those capabilities: Stena Impero/Adryan Darya, Khurais and Abqaiq, RQ-4A Global Hawk, PMU/PMF and many others, and now, Ain al-Asad.

US cannot afford to fight a war with Iran directly. If so, it would have to fight from Hindu Kush to the Mediterranean, so, just be ready for skirmishes here and there. I see RSH is posting here now. He has been predicting a war between the two nations by the end of 2010, end of 2011, end of 2012, and on and on, on other sites. Haven't read enough of his comments to see if it's now by the end of 2020?

Alexander P , Jan 8 2020 20:28 utc | 236
Posted by: oldhippie | Jan 8 2020 19:26 utc | 204

The stage rigging is on plain display here. This was arranged and calculated well in advance. Arranged by someone with power to compel obedience, who would expect perfect compliance to a scheme with many moving parts. So may parts of this might have gone wrong, with WW3 as the consequence of a mistake.

I completely agree, I think this entire thing is a precursor to something much worse, such as a massive false-flag that will let this conflict turn hot. Last night was but a small taste or using Iranian wording 'mosquito bite'. People are quick to dismiss that war would never be a viable option for the powers that be. When really they have been setting the stage for global calamity for quite some time. The Iran/US/Israel theater is just the first of a number of dominoes that have been carefully set up (NK-US; India-Pakistan; Russia-NATO) to name but a few. Tensions are intentionally being ratcheted up for a major cascading explosion that will ripple around the globe. The ponzi economy bubble-game they have created during the last 20 years is part of that plan to trigger even worse panic among the populace. Having said all of this, it seems to me that they want Trump to still be re-elected before things really turn sour, so there seems to be some time left, which is why the current de-escalation.

But I think both Iran and North Korea will keep the pressure on the US high throughout this election year, entirely intentional of course.

Mao , Jan 8 2020 20:28 utc | 237 ben , Jan 8 2020 20:30 utc | 238
Damn, I'm late to the party again. It's probably been said already, but Iran's response is pure genius. Early warning to try to avoid casualties, speaks volumes about the differences between the evil empire and the Iranians.

Thanks b, and all. So much better coming here, as opposed to the MSM..

Mao , Jan 8 2020 20:30 utc | 239 WJ , Jan 8 2020 20:31 utc | 240
It all depends now on Trump's reelection strategy: Will he run on bringing the troops home or will he run on another Middle East war.

Posted by: somebody | Jan 8 2020 16:34 utc | 108

Were I a zionist advisor/donor to Trump, I would advise/blackmail him to do the following: Run a 2020 campaign premised on bringing the troops home, and indeed bring enough of them home (or to Germany) to make that plausible. Then, after you win the election, stage some action or invent some pretext (we control the media and can help you do both) that requires you do go to war against Iran. It will be unpopular and many of your citizens will die. But you are in your second term, we have given you lots of $$$$, and we still have that video tape from the late 1990s of you and the 14-year old eastern european girl.

bevin , Jan 8 2020 20:34 utc | 243
Unless one entertains the belief that Iran's missile attacks all misfired and missed their human targets-which appears to be the view that the friends of Israel and those who believe in the indefatigability of the US military, hold- then what Iran has just provided is spectacular confirmation that, short of a nuclear attack, there is nothing that the US can do, but go.

Clearly its bases cannot be defended, that is what the craters and smashed buildings are telling them. If the Secretary of Defense wants to wait for a written request to leave the country that is his privilege-he's lucky not to be living there- but there is no way that the US forces can stay there. They have become unwelcome guests.

Of course there are still those who tell us that Iraqi public opinion is divided and that the sunni and the Kurds will be willing agents of the imperialists: I don't think so. What the US has done is to unite Iraqis around nationalist objects and to close the carefully opened divide between the sects. They have come full circle since 2003 and now even the Iraqi members of ISIS (who are a small minority in the Foreign Legion of Uighurs, Bosnians, Albanians, Chechens and wahhabis) will not serve as a wedge to keep Iraqis fighting each other.

Or Iran: it has taken trillions of dollars and decades for Washington to knock it into the densest politicians' heads but now everyone understands:

"The US is our enemy, it sees us as untermenschen to be exterminated like vermin. In order to survive and to rebuild our lives and communities we must expel them. We have no choice.

First we will ask the Swiss Embassy to tell them to leave, then we will pass resolutions in Parliament, and put on fireworks displays at their bases. And they will leave."

And next will come the matter of Palestine, and the al quds Soleimani's brigade was named for. Israel is beginning to look very lonely now in the Levant- a very abusive, violent and noisy neighbour given to trespassing and larceny.

Zanon , Jan 8 2020 20:35 utc | 244
Jackrabbit
That's all he got. Sanctions?

Sanctions are act of war. Trump has Conducted a War against Iran for many months with sanctions https://twitter.com/jricole/status/1214912785999650816

Mina , Jan 8 2020 20:37 utc | 245
#219
As in "sanctions vs the EU doing business with"
Peter AU1 , Jan 8 2020 20:38 utc | 246
https://ejmagnier.com/2020/01/08/iranian-messages-behind-attacking-us-bases-in-iraq-and-the-consequences/

"Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi -- according to well-informed sources in Baghdad -- answered that "this act may carry devastating results on the Middle East: Iraq refuses to become the theatre for a US-Iran war".

The Iranian official replied: "Those who began this cycle of violence are the US, not Iran; the decision has been taken."

Prime Minister Abdel Mahdi informed the US forces of the Iranian decision. US declared a state of emergency and alerted all US bases in Iraq and the region in advance of the attack.

Iran bombed the most significant US military base in Iraq, Ayn al-Assad, where just in the last two days, the US command had gathered the largest number of forces. Many US bases, particularly in Shia controlled areas and around Baghdad, were evacuated in the last days for security reason towards Ayn al-Assad, a base that holds anti-nuclear shelters."

Peter AU1 , Jan 8 2020 20:44 utc | 250
Easy to see why the US approved of Mahdi as president. A pissweak appeaser how can do no more than write letters to the UN. If he doesn't want a US Iran war in Iraq then he should be booting the yanks out as the Yanks are based there purely on Iran's account. What Mahdi is doing amounts to providing sanctuary to the US on Iran's border.
Lone Wolf , Jan 8 2020 20:47 utc | 254
I stand corrected, Magnier has just posted, now b has a source to copy and paste.
https://ejmagnier.com/2020/01/08/iranian-messages-behind-attacking-us-bases-in-iraq-and-the-consequences/

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 8 2020 20:38 utc | 246

Thank you, Peter AU1!

Lone Wolf

james , Jan 8 2020 20:47 utc | 255
@ lone wolf... bye, bye... why would anyone bother to get worked up about your post? lol..
Cynica , Jan 8 2020 20:48 utc | 256
@Lone Wolf #248

Some of us are indeed quite skeptical that there were no casualties reported whatsoever - by "Western" media outlets. This commenter previously noted that it would be in the US establishment's interest to downplay the impact of the attack as much as possible. Furthermore, to those who are wondering how true casualty figures could be prevented from being leaked, all the US government has to do is declare such information classified, at which point it becomes a serious felony (think Snowden or Manning) to leak it.

Passer by , Jan 8 2020 20:48 utc | 257
Posted by: DFC | Jan 8 2020 19:20 utc | 198

>>b) The fact that Suleimani was a national hero for a nation of 82 million people and also for 150 million of shia around the world, mourned by millions in the streets, make a bigger Trump "victory" over the Iranian "regime", and it is a powerful advice to the others leaders and commanders in the world that try to fight or oppose to USA.

This is not a gain, the US will be hated and sabotaged by the many shia groups across the world (a young and growing demographic with combat experience), and there will be many covert activities against it all over the place. An american dying here and there, a US company sabotaged here and there. The US will be very busy fighting shia groups undercover just as it needs to compete with Russia and China, not to mention the security costs. They will probaly give tacit support to some sunni groups already fighting the US. Taliban getting manpads and targeting info of US presence in Afghainstan? No, this is not good news for the US. It means having more and more enemies everywhere and dividing resources into many fronts. Taking on Russia, China and Iran/Iraq/Shia Crescent will to be too much. The debt clock is ticking.

>>g) The retaliation of the PMU lob some katyusha rockets in the backyard of few US bases

No, they will simply make it impossible for any american to get out outside of the Embassy in Iraq. Workers, companies etc. will be driven out by harrassment.

>>h) Trump is defiant about not leaving Iraq, I think at the end they will go but after they have a very good deal. Of course it is all about the Iraqi oil, in exchange for the American blood and money wasted in Iraq. Iraq has the biggest oil reserves in the world and USA want a good chunk of them, they never ever leave "giving" all of them to the Chinese or Iranians or anybody else. Trump does not want US soldiers in Iraq, but he wants the oil above anything else (it is condition "sine qua non" to maintain the Empire)

You don't know much about Iraq then. Iraq (including elites) does not want the US there. It does not want to be a battlefield and it does not want to have Shia leaders attacked in their own country. This is a Red Line for iraqis. Muqtada Al Sadr, the most influential person in Iraq, who kicked the arse of the US occupation in 2004-2007 wants the US and even the Embassy out, embargo on US products, etc. Iraqi shia are not intimidated by the US, far from it, they have seen far worse in the past and that only angered them even more. Iraq will move into China-Russia-Iran orbit, this is a done deal. A chinese delegation just arrived in Iraq to provide security solutions for the country.

>> Trump has now the full enthusiastic support of the AIPAC and all the others powerful Israeli lobby he will have more money than required for the election. He has demonstrated he is the best possible POTUS for Israel.

This is debatable, considering that 80 % of US jews voted against Trump. Israel is not the only issue for US jews. They do not like loud mouthed white racists. US media is an expression of US jews and US media continues to be highly hostile to Trump. If they really wanted him, media would be supportive.

j) In the short term USA will leave Syria and in the medium term Iraq, OK, but they never ever leave "all the region", they need to be there to maintain the "American Way of Live" (US $ as reserve currency)

There will be less US presence in the Middle East and it won't be just Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan drawdowns. US debt levels point to unsustainable military spending. That is, in 2025 - 2030 the US will be forced to cut military spending significantly. Even now the US is cutting the number of ships due to lack of money. So in general, there will be less US presence everywhere, including in the Middle East. Too much debt.

As for Iraq, the US HQ for Iraq was just evacuated to Kuwait, US forces stopped operations and are confinded to their bases (defacto house arrest), and US workers are fleeing the country.

>>If nothing dramatically change, I expect a crushing victory of Trump in the coming US election, he has all the cards now in his hand, and he will not waste them.

And i see people in the US and all over the world deeply disturbed by his behavior. People want calm, not never ending drama, threats, sexism, racism, vulgarity and warmongering. Women (majority of voters) do not like such behavior. Women and minorites are very hostile to Trump due to this. Republicans lost the House and it looks like someone did not get the message. Even if Trump somehow wins, this will lead to civil war like situation in the US due to the changing demographics. Minorities DO NOT want Trump and their numbers will only be increasing far into the future. This means growing division and infighting within the US.

You look at this through the eyes of an American, that is why you see it as 'kabuki' and 'face saving' weakness, because as an American your answer is wholesale slaughter. Body count is your metric of success.

Zanon , Jan 8 2020 20:59 utc | 262
Two Rockets Fall in Green Zone in Iraqi Capital of Baghdad
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/202001081077983534-two-blasts-sirens-heard-in-iraqi-capital-of-baghdad-reports/

If this is Iran. This is getting ridiculous and wont be appreciated by Iraq.

Nemo , Jan 8 2020 21:01 utc | 264
America cant retaliate because they know the next blow will bleed. They were unable to intercept the incoming missiles because US point defenses are mediocre. Once a projectile gets past the patriots, not a difficult task, they will only face some rail mounted stingers and 20 mm cannon. Has to be scarry for the dumb grunts.
albagen , Jan 8 2020 21:02 utc | 265
@ lone wolf

I won't attack you or your post, but it is no good manners to enter somebody's house and speak shit. If your family didn't teach you this, and your education didn't manage to polish the animal in you, then you are a lost case, no need to deal with you. You'll live on mother earth and then die without having any good impact whatsoever.

good riddance

karlof1 , Jan 8 2020 21:03 utc | 266
Bubbles @231--

People voted for Trump primarily for two reasons: Obama and the D-Party had stabbed them in the back allowing millions to lose their homes while the fraudulent banksters got away scot-free and with $Trillions too-boot, and they knew Clinton was a deranged warmonger while Trump talked reasonably about the Outlaw US Empire's many Imperial Follies. In short, Trump was seen by many as the lesser of two evils. No, I voted Green.

If you read Dr. Hudson's analysis and the transcript from this show , you'll be informed about a great many facts about the Outlaw US Empire that the vast majority of its citizens are unaware of thanks to BigLie Media. And I could direct you to dozens of additional examples that provide even more facts about the situation, the core of the problem and potential solutions.

Many good academics and others have tried to inform the USA's citizenry about the why of their dilemma and provided suggestions for action, but their voices are drowned out by what's known as the Establishment Narrative parroted by BigLie Media. IMO, Sanders would have waxed Trump in 2016, but he was clearly the target of a conspiracy to prevent him from gaining the D-Party nomination. IMO, the only reason he endorsed Clinton was he knew of the sort of domestic mayhem Trump and the R-Party would wreck upon his supporters. Please, before denigrating the masses within the Evil Outlaw US Empire, try to discover why they behave as they do. Lumping them all together and calling them dumb fuck-wits won't get you anywhere and only serves to exacerbate things.

Laguerre , Jan 8 2020 21:03 utc | 267
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 8 2020 20:38 utc | 246

It sounds as though Abdel Mahdi is being forced into the popular opinion. The US is being reduced into its best defended bases. Where from there, when those bases are isolated?

I am reposting this.

The Iranians care, they sent some of the best gifts, and they're rightly proud of them. A Hallmark kinna time, the Holidays n all that.

Brother, I have read about the problems involved, I took some calculus long ago, but the engineering behind what Iran has demonstrated in very complex. They put the clown on the back foot.

There is a realignment of strategy in the Celestial Heaven of DC... Not a change in goal, just "whaddwe do now, how r we gunna smash 'em"...

jayc , Jan 8 2020 21:06 utc | 270
The US did not escalate today. Trump's speech was all bluster and falsehood, directed almost exclusively to American audience in the interest of domestic politics. If anything, the call for NATO to step up was an indication the Americans planned to step back. The Turks will not be pouring troops into Iraq. Trump was referring to the Europeans. The US corporate media continues to report with subdued tone, with ultra hawkish Fox News continuing to describe the struck airbases as "Iraqi facilities".
WJ , Jan 8 2020 21:10 utc | 273
Cynica @256,

"This commenter previously noted that it would be in the US establishment's interest to downplay the impact of the attack as much as possible."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is true only on the assumption that the "US establishment" is united in seeking to de-escalate with Iran. But evidence suggests that at least two members of that establishment--Pompeo and Esper--are clearly not interested in de-escalation (notwithstanding Pompeo's directive to the embassies). For them, the death of dozens of American soldiers could only be a good thing, as it would easily be manipulated in the press to motivate the US populace's desire for retribution.

It is also possible that what Pompeo and Esper and Netanyahoo are seeking to accomplish is to maintain the highest level of tension possible without precipitating actual war. This is because all parties recognize that actual war with Iran would entail the destruction of much of Israel's infrastructure and many thousands of Israeli casualties, and these are prices too high to pay for the overthrowing of even the "evil" Iranian "regime".

De-escalation with Iran hurts Netanyahoo; actual war with Iran hurts Netanyahoo. What helps Netanyahoo is the constant threat of war with Iran along with the public perception that only he, of all Israeli politicians, has the sufficient resolve to face down the Persian menace. Because I am of the view that Israel is not just an outpost of the US empire but in many cases the tail that wags the dog of this empire, I fully expect that the US will continue to seek to ride the escalation-de-escalation wave with Iran until Netanyahoo either stabilizes his domestic position in Israel or loses it altogether.

Passer by , Jan 8 2020 21:13 utc | 275
Posted by: Zanon | Jan 8 2020 19:25 utc | 203

Actually the Hashd Al Shaabi militia, which is part of the Iraqi military, wanted to take over the US Embassy and Mehdi threatened to resign over that, not over the protests in general or the harrassment of the US Embassy. This is why iraqi troops stayed out as the Embassy was besieged. He chose China over the US for reconstruction of Iraq and made very compromising remarks about Trump (how he threatened to put snipers killing people in Iraq, how Soleimani was there for diplomatic mission as peace envoy, etc.)

Mehdi is an expression of the majority Shia sentiment in Iraq - it is him who came to Parliament to demand a resolution for US withdrawal from the country. As for Iraqi Shia sentiment, numerically speaking, 80 % of Shia MPs and the PM demanded a US withdrawal from the country.

David G , Jan 8 2020 21:14 utc | 276
What is the source for the account that the Swiss embassy received advance warning of the missile strike?

I haven't seen it elsewhere. I'm not saying that to knock it, but since b doesn't mention or link to a source, and I don't see it discussed in comments, I'd like to know where he got that report from.

CNN.com says Iran reached out through various channels, "including through Switzerland and other countries", but after the strike, to make known there was nothing else on the way.

Walter , Jan 8 2020 21:19 utc | 279
WJ | Jan 8 2020 21:10 utc | 273

If Iran succeeds in forcing the Empire out, then obviously the zionists would be unable to remain more than briefly. But without zionists Jews and Arabs have always got along reasonably well... So we may imagine "Israel" going through a "phase change" when Empire departs...because then the decent people can have a say in things, then justice may prevail - something all Abrahamic Creeds respect and call for as a basic foundation. Of course there's nothing pretty about a civil war in Israel, or as it is at present "forward operating base zion"

Zanon , Jan 8 2020 21:28 utc | 283
Passer By

Actually what they said about foreign troops:

"The Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason."

Mahdi have tried hard to disband PMU. https://thedefensepost.com/2019/07/03/iraq-mahdi-orders-popular-mobilization-units-integration/ That is the PMU that US, Israel have been bombing for months.

Ian2 , Jan 8 2020 21:34 utc | 288
Ian Dobbs | Jan 8 2020 19:52 utc | 223:
This entire episode has been an absolute disaster for the Iranians. They sent no message to the US.

Disaster? How so? The Iranians have just displayed that they can and will attack targets with precision. No message? Seriously? You've missed the bigger picture. Iran have scored one on the Strategic level. What you're also missing is that Iraq is moving even closer to Iranian and Chinese-Russian orbit.

The missile strikes is also a message to Iranian regional competitors. I can guarantee you Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have taken notice.

I'm expecting more small level attacks on US assets in Iraq and it'll likely spread to other neighboring countries. Death by a thousand cuts. In the end, the US will have no choice but to leave Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

David G , Jan 8 2020 21:38 utc | 291
Further from mine @276:

Scott Ritter also says there was advance warning, though via the Iraqi government, not mentioning the Swiss embassy in Tehran:

Iran communicated its intent to strike US targets in Iraq directly to the Iraqi Prime Minister a full two hours prior to the missiles being launched; Iraq then shared this information with US military commanders, who were able to ensure all US troops were in hardened shelters at the time of the attack.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/477759-iran-missiles-subdued-us-strike/

Ritter doesn't give his sourcing either. Of course the significant thing is that such advance warning was given at all. I'd just like to know how solid the factual basis is, and to what extent it is officially confirmed by any of the relevant governments.

Clueless Joe , Jan 8 2020 21:43 utc | 296

If US soldiers were killed by the attack, this can't be hidden forever; sooner or later, coffins will go back home and families will be informed. Specially if it's as high as 80. Though for the moment, the Pentagon can stay quiet, and won't publicly acknowledge it, the bodies will have to come back to the US and be buried - as far as I know, they're not janissaries but US military, most have relatives, friends and family and can't be disappeared just like that.

The USS Liberty is a different situation: the US didn't hide for decades that people were lost in the bombing, it didn't acknowledge that it was a deliberate attack. Pretty much the opposite case to the present one.

[Jan 10, 2020] This reckless act by Trump administion was the last gasp of "Full spectrum dominance" doctime and probably means end of Pompeo career as the Secretary of state and Trump as the President

See also With his imminent attack fake Mike Pompeo Is a Dollar Store Kissinger
Notable quotes:
"... This is not just about how to de-escalate – it's about recognizing that America fundamentally needs to change its disastrous course. Even if de-escalation of the acute tensions is possible, the risks will remain as long as the United States pursues a reckless policy. ..."
Jan 10, 2020 | www.theguardian.com

This crisis was sparked by Donald Trump. Trump withdrew from the deal that had stopped Iran's nuclear weapons program, leading Iran to restart its nuclear program. Trump ramped up economic pressure and sent more US troops to the region, and tensions grew. Then the US killed Gen Qassem Suleimani , signaling a significant escalation, to which Iran responded with an attack on Iraqi bases where US and Iraqi troops are stationed.

ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">

ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">

America is far worse off today towards Iran and in the Middle East than it was when Trump took office

It is up to Congress and the American people to force Trump to adopt a more pragmatic path. For too long Congress has ceded to the executive branch its authority to determine when America goes to war, and the current crisis with Iran is exactly the kind of moment that requires intense coordination between the legislative and executive branches. The president cannot start a war without congressional authorization, and with the erratic Trump in office, Congress must make that clear by cutting off the use of funds for war with Iran.

This is not just about how to de-escalate – it's about recognizing that America fundamentally needs to change its disastrous course. Even if de-escalation of the acute tensions is possible, the risks will remain as long as the United States pursues a reckless policy. America is far worse off today towards Iran and in the Middle East than it was when Trump took office – even worse off than we were on 1 January 2020. Today, Iran is advancing its nuclear program, America has suspended its anti-Isis campaign, Iraq's parliament has voted to evict US troops from the country, and we are in a dangerous military standoff with Iran.

Digging out of this hole will be difficult and this administration is not capable of it. Over the long run, future administrations will need to reorient America's goals and policies. America needs to re-enter the nuclear deal and begin negotiations to strengthen it; work with partners like Iraq – without a large US troop presence – in countering potential threats like a resurgence of Isis; and adopt a broader regional policy that focuses on protecting US interests and standing up for human rights and democracy rather than picking sides in a regional civil war between dictatorships like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Achieving US goals in the region will not be possible with a mere de-escalation of tensions – we need to find a new path towards Iran and the Middle East.

[Jan 10, 2020] Pompeo Goes Full Neocon The National Interest

Jan 10, 2020 | nationalinterest.org

November 18, 2019 Topic: Security Region: Americas Tags: Mike Pompeo Donald Trump Foreign Policy Iran Sanctions Pompeo Goes Full Neocon

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pivots back from America First.

by Matthew Petti Follow Matthew Petti on Twitter L ,

https://lockerdome.com/lad/12130885885741670?pubid=ld-12130885885741670-935&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fnationalinterest.org&rid=duckduckgo.com&width=896

[Jan 09, 2020] Mike Pompeo is officially the Secretary of State. Apparently, he is also unofficially the Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the very model of a modern major bureaucrat by Charles P. Pierce

Jan 07, 2020 | www.esquire.com

Mike Pompeo is officially the Secretary of State. Apparently, he is also unofficially the Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the very model of a modern major bureaucrat. He's running things on war and peace these days because the president* sure as hell isn't. He's a Dollar Store Kissinger with nobody to restrain him. And he has no compunction whatsoever about lying in public -- about Barack Obama, and about the definition of the word "imminent," which, to Pompeo, seems to extend back in time to the Persian Empire and forward into the second term of the Malia Obama administration.

Pompeo met the press on Tuesday and everything he said was completely worthless. For example, did you know that the Iran nuclear deal hastened the development of Iran's nuclear capacity, but that pulling out of it, and frying the second-highest official of their government, slowed it down? Mike Pompeo knows that.

President Trump could not be more clear. On our watch, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon and, when we came into office, Iran was on a pathway that had been provided by the nuclear deal, which clearly gave them the opportunity to get those nuclear weapons. We won't let that happen...It's not political. The previous administration made a different choice. They chose to underwrite and appease. We have chose to confront and contain.

But that's not political, you appeasing, underwriting wimps who worked for 11 years to get a deal with these people. And that goes for all you appeasing, underwriting European bastards as well, who don't think this president* knows anything about anything. And, as to the whole imminence thing, well, everything is imminent sometime, and it's five o'clock somewhere.

"We know what happened at the end of last year in December ultimately leading to the death of an American. If you're looking for imminence, you needn't look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken against Soleimani. Then you had in addition to that what we could clearly see was continuing efforts on behalf of this terrorist to build out a network of campaign activities that were going to lead potentially to the death of many more Americans. It was the right decision, we got it right."

Yeah, they got nothing -- except the power, of course. The last time we had a terrible Republican president determined to lie us into a war in the Middle East, he and his people at least did not do so by employing utter and transparent gibberish. Times change.

[Jan 09, 2020] AGAINST THE BLITZ WOLF -- RUSSIAN REINFORCEMENTS FOR IRAN'S DEFENCE

Notable quotes:
"... National Defence, ..."
"... National Defence ..."
Jun 25, 2019 | johnhelmer.net

The Russian General Staff has reinforced the air defences for Russians at the Iranian nuclear reactor complex at Bushehr, on the Persian Gulf, according to sources in Moscow. At the same time, Iran has allowed filming of the movement of several of its mobile S-300 air-defence missile batteries to the south, covering the Iranian coastline of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. More secretly, elements of Russian military intelligence, electronic warfare, and command and control advisers for Iran's air defence systems have been mobilized to support Iran against US and allied attacks.

The range of the new surveillance extends well beyond the S-300 strike distance of 200 kilometres, and covers US drone and aircraft bases on the Arabian peninsula, as well as US warships in (and under) the Persian Gulf and off the Gulf of Oman. Early warning of US air and naval-launched attacks has now been cut below the old 4 to 6-minute Iranian threshold. Counter-firing by the Iranian armed forces has been automated from attack warning and target location.

This means that if the US is detected launching a swarm of missiles aimed at Iran's air-defence sites, uranium mines, reactors, and military operations bunkers, Iran will launch its own swarm of missiles at the US firing platforms, as well as at Saudi and other oil production sites, refineries, and pipelines, as well tankers in ports and under way in the Gulf.

"The armed forces of Iran," said a Russian military source requesting anonymity, "have air defence systems capable of hitting air targets at those heights at which drones of the Global Hawk series can fly; this is about 19,000 to 20,000 metres. Iran's means of air defence are both foreign-purchased systems and systems of Iran's own design; among them, in particular, the old Soviet system S-75 and the new Russian S-300. Recently, Iran transported some S-300's to the south, but that happened after the drone was shot down [June 20]. Russian specialists are working at Bushehr now and this means that the S-300's are also for protection of Bushehr."


Flight distance between Bushehr and Bandar Abbas is about 570 kms. From Bandar Abbas southeast to Kuhmobarak, the site of the Iranian missile firing against the US drone, is another 200 kms.

Last Thursday, June 20, just after midnight, a US Global Hawk drone was tracked by Iran from its launch at an airbase in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), south of Dubai. The take-off and initial flight route appear to have been more than 300 kms from Iranian tracking radars. Four hours later, the aircraft was destroyed by an Iranian missile at a point at sea off Kuhmobarak. Follow the route tracking data published by the Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif here .


KEY: blue line=drone flight path; yellow line=Iranian Flight Information Region (FIR); red line=Iranian territorial waters; green line=Iranian internal waters; yellow dots=Iran radio warnings sent; red square=point of impact. Source: Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif: https://twitter.com/ The US claims the point of impact was outside the red line.

Additional tracking data on the US drone operation have been published in a simulation by the Iranian state news agency, Fars. The news agency claims the successful strike was by the Iran-made Khordad missile, an S-300 copy; the altitude has not been reported (design ceiling for the aircraft is 18,000 metres). The Russian military source says there is now active coordination between Russian and Iranian military staffs. "About coordination, of course there is participation of Russia in intelligence-sharing because of Bushehr and ISIS. We have a long and successful partnership with Iran, especially in terms of fighting against international terrorism." Two days after the drone incident, Russian specialist media published Iranian video footage of the movement of S-300's on trailer trucks. This report claims that although the S-300's are wheeled and motorized for rapid position changes, the use of highway transporters was intended to minimize road fatigue on the weapons.

Iranian military sources have told western reporters they have established "a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East."

Maps published to date in open Russian military sources show the four main anti-air missile defence groups (PVO) on Iranian territory, and the strike range of their missiles. The 3 rd and 4 th PVOs are now being reinforced to oppose US reinforcements at sea and on Saudi and Emirati territory.


Key: yellow=units of the main air-defence (PVO) groups; split blue circles=military bases; blue diamond=nuclear industry sites; red rings=kill range for missiles; solid red=command-and-control operations centres. Source: Anatoly Gavrilov, "Before the storm", National Defence, April 2019

The weaknesses and vulnerabilities of Iranian defences against US air attack are, naturally, state secrets. The open-source discussion by Russian air-defence expert Anatoly Gavrilov can be followed here . According to Gavrilov writing in March, the expected plan of US attack will be the use of precision missiles and bombs at "primary targets plants for the production and processing of nuclear fuel, uranium mines, production for its enrichment, refineries, other industrial centers. But initially [the objective] will be to suppress (completely destroy) the air defense system. The mass use of cruise missiles for various purposes and guided aircraft bombs will disable the control system of Iran's troops and suppress the system of reconnaissance and anti-aircraft missile fire. In this case, the task of the attacking side will be the destruction in the first two or three days of 70% to 80% of the radar, and after that, up to 90% manned aircraft will begin to bomb only after the complete suppression of the air defense system. The West protects its professional pilots, and it does not matter that the civilian population of Iran will also suffer."

The main Iranian vulnerability facing American attack, reports Gavrilov, is less the range, volume and density of firepower with which the Iranians can respond than the relatively slow time they have shown to date for processing incoming attack data, fixing targets, and directing counter-fire. "In today's conditions of organization and conduct of rapid air combat, a high degree of automation of the processes of collection, processing, transmission and exchange of radar information, development of solutions for repelling strikes, and conducting anti-aircraft missile fire is extremely necessary."

RANGE AND ALTITUDE OF MAIN IRANIAN AIR DEFENCE WEAPONS


CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE
Horizontal axis, range in kilometres for each identified weapon; vertical axis, altitude of interception. Source: Anatoly Gavrilov, National Defence , April 2019

Gavrilov does not estimate how far the Iranians have been able to solve by themselves, and with Russian help, the problems of automation and coordination of fire. To offset whatever weakness may remain, he recommends specific technical contributions the Russians can make. These include the technology of electronic countermeasures (ECM) to jam or deflect US targeting signals and ordnance guidance systems.

While Gavrilov believes the Iranian military have already achieved high enough density of fire against incoming weapons, he isn't sure the range and altitude of Iranian radars will be good enough to match the attack risks. To neutralize those, he recommends "Russian-made electronic warfare systems. The complex of EW systems is able to significantly reduce the ability of attack aircraft to search for, detect and defeat ground targets; disrupt the onboard equipment of cruise missiles in the GPS satellite navigation system; distort the readings of radio altimeters of attack aircraft, cruise missiles and UAV's [unmanned aerial vehicle, drone] "

In briefings for sympathetic western reporters, Iranian commanders are emphasizing the Armageddon option; that is, however weak or strong their defences may prove to be under prolonged US attack, the Iranian strategy is not to wait. Their plan, they say, is to counter-attack against Arab as well as American targets as soon as a US missile attack commences; that's to say, at launch, not inflight nor at impact.


Left: Kremlin photograph of the Security Council meeting at the Kremlin on the afternoon of June 21. Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/ Right: Major General Mohammad Baqeri, Iran's armed forces chief of staff.

The day following the US attack and Iranian success, President Vladimir Putin chaired a meeting of his regular Security Council members in Moscow. The military were represented by the Defence Minister, Sergei Shoigu. The US attack on Iran was the main issue on the table. "The participants," reported the Kremlin communiqué, "discussed, in particular, the developments in the Persian Gulf. They expressed serious concern over the rising tension and urged the countries involved to show restraint, because unwise actions could have unpredictable consequences in terms of regional and global stability."

Unpredictable consequences in Russian is being translated in Farsi to mean the cessation of the oil trade in the Persian Gulf. "As oil and commodities of other countries are passing through the Strait of Hormuz, ours are also moving through it," Major General Mohammad Baqeri, the Iranian chief of staff, said on April 28. "If our crude is not to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, others' [crude] will not pass either."

[Jan 09, 2020] Iraq Reopens Negotiations For Purchase Of Russian S-300 Air Defense Systems Zero Hedge

Jan 09, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Thu, 01/09/2020 - 12:55 0 SHARES

With Iraq's airspace being frequently violated by American and even Israeli bombing raids against the country's paramilitary units backed by Iran of late, Iraq has for the last several months considered purchasing Russian air defense and missile systems, including both the S-300 and more advanced S-400, however, it has been met with fierce pressure from the US.

And now Russian media is reporting authorities in Baghdad have formally resumed talks to possibly acquire the S-300 systems. Head of the Iraqi Parliament's Security and Defense Committee, Mohammad Reza, has indicated negotiations were renewed following the latest attacks initiated nearly two weeks ago on Shiite Popular Mobilization Forces .

"The issue was supposed to be solved several months ago after attacks on Shiite militia al-Ḥashd ash-Sha'bi [Popular Mobilization Forces, PMF] bases in Baghdad and other provinces created the need for such air defenses", the lawmaker was quoted in Russia's Sputnik as saying.

Russian S-300 anti-air systems file.

It was first revealed in September that Baghdad was mulling the purchase of the S-300. This after a summer in which Israel brazenly launched multiple drone and aerial attacks on PMF bases which at first had 'mysterious' origins , but was later confirmed to have the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) behind them.

According to Iraqi official sources, those initial purchase talks were quashed when Washington vehemently objected , also at a moment parliament officials and the public were increasingly angered over unilateral US bombing raids against PMF sites conducted without the knowledge or approval of Iraq's government and military.

At the point when talks were initiated with Russia in September, international reports counted nine strikes in total on Iraq's paramilitary forces -- in some cases while they were allegedly operating just across the country's western border with Syria.

Prior alleged Israeli airstrike on a military base southwest of Baghdad which took place in August. Image source: AP.

This had also fueled speculation that the Trump administration had greenlighted stepped up Israeli attacks on Iranian proxies in the region as an alternative to direct war with Iran.

However, this simultaneously bolstered the ongoing political movement in Iraqi parliament to have US troops expelled once in for all, especially over charges they had invited in and cooperated with a foreign power to attack sovereign Iraqi soil.

[Jan 09, 2020] Duck Soup Donald Trump, Dancing to the Tune of the Military Industrial Empire

Notable quotes:
"... The 1933 Marx brothers film Duck Soup was meant to be a satirical look at Benito Mussolini, ruler of Italy. In the film the mythical country of Freedonia , ruled by the effervescent Rufus T. Firefly ( played by Groucho), due to an insult by the ambassador of rival nation Sylvania, declares war. Laughs abound. Well, in our own nation of ' Free markets', ' Free enterprise' and ' Free use of war' whenever it pleases us, we are led by another Firefly, who is as comedic as he is dangerous to peace. ..."
"... Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ' It's the Empire Stupid ' radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected] ..."
Jan 09, 2020 | www.globalresearch.ca

The 1933 Marx brothers film Duck Soup was meant to be a satirical look at Benito Mussolini, ruler of Italy. In the film the mythical country of Freedonia , ruled by the effervescent Rufus T. Firefly ( played by Groucho), due to an insult by the ambassador of rival nation Sylvania, declares war. Laughs abound. Well, in our own nation of ' Free markets', ' Free enterprise' and ' Free use of war' whenever it pleases us, we are led by another Firefly, who is as comedic as he is dangerous to peace.

Of course, the major difference with movie's Freedonia and our own is like night and day. In the film the leader, Firefly, had full control of every decision needed to be made. In our Freemerika , Mr. Trump, regardless of the image he portrays as an absolute ruler, has to dance to the tune of the Military Industrial Empire, just like ALL our previous presidents. Folks, sorry to say, but presidents are not so much harnessed by our Constitution or Congress ( or even the Supreme Court) but by the wizards who the empire picks to advise him. They decide the ' when and if' of such dramatic actions like the other day's drone missile murder in Iraq of the Iranian general. Unlike when Groucho decides he was insulted by Trentino, the Sylvanian ambassador, and declares ' This means war!', Mr. Trump gave the order for the assassination but ONLY after those behind the curtain advised him.

Violence Is as Violence Does. All in the Name of "Restoring Democracy"

To believe that our presidents have carte blanche to do the heinous deeds is foolish at best . LBJ's use of the Gulf of Tonkin phony incident to gung ho in Vietnam was not just one man making that call.

Or Nixon's Christmas carpet bombing of Hanoi, Bush Sr.'s attack on Iraq in 1991 , his son's ditto against Iraq in 2003, Obama's use of NATO to destroy Libya in 2011, or this latest arrogance by Trump, were all machinations by this empire's wizards who advised them. When the late Senator Robert Byrd stood before a near empty Senate chamber in 2003 to warn of this craziness, that told it all! We are not led by Rufus T. Firefly, rather a Cabal that most in this government do not even realize who in the hell these people are!

Of course, the embedded mainstream media does the usual job of demonizing who the empire chooses to be our enemies. As with this recent illegal act by our government of crossing into another nation's sovereignty to do the deed, now they all tell us how deadly this Iranian general was. Yet, how many of the news outlets ever mentioned this guy for what they now tell us he was, for all these years? Well, here is the kicker. I do not know what this man was responsible for , regarding acts of insurgency against US forces in Iraq. Maybe he did aid in the attacks on US personnel. Maybe he also was there to neutralize the fanatical ISIS terrorists who were killing US and Iraqi personnel in Iraq and Syria. What I do know is that, in the first place, we had no business ever invading and occupying Iraq period! Thus, the rest of this Duck Soup becomes postscript.

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ' It's the Empire Stupid ' radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected]

[Jan 09, 2020] GOP's Mike Lee Blasts Intel Briefers For Telling Senators They Can't Debate War Authorization

Jan 09, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

After the Trump Administration's 75-minute briefing to the US Senate on the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) was deeply critical , calling it the worst briefing he'd gotten in his nine years in the Senate.

Saying the administration's briefers offered little on the legal or practical justification for the attack, Sen. Lee particularly took umbrage at them warning the Senators that they must not debate the War Powers authorization for a war with Iran .

Republican Senator Mike Lee with Sen. Rand Paul. Image via ABC/Reuters

Those giving the briefing objected to the very idea of the Senate discussing the matter publicly, saying it would "embolden Iran." Sen. Lee noted that this is a power Constitutionally reserved explicitly for the legislature.

"For them to tell us ... for us to debate and discuss these things on the Senate floor would somehow weaken the American cause and embolden Iran in any other actions, I find very insulting ," Lee said, who did not specify to reporters on Capitol Hill which briefer made the assertion.

"It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government -- I don't care if they're with the CIA, the Department of Defense or otherwise -- to come in and tell us that we can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran, " Lee added. -- ABC

Not only did Lee express annoyance that there was no pushback from any of the briefers on telling the Senate not to debate something legally in their purview, but he said that while he'd had problems with the language of Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-VA) resolution, he has now decided that he will support the resolution, on condition of some amendments.

*

Boogity , 11 minutes ago link

Senator Lee just got cut off from Uncle Shlomo's slush fund.

IUDAEA_DELENDA_EST , 12 minutes ago link

The CIA works hard.

But for whom?

It is most certainly not The Republic.

SpeechFreedom , 33 minutes ago link

Trump The Zionist Whore!

"Trump is too stupid, or willfully ignorant to know that Soleimani was at the forefront of the US led coalition to eradicate ISIS from Northern Iraq in March 2015.

Soleimani also, as a commander of the Iranian Quds Force, was part of the American-led coalition under US General Tommy Franks fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan in the October 2001 Battle of Herat .

Moreover, Soleimani worked to protect Eastern Christians against ISIS in both Syria and Iraq, and empowered them to defend themselves as best they could.

As for the flunkie at State, Pompeo put up a clip of a few Iraqis celebrating the death of Soleimani while parroting Trump's own lies that Iranians "hated and feared him."

However, Pompass didn't show the millions mourning Soleimani in Iran, Iraq, and Syria, including the minorities in Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

That's not "hate and fear," that's "honor and respect."

Most Americans never heard of Soleimani -- a soft-spoken man of high refinement -- until his murder last week. Now they're clamoring as if Trump had slain the devil himself."

When World?

Have you not had enough of the *** monstrosity Yet?

Scipio Africanuz , 1 hour ago link

Seems the dam has burst, the [Trump] personality cult is crumbling, and the purveyors of unprovoked aggression are reeling..

So where are the Americans to back up the courageous and retake their congress from the grip of blackmailers and threat issuers?

Perhaps they are gearing up...

[Jan 09, 2020] Opposing War With Iran: Three Reasons by Anthony DiMaggio

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... War will allow Trump to claim the mantle of "national" wartime leader, while diverting attention away from his impeachment trial. And in light of the intensification of belligerent rhetoric from this administration, war appears to be increasingly likely. ..."
"... The American people have a moral responsibility to question not only Trump's motives, but to consider the humanitarian disaster that inevitably accompanies war. ..."
"... is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: The Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era (Paperback, 2018), and Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media , and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be reached at: [email protected] ..."
Jan 09, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org

The U.S. stands at the precipice of war. President Trump's rhetorical efforts to sell himself as the "anti-war" president have been exposed as a fraud via his assault on Iran. Most Orwellian of all is Trump's claim that the assassination of Iranian General Qassam Soleimani was necessary to avert war, following the New Year's Eve attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. In reality the U.S. hit on Soleimani represents a criminal escalation of the conflict between these two countries. The general's assassination was rightly seen as an act of war , so the claim that the strike is a step toward peace is absurd on its face. We should be perfectly clear about the fundamental threat to peace posed by the Trump administration. Iran has already promised "harsh retaliation" following the assassination, and announced it is pulling out of the 2015 multi-national agreement prohibiting the nation from developing nuclear weapons. Trump's escalation has dramatically increased the threat of all-out war. Recognizing this threat, I sketch out an argument here based on my initial thoughts of this conflict, providing three reasons for why Americans need to oppose war.

#1: No Agreement about an Iranian Threat

Soleimani was the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – the Quds Force – a clandestine military intelligence organization that specializes in paramilitary-style operations throughout the Middle East, and which is described as seeking to further Iranian political influence throughout the region. Trump celebrated the assassination as necessary to bringing Soleimani's "reign of terror" to an end. The strike, he claimed, was vital after the U.S. caught Iran "in the act" of planning "imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel."

But Trump's justification for war comes from a country with a long history of distorting and fabricating evidence of an Iranian threat. American leaders have disingenuously and propagandistically portrayed Iran as on the brink of developing nuclear weapons for decades. Presidents Bush and Obama were both rebuked, however, by domestic intelligence and international weapons inspectors , which failed to uncover evidence that Iran was developing these weapons, or that it was a threat to the U.S.

Outside of previous exaggerations, evidence is emerging that the Trump administration and the intelligence community are not of one mind regarding Iran's alleged threat. Shortly after Soleimani's assassination, the Department of Homeland Security declared there was "no specific, credible threat" from Iran within U.S. borders. And U.S. military officials disagree regarding Trump's military escalation. As the New York Times reports :

"In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's most powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him -- which they viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq -- on the menu they presented to President Trump. They didn't think he would take it. In the wars waged since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents to make other possibilities appear more palatable."

"Top pentagon officials," the Times reports , "were stunned" by the President's order. Furthermore, the paper reported that "the intelligence" supposedly confirming Iranian plans to attack U.S. diplomats was "thin," in the words of at least one U.S. military official who was privy to the administration's deliberations. According to that source , there is no evidence of an "imminent" attack in the foreseeable future against American targets outside U.S. borders.

U.S. leaders have always obscured facts, distorted intelligence, and fabricated information to stoke public fears and build support for war. So it should come as no surprise that this president is politicizing intelligence. He certainly has reason to – in order to draw attention away from his Senate impeachment trial, and considering Trump's increasingly desperate efforts to demonstrate that he is a serious President, not a tin-pot authoritarian who ignores the rule of law, while shamelessly coercing and extorting foreign leaders in pursuit of domestic electoral advantage.

Independent of the corruption charges against Trump, it is unwise for Americans to take the President at his word, considering the blatant lies employed in the post-9/11 era to justify war in the Middle East. Not so long ago the American public was sold a bill of goods regarding Iraq's alleged WMDs and ties to terrorism. Neither of those claims was remotely true, and Americans were left footing the bill for a war that cost trillions , based on the lies of an opportunistic president who was dead-set on exploiting public fears of terrorism in a time of crisis. The Bush administration sold war based on intelligence they knew was fraudulent, manipulating the nation into on a decade-long war that led to the murder of more than 1 million Iraqis and more than 5,000 American servicemen, resulting in a failed Iraqi state, and paving the way for the rise of ISIS. All of this is to say that the risks of beginning another war in the Middle East are incredibly high, and Americans would do well to seriously consider the consequences of entering a war based (yet again) on questionable intelligence.

#2: The "War on Terrorism" as a Red Herring

U.S. leaders have long used the rhetoric of terrorism to justify war. But this strategy represents a serious distortion of reality, via the conflation of terrorism – understood as premeditated acts of violence to intimidate civilians – with acts of war. Trump fed into this misrepresentation when he described Soleimani's "reign of terror" as encompassing not only the alleged targeting of U.S. diplomats, but attacks on "U.S. military personnel." The effort to link the deaths of U.S. soldiers in wartime to terrorism echoes the State Department's 2019 statement , which designated Iran's Quds Force a "terrorist" organization, citing its responsibility "for the deaths of at least 603 American service members in Iraq" from "2003 to 2011" via its support for Iraqi militias that were engaging in attacks on U.S. forces.

As propaganda goes, the attempt to link these acts of war to "terrorism" is quite perverse. U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq were participating in a criminal, illegal occupation, which was widely condemned by the international community. The U.S. war in Iraq was a crime of aggression under the Nuremberg Charter, and it violated the United Nations Charter's prohibition on the use of force, which is only allowed via Security Council authorization (which the U.S. did not have), or in the case of military acts undertaken in self-defense against an ongoing attack (Iraq was not at war with the U.S. prior to the 2003 invasion). Contrary to Trump's and the State Department's propaganda, there are no grounds to classify the deaths of military personnel in an illegal war as terrorism. Instead, one could argue that domestic Iraqi political actors (of which Iraqi militias are included, regardless of their ties to Iran) were within their legal rights under international law to engage in acts of self-defense against American troops acting on behalf of a belligerent foreign power, which was conducting an illegal occupation.

#3: More War = Further Destabilization of the Middle East

The largest takeaway from recent events should be to recognize the tremendous danger that escalation of war poses to the U.S. and the region. The legacy of U.S. militarism in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, is one of death, destruction, and instability. Every major war involving the U.S. has produced humanitarian devastation and mass destruction, while fueling instability and terrorism. With the 1979 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, U.S. support for Mujahedeen radicals led to the breakdown of social order, and the rise of the radical Taliban regime, which housed al Qaeda fundamentalists in the years prior to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. The 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan contributed to the further deterioration of Afghan society, and was accompanied by the return of the Taliban, ensuing in a civil war that has persisted over the last two decades.

With Iraq, the U.S. invasion produced a massive security vacuum following the collapse of the Iraqi government, which made possible the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq. The U.S. fueled numerous civil wars, in Iraq during the 2000s and Syria in the 2010s, creating mass instability, and giving rise to ISIS, which became a mini-state of its own operating across both countries. And then there was the 2011 U.S.-NATO supported rebellion against Muammar Gaddafi, which not only resulted in the dictator's overthrow, but in the rise of another ISIS affiliate within Libya's border. Even Obama, the biggest cheerleader for the war, subsequently admitted the intervention was his "worst mistake," due to the civil war that emerged after Gaddafi's overthrow, which opened the door for the rise of ISIS.

All of these conflicts have one thing in common. They brought tremendous devastation to the countries under assault, via scorched-earth military campaigns, which left death, misery, and destruction in their wake. The U.S. is adept at destroying countries, but shows little interest in, or ability to reconstruct them. These wars provided fertile ground for Islamist radicals, who took advantage of the resulting chaos and instability.

The primary lesson of the "War on Terror" should be clear to rationally minded observers: U.S. wars breed not only instability, but desperation, as the people victimized by war become increasingly tolerant of domestic extremist movements. Repressive states are widely reviled by the people they subjugate. But the only thing worse than a dictatorship is no order at all, when societies collapse into civil war, anarchy, and genocide. The story of ISIS's rise is one of citizens suffering under war and instability, and becoming increasingly tolerant of extremist political actors, so long as they are able to provide order in times of crisis. This point is consistently neglected in U.S. political and media discourse – a sign of how propagandistic "debates" over war have become, nearly 20 years into the U.S. "War on Terrorism."

Where Do We Go From Here?

Trump followed up the Soleimani assassination with a Twitter announcement that the U.S. has "targeted" 52 additional "Iranian sites," which will be attacked "if Iran strikes any Americans or American assets." There's no reason in light of recent events to chalk this announcement up to typical Trump-Twitter bluster. This President is desperate to begin a war with Iran, as Trump has courted confrontation with the Islamic republic since the early days of his presidency.

War will allow Trump to claim the mantle of "national" wartime leader, while diverting attention away from his impeachment trial. And in light of the intensification of belligerent rhetoric from this administration, war appears to be increasingly likely.

The American people have a moral responsibility to question not only Trump's motives, but to consider the humanitarian disaster that inevitably accompanies war. War with Iran will only make the Middle East more unstable, further fueling anti-American radicalism, and increasing the terror threat to the U.S. This conclusion isn't based on speculation, but on two decades of experience with a "War on Terror" that's done little but destroy nations and increase terror threats. The American people can reduce the dangers of war by protesting Trump's latest provocation, and by pressuring Congress to pass legislation condemning any future attack on Iran as a violation of national and international law.

To contact your Representative or Senator, use the following links:

Join the debate on Facebook

More articles by: Anthony DiMaggio

Anthony DiMaggio is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: The Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era (Paperback, 2018), and Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media , and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be reached at: [email protected]

[Jan 08, 2020] Soleimani and Al-Muhandis are being mourned in Aleppo churches

Jan 08, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

StSarkiscathedraltehran2016

(Tehran Armenian Cathedral)

Mike Pompeo was on the TeeVee today scoffing at those who do not agree with him and the Ziocon inspired "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran. It must be a terrible thing for intelligence analysts of integrity and actual Middle East knowledge and experience to have to try to brief him and Trump, people who KNOW, KNOW from some superior source of knowledge that Iran is the worst threat to the world since Nazi Germany, or was it Saddam's Iraq that was the worst threat since "beautiful Adolf?"

The "maximum pressure" campaign is born of Zionist terrors, terrors deeply felt. It is the same kind of campaign that has been waged by the Israelis against the Palestinians and all other enemies great and small. This approach does not seem to have done much for Israel. The terrors are still there.

Someone sent me the news tape linked below from Aleppo in NW Syria. I have watched it a number of times. You need some ability in Arabic to understand it. The tape was filmed in several Christian churches in Aleppo where these two men (Soleimani and al-Muhandis) are described from the pulpit and in the street as "heroic martyr victims of criminal American state terrorism." Pompeo likes to describe Soleimani as the instigator of "massacre" and "genocide" in Syria. Strangely (irony) the Syriac, Armenian Uniate and Presbyterian ministers of the Gospel in this tape do not see him and al-Muhandis that way. They see them as men who helped to defend Aleppo and its minority populations from the wrath of Sunni jihadi Salafists like ISIS and the AQ affiliates in Syria. They see them and Lebanese Hizbullah as having helped save these Christians by fighting alongside the Syrian Army, Russia and other allies like the Druze and Christian militias.

It should be remembered that the US was intent on and may still be intent on replacing the multi-confessional government of Syria with the forces of medieval tyranny. Everyone who really knows anything about the Syrian Civil War knows that the essential character of the New Syrian Army, so beloved by McCain, Graham and the other Ziocons was always jihadi and it was always fully supported by Wahhabi Saudi Arabia as a project in establishing Sunni triumphalism. They and the self proclaimed jihadis of HTS (AQ) are still supported in Idlib and western Aleppo provinces both by the Saudis and the present Islamist and neo-Ottoman government of Turkey.

Well pilgrims, there are Christmas trees in the newly re-built Christian churches of Aleppo and these, my brothers and sisters in Christ remember who stood by them in "the last ditch."

"Currently there are at least 600 churches and 500,000–1,000,000 Christians in Iran." wiki below. Are they dhimmis? Yes, but they are there. There are no churches in Saudi Arabia, not a single one and Christianity is a banned religion. These are our allies?

Mr. Jefferson wrote that "he feared for his country when he remembered that God is just." He meant Virginia but I fear in the same way for the United States. pl

https://twitter.com/i/status/1214223383635857409

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iran

Posted at 02:13 PM in As The Borg Turns , Borg Wars , Current Affairs , Iran , Iraq , Israel , Middle East , Pakistan , Religion , Saudi Arabia , Syria , Yemen | Permalink

[Jan 08, 2020] As long as Neocons and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're screwed.

Jan 08, 2020 | www.unz.com

Z-man , says: Show Comment January 7, 2020 at 1:27 pm GMT

Yes, as long as Neoco hens and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're screwed.
BTW, Mike Pompeo or as I affectionately call him; Lard face, Plump'eo, crazed CZ-zealot fat boy, etc., is now a legitimate target of the Iranians. May Allah provide justice to the family of Soleimani. (Grin) And look, I'm wishing 'ill will' on a zealot 'goy' (gentile) instead of a typical Neo-cohen snake, how ironic. (Another grin)
A positve spin:
With the 'incorrect' memo leaked by the Pentagon about an orderly exit from Iraq this can be the silver lining in all this mess. This assassination might actually accelerate the exiting of US forces from Iraq and the surrounding quagmires. Who knows, Trump might be a genius.
Again, NO MORE WARS FOR ZION, BDS NOW, ONE STATE SOLUTION-PALESTINE.
And to really stick it to Neo cohens (My apologies to Prof. Steven Cohen ), Trump-Putin Axis Da!! Destroy the Deep State and the CABAL .

[Jan 08, 2020] I can't quite understand how gratuitous US piracy and adventurism in places on the globe beyond the knowledge and reach of most Americans could possibly be compared to Iranian actions securing their immediate regional borders and interests.

Highly recommended!
Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Patroklos , Jan 6 2020 22:30 utc | 104

@Ian Dobbs and Dan

I can't quite understand how gratuitous US piracy and adventurism in places on the globe beyond the knowledge and reach of most Americans could possibly be compared to Iranian actions securing their immediate regional borders and interests. You can at least understand (even if you critique) a US preoccupation with Cuba over the years, or drug cartels in central America, or economic refugees in Mexico because they are close by and have a more less direct effect on the stability of the US. But they have no authority beyond that other than the ability to project violence and force. That's just simple imperialism. But now the US have whacked a made guy without any real reason (i.e. looking at you the wrong way is not a reason). Any mafia hood knows that, especially a New Yorker like Trump. So the climax of The Godfather comes to mind. It is staggeringly naive and frankly moronic to think that this is about good and evil. I bet Soleimani was no angel, but he wasn't whacked because he was a bad guy, but because he was extraordinarily effective military organizer. Star Wars has a lot to answer for in stunting the historical sensibilities of entire generations, but its underlying narrative is the only MSM playbook now. Even more staggering is the stupendous arrogance of the US belief in its 'rights' (based on thuggery and avarice), as though it were the only power in the world capable of establishing a moral order. The lesson in humility to come will be both long-awaited and go unheeded. Even the mob understand there has to be rules.

Alpi , Jan 6 2020 22:32 utc | 105

After reading Crooke and Federicci's articles, there is only one way to stop this madness blowing into a global conflict. Russia and China need to get involved whether they like it or not. Diplomacy and sideline analysis has run its course. This is their time to stamp their influence in the region and finish off the empire once and for all. Maybe that way, The Europeans will grow some minerals and become sovereign again.

Otherwise, China can kiss its Belt and Road goodbye and go into a recession with the loss of their investments up to this point and become slaves to the Americans again.

And Russia, the enemy du jour of Europe and US will be next and be crushed under economic sanctions and isolation.

This is the moment that stars are aligned . Russia and China should park their battle carriers off the Gulf and gives direct warning to Israel and US that any nuclear threat , tactical or otherwise, against anyone in the region is a non-starter.

I read so much about these two countries and that they will get involved. I have recited those lines myself. But after these events and how things are escalating, I cannot see how they cannot be involved. US is its most vulnerable and weakest with respect to economic, diplomatic and military conditions.

The time of condemnations, letters of objection to the UN and veto votes in UNSC is over. There is only one way to deal with a rogue nation and that is by force.

[Jan 08, 2020] Iran, Soleimani, oil and dollar status as the world reserve currency

Jan 08, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, instead of using the opportunity to widen the circle of U.S. allies or at least non-enemies in the Middle East, the Bush administration declared war on "all terrorism of global reach," not just on the Sunni terrorists responsible. That meant not seeking some sort of détente with Shiite Iran -- despite its assistance in overturning the Taliban in Afghanistan and forming a replacement government -- but putting Tehran in an "Axis of Evil" with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Some members of the Bush administration went further. John Bolton, then an undersecretary of state nominally tasked with arms control (he mostly did the reverse), said that Iran should "take a number," implying it would be the next to experience regime change after Iraq. Neoconservatives worried about Iran and its expanding stockpile of low-enriched uranium, as well as its long opposition to Israel, said that "real men go to Tehran," not Baghdad.

The Bush administration also went back on a promise to trade leaders of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq -- a militant Iranian group nurtured by Saddam that fought on Iraq's side during the Iran-Iraq war -- for members of al-Qaeda detained in Iran. Instead the U.S. gave the group protection and Bolton among others argued that the MEK could be deployed against Iran.

As a result, the U.S. helped turn the Quds Force -- the elite overseas branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guards -- into a full-fledged enemy even as its removal of Saddam's Baathist regime opened Iraq fully to Iran-backed militants, many of whom were trained in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Starting with the Badr Brigade, Iran has since helped shape other Iraqi militias, among them Kataib Hezbollah, whose targeting of Americans in Iraq touched off the latest escalatory spiral.

Of course, the Trump administration's decision in 2018 to quit the Iran nuclear deal and a year later to impose an oil embargo on Iran has been the major cause of the mayhem in the region over the past nine months.

Now, by assassinating Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani, the Trump administration has likely foreclosed any possibility of U.S.-Iran diplomacy and sharply increased the likelihood of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Iran announced on Sunday that it would no longer observe the limits set in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and would resume its nuclear program. That will incentivize Saudi Arabia to get nukes of its own.

It is said that George W. Bush, when he decided to invade Iraq, did not understand the difference between Sunnis and Shias. Donald Trump seems to dislike all Muslims, except those who buy American arms or host Trump properties.


In killing Soleimani, Trump has shown his ignorance of the power of martyrdom in Shia theology. To Iranians and many Arab Shia -- including those who would like to get Iran out of their countries' affairs -- Soleimani was a bulwark against al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, defending the interests of a religious minority in the Middle East. Pictures of Soleimani being embraced by the Imam Hussein -- the revered Shia figure martyred in the year 680 in Karbala, Iraq, by the forces of the Sunni tyrant Yazid -- are circulating widely on social media. The U.S., by implication, has become Yazid.

Kathleen King • 12 hours ago

It is not 'Shia' vs. 'Sunni' when referencing the perspective of the U.S. : Middle East relationship. It is the petro dollar. And every so often we have someone writing from a 'thinktank', i.e., The Atlantic Council, that never touches upon the scenario of the 'petro' dollar and how it governs U.S. foreign policy in that region. Instead they frame their gripes with partisan politics. Bush, Obama, and Trump have to kiss the Saudi ass in order to pay for the enormous 'warfare' and 'welfare' state of Washington D.C. The Petro Dollar ensures that the printing presses in Washington continue to print those dollars that will support a larger budget for the Pentagon, and Medicare, and in the very near future if Trump loses the White House: Medicare for All {including undocumented immigrants}, Reparations, free college for all, etc. You can add the United State's incredible generosity with tax payer money that pretty much pays for an 'ungrateful' Western Europe security.

And Trump did not do this to America. But he has to continue it in order to keep those printing presses rolling at the Treasury: in other words keep the American Dollar the 'top dog' currency of the world which allows for this $20 trillion + deficit and at the same time 'fantasy island' welfare state promises from the politicians. And politicians have no problem with this policy - they can just exploit it for partisan politics and at the same time promise an pseudo 'sustainable' increase in the welfare state to win elections.

That said, the Saudis are Sunnis. They want to increase their power. And in order to keep them happy {so they will not change currency exchanges for their oil to the 'gold-backed' yuan}, then the United States must fight messy and horrible wars in Yemen; start wars in Syria [General Mattis was and is a big time supporter of this] - supporting terrorist groups who love killing Christians with U.S. weapons, and ultimately regime change in Iran. Why do you think George W. Bush, etal have to look the other way on 9/11 - shield the Saudis {oh, and Obama is included on this list also}. All U.S. presidents face this problem. But especially the Democrats since their big welfare state costs way more to sustain than the Pentagon.

In conclusion - Obama, a Democrat, oversaw the CIA that supported and aided MBS onto the throne in Saudi Arabia because, unlike his myriad of family members, he will continue to exchange oil {along with the Gulf 'Sunni' dominated states' using the Dollar. It is all the presidents of all political parties beginning with the Nixon administration.

polistra24 • 9 hours ago
Russia and China are ALREADY seen as more sane and rational powers than USA. That's why we couldn't let Soleimani negotiate peace between Persia and Saudi. Killing him won't stop the negotiations; more likely it will speed up Saudi's divorce from US/Israel craziness.
Sid Finster • 7 hours ago
Putin and Xi are more honest and useful brokers than the United States.

That is not a major accomplishment. The United States has demonstrated time and again that it acts not even in its own interests, but in the interests of its Saudi owners and Israeli masters.

Dr. Rieux Sid Finster • 6 hours ago • edited
The message underlying the Book of Daniel: Better than sitting on the throne is to be the power behind it.
TheSnark • 7 hours ago • edited
In theory, the US could be a powerful stabilizing force in the Middle East. We have the resources and the military might to provide very effective carrots and sticks.

However, over the past decades we have proven that we are so ignorant of the local cultures and politics, so blinded by our own preconceptions and ideologies, and so unwilling to learn, that we keep punishing people with carrots and rewarding them with sticks. Time to admit we can't get it right and go home.

Sid Finster TheSnark • 7 hours ago
Even worse, we have chosen two particular countries in the region, the Israelis and the Saudis, as Our Special Friends and we use the carrots and sticks almost entirely in their interests.
TISO_AX2 TheSnark • 6 hours ago
The biggest impediment to that is the frequent change of administrations and their policies. But since we weren't designed to be doing that sort of thing in the first place it's only natural that we aren't very good at it. We should get out of foreign entanglements but Congress (and its lobbyists) fights it tooth and nail, across administrations. They've even developed a nasty word for it... isolationism .

[Jan 08, 2020] Pompeo and his lies got us into this mess with Iran caucus99percent

Pompeo was and is despicable liar: If the threat was 'imminent', wouldn't that already be known?
Notable quotes:
"... @Not Henry Kissinger ..."
"... @Not Henry Kissinger ..."
Jan 08, 2020 | caucus99percent.com

gjohnsit on Mon, 01/06/2020 - 6:14pm Just a few days ago SoS Mike Pompeo said that we assassinated General Soleimani to stop an 'imminent attack' on Americans.
No evidence was presented to back up this claim. We are just supposed to believe it.

It turns out that Pompeo and VP Pence had pushed Trump hard to do this assassination.

gjohnsit on Mon, 01/06/2020 - 6:28pm
Netanyahu was obviously involved

@Not Henry Kissinger
But I can understand his efforts to distance himself.
It shows more smarts than what Trump has been doing.

The patient way the Iranians are preparing to respond is scaring them.

Not Henry Kissinger on Mon, 01/06/2020 - 6:37pm
Netanyahu should be scared.

@gjohnsit

Bibi for Soleimani is looking more and more like the appropriate 'proportional' response for all concerned.

gjohnsit on Mon, 01/06/2020 - 7:02pm
Meanwhile in Kenya/Somalia

@gjohnsit
normally this would be big news

"Seven aircraft and three military vehicles were destroyed in the attack," said the statement, which included photos of aircraft ablaze and an al Shabaab militant standing nearby. In a tweet, the US Africa Command confirmed an attack on the Manda Bay Airfield had occurred.

3 americans killed

One US military service member and two contractors were killed in an Islamist attack on a military base in Kenya.

Islamist militant group al-Shabab attacked the base, used by Kenyan and US forces, in the popular coastal region of Lamu on Sunday.
The US military said in a statement that two others from the Department of Defense were wounded.

"The wounded Americans are currently in stable condition and being evacuated," the US military's Africa Command said.

Raggedy Ann on Mon, 01/06/2020 - 6:34pm
Hilarious!

@Not Henry Kissinger
Here we go - a pissing contest about to begin!

But the response of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu , was particularly striking, as he has been one of Trump's staunchest supporters on the world stage.

He told a meeting of his security cabinet on Monday: "The assassination of Suleimani isn't an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be dragged into it."

Uh huh.



[Jan 08, 2020] Fragmentation In 'The Axis Of Resistance' Led To Soleimani's Death by Elijah Magnier

Jan 07, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Elijah Magnier via EJMagnier.com,

It was not the US decision to fire missiles against the IRGC commander Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani that killed the Iranian officer and his companions in Baghdad. Yes, of course, the order that was given to launch missiles from the two drones (which destroyed the two cars carrying Sardar Soleimani and his companion the Iraqi commander in al-Hashd al-Shaabi Jamal Jaafar Al-Tamimi aka Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes and burned their bodies in the vehicle) came from US command and control.

However, the reason President Donald Trump made this decision derives from the weakness of the "axis of resistance", which has completely retreated from the level of performance that Iran believed it was capable of after decades of work to strengthen this "axis".

A close companion of Major General Qassim Soleimani, to whom he spoke hours before boarding the plane that took him from Damascus to Baghdad, told me:

"The nobleman died. Palestine above all has lost Hajj Qassem (Soleimani). He was the "King" of the Axis of the Resistance and its leader. He was assassinated and this is exactly what he was hoping to reach in this life (Martyrdom). However, this axis will live and will not die. No doubt, the Axis of the Resistance needs to review its policy and regenerate itself to correct its path. This was what Hajj Qassim was complaining about and planning to work on and strategizing about in his last hours."

The US struck Iran at the heart of its pride by killing Major General Soleimani. But the "axis of the Resistance" killed him before that. This is how:

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assassinated the deputy head of the Military Council (the highest authority in the Lebanese Hezbollah, which is headed by its Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah), Hajj Imad Mughniyah in Damascus, Syria, Hezbollah could not avenge him until today.

When Trump gave Netanyahu Jerusalem as the "capital of Israel", the "Axis of the Resistance" did not move except by holding television symposia and conferences verbally rejecting the decision.

When President Trump offered the occupied Syrian Golan Heights to Israel and the "Axis of Resistance" did not react, the US President Donald Trump and his team understood that they were opposed by no effective deterrent. The inaction of the Resistance axis emboldened Trump to do what he wants.

And when Israel bombed hundreds of Syrian and Iranian targets in Syria , the "Axis of the Resistance" justified its lack of retaliation by the typical sentence: "We do not want to be dragged along by the timing of the engagement imposed by the enemy," as a senior official in this axis told me.

In Iraq shortly before his death, Major General Soleimani was complaining about the weakening of the Iraqi ranks within this "Axis of the Resistance", represented by the Al-Bina' (Construction) Alliance and other groups close to this alliance like Al-Hikma of Ammar al-Hakim and Haidar al-Abadi, formerly close to Iran, that have gone over to the US side.

In Iraq, Major General Soleimani was very patient and never lost his temper. He was trying to reconcile the Iraqis, both his allies and those who had chosen the US camp and disagreed with him. He used to hug those who shouted at him to lower tensions and continue dialogue to avoid spoiling the meeting. Anyone who raised his voice during discussions soon found that it was Soleimani who calmed everyone down.

Hajj Qassem Soleimani was unable to reach a consensus on the new Prime Minister's name among those he deemed to be allies in the same coalition. He asked Iraqi leaders to select the names and went through all of these asking questions about the acceptability of these names to the political groups, to the Marjaiya, to protestors in the street and whether the suggested names were not provocative or challenging to the US. Notwithstanding the animosity between Iran and the US, Soleimani encouraged the selection of a personality that would not be boycotted by the US. Soleimani believed the US capable of damaging Iraq and understood the importance of maintaining a good relationship with the US for the stability of the country.

Soleimani was shocked by the dissension among Iraqi Shia and believed that the "axis of resistance" needed a new vision as it was faltering. In the final hours before his death, Major General Soleimani was ruminating on the profound antagonisms between Iraqis of the same camp.

When the Iraqi street began to move against the government, the line rejecting American hegemony was fragmented because it was part of the authority that ruled and governed Iraq. To make matters worse, Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr directed his arrows against his partners in government, as though the street demonstrations did not target him, the politician controlling the largest number of Iraqi deputies, ministers and state officials, who had participated in the government for more than ten years.

Major General Soleimani admonished Moqtada Al-Sadr for his stances, which contributed to undermining the Iraqi ranks because the Sadrist leader did not offer an alternative solution or practical project other than the chaos. Moqtada has his own men, the feared Saraya al-Salam, present in the street.

When US Defense Secretary Mark Esper called Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi on December 28 and informed him of America's intentions of hitting Iraqi security targets inside Iraq, including the PMU, Soleimani was very disappointed by Abdul-Mahdi's failure to effectively oppose Esper. Abdul-Mahdi merely told Esper that the proposed US action was dangerous. Soleimani knew that the US would not have hit Iraqi targets had Abdul-Mahdi dared to oppose the US decision. The targeted areas were a common Iranian-Iraqi operational stage to monitor and control ISIS movements on the borders with Syria and Iraq. The US would have reversed its decision had the Iraqi Prime Minister threatened the US with retaliation in the event that Iraqi forces were bombed and killed. After all, the US had no legal right to attack any objective in Iraq without the agreement of the Iraqi government. This decision was the moment when Iraq has lost its sovereignty and the US took control of the country.

This effective US control is another reason why President Trump gave the green light to kill Major General Soleimani. The Iraqi front had demonstrated its weakness and also, it was necessary to select a strong Iraqi leader with the guts to stand to the US arrogance and unlawful actions.

Iran has never controlled Iraq, as most analysts mistakenly believe and speculate. For years, the US has worked hard in the corridors of the Iraqi political leadership lobby for its own interests. The most energetic of its agents was US Presidential envoy Brett McGurk, who clearly realised the difficulties of navigating inside Iraqi leaders' corridors during the search for a prime minister of Iraq before the appointment of Adel Abdel Mahdi, the selection of President Barham Saleh and other governments in the past. Major General Soleimani and McGurk shared an understanding of these difficulties. Both understood the nature of the Iraqi political quagmire.

Soleimani did not give orders to fire missiles at US bases or attack the US Embassy. If it was in his hands to destroy them with accurate missiles and to remove the entire embassy from its place without repercussions, he would not have hesitated. But the Iraqis have their own opinions, methods, modus operandi and selection of targets and missile calibres; they never relied on Soleimani for such decisions.

Iranian involvement in Iraqi affairs was never welcomed by the Marjaiya in Najaf, even if it agreed to receive Soleimani on a few occasions. They clashed over the reelection of Nuri al-Maliki, Soleimani's preferred candidate, to the point that the Marjaiya wrote a letter making its refusal of al-Maliki explicit. This led to the selection of Abadi as prime minister.

Soleimani's views contradicted the perception of the Marjaiya, that had to write a clear message, firstly, to reject the re-election of Nori al-Maliki to a third session, despite Soleimani's insistence.

All of the above is related to the stage that followed the 2011 departure of US forces from Iraq under President Obama. Prior to that, Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis was the link between the Iraqis and Iran: he had the decision-making power, the vision, the support of various groups, and effectively served as the representative of Soleimani, who did not interfere in the details. These Iraqi groups met with Soleimani often in Iran; Soleimani rarely travelled to Iraq during the period of heavy US military presence.

Soleimani, although he was the leader of the "Axis of the Resistance", was sometimes called "the king" in some circles because his name evokes Solomon. According to sources within the "Axis of the Resistance", he "never dictated his own policy but left a margin of movement and decision to all leaders of the axis without exception. Therefore, he was considered the link between this axis and the supreme leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei. Soleimani was able to contact Sayyed Khamenei at any time and directly without mediation. The Leader of the revolution considered Soleimani as his son.

According to sources, in Syria, Soleimani "never hesitated to jump inside a truck, ride an ordinary car, take the first helicopter, or travel on a transport or cargo plane as needed. He did not take any security precautions but used his phone (which he called a companion spy) freely because he believed that when the decision came to assassinate him, he would follow his destiny. He looked forward to becoming a martyr because he had already lived long."

Was the leader of the "resistance axis" managing and running it?

Sayyed Ali Khamenei told Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah: "You are an Arab and the Arabs accept you more than they accept Iran". Sayyed Nasrallah directed and managed the axis of Lebanon, Syria and Yemen and had an important role in Iraq. Hajj Soleimani was the liaison between the axis of the resistance and Iran and he was the financial and logistical officer. According to my source, "He was a friend of all leaders and officials of all ranks. He was humble and looked after everyone he had to deal with".

The "Axis of Resistance" indirectly allowed the killing of Qassem Soleimani. If Israel and the US could know Sayyed Nasrallah's whereabouts, they would not hesitate a moment to assassinate him. They may be aware: the reaction may be limited to burning flags and holding conferences and manifesting in front of an embassy. Of course, this kind of reaction does not deter President Trump who wants to be re-elected with the support of Israel and US public opinion. He wants to present himself as a warrior and determined leader who loves battle and killing.

Iran invested 40 years building the "Axis of the Resistance". It cannot remain idle, faced with the assassination of the Leader of this axis. Would a suitable price be the US exit from Iraq and condemnation in the Security Council? Would that, together with withdrawal from the nuclear deal, be enough for Iran to avenge its General? Will the ensuing battle be confined to the Iraqi stage? Will it be used for the victory of certain Iraqi political players?

The assassination of its leader represents the supreme test for the Axis of Resistance. All sides, friend and foe, are awaiting its response.

Arising , 4 hours ago link

And when Israel bombed hundreds of Syrian and Iranian targets in Syria , the "Axis of the Resistance" justified its lack of retaliation by the typical sentence: "We do not want to be dragged along by the timing of the engagement imposed by the enemy," as a senior official in this axis told me.

If the 'source' in this article was so close to Soleimani, then he would also have mentioned that Russia was dictating terms in Syria.

Soleimani knew this and could not afford to lose Russia as an ally, this would definitely have happened if another 'player' was brought into the war just because Soleimani decided to retaliate to Zionist bombing.

Putin, Assad and Soleimani had a long term view of winning in Syria, not making things worse because of a quick retaliatory strike.

Joe A , 5 hours ago link

So far his death has led to the Iraqi parliament giving the boot to foreign troops. His death is winning for the axis of resistance.

hoffstetter , 3 hours ago link

Non-binding resolution asking the prime minister to rescind Iraq's invitation...

The current government is unlikely to push this through. After a new PM is chosen, it would still take a year or more to move the US troops out by the agreements under which they set up their base. All of this has to be viewed under the context that the US was asked to send troops by the Iraqi president.

hoffstetter , 3 hours ago link

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/world/middleeast/us-to-send-1500-more-troops-to-iraq.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=iraqi+president+requests+US+troops&client=firefox-b-1-d&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2005%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2018&tbm=

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/28/495808708/the-u-s-is-sending-600-more-troops-to-iraq

You may not like it, you may claim the US forced the government to "request" troops, but they did request them.

HowdyDoody , 32 minutes ago link

In response to the US unleashing ISIS on the Iraqis? 'Nice country you got there'.

[Jan 08, 2020] Chaos Pentagon Denies Poorly Worded Iraq Withdrawal Letter, Esper Says No Decision To Leave Iraq, Period

Jan 08, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Yesterday, Iraqi lawmakers voted to expel foreign troops from the country during an emergency parliamentary session. Interim Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul Mahdi, stressed during the session, that while the US government notified the Iraqi military of the planned strike on Soleimani, his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.

In a meeting Monday, Mahdi, a caretaker prime minister who said in November he would resign, told US Ambassador Matthew H. Tueller that the US and Iraq needed to cooperate "to implement the withdrawal of foreign forces in accordance with the decision of the Iraqi parliament," according to a statement from the PM's office that was cited by the Washington Post .

Though the Iraq war 'officially' ended in 2011, thousands of coalition troops stuck around. Their numbers increased following the rise of ISIS in the region.

Ending the US troop presence in Iraq has been a longtime goal of non-interventionists like Ron Paul and his son, Rand.

That said, even without troops in Iraq, the US will still have plenty of capacity to bully Iran, and other other regional powers.

LA_Goldbug , 37 minutes ago link

Looking back at some of the old articles about Suleimani really makes you think. The only reason to kill him is to Start a War.

The myth behind Iran's military mastermind is getting out of control

Armin Rosen

Mar 16, 2015, 10:01 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-irans-qassem-suleimaini-is-everywhere-2015-3?r=US&IR=T

CIA director: Iran is becoming part of the problem in Iraq

Associated Press

Mar 22, 2015, 6:06 PM

AP WASHINGTON (AP) -- Having the leader of Iran's elite Quds Force direct Iraqi forces battling the Islamic State group is complicating the U.S. mission against terrorism and contributing to destabilization in Iraq, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency said Sunday.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cia-director-iran-is-becoming-part-of-the-problem-in-iraq-2015-3?r=US&IR=T

[Jan 08, 2020] The Donald's Assassination Of General Soleimani -- As Stupid As It Gets by David Stockman

Jan 08, 2020 | www.unz.com

During more than a half-century of Washington watching we have seen stupidity rise from one height to yet another. But nothing -- just plain nothing -- compares to the the blithering stupidity of the Donald's Iran "policy", culminating in the mindless assassination of its top military leader and hero of the so-called Islamic Revolution, Major General Qassem Soleimani.

To be sure, we don't give a flying f*ck about the dead man himself. Like most generals of whatever army (including the US army), he was a cold-blooded, professional killer.

And in this day and age of urban and irregular warfare and drone-based annihilation delivered by remote joy-stick, generals tend to kill more civilians than combatants. The dead civilian victims in their millions of U.S. generals reaching back to the 1960s surely attest to that.

Then again, even the outright belligerents Soleimani did battle with over the decades were not exactly alms-bearing devotees of Mother Theresa, either. In sequential order, they were the lethally armed combatants mustered by Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush, the Sunni jihadists of ISIS and the Israeli and Saudi air forces, which at this very moment are raining high tech bombs and missiles on Iranian allies and proxies in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

The only reason these years of combat are described in the mainstream media as evidence of Iranian terrorism propagated by its Quds forces is that the neocons have declared it so. That is, by Washington's lights Iran is not allowed to have a foreign policy and its alliances with mainly Shiite co-religionists in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen are alleged per se to be schemes of aggression and terror, warranting any and all retaliations including assassination of its highest officials.

But that's just colossal nonsense and imperialistic arrogance. The Assad government in Syria, the largest political party in Lebanon (Hezbollah), the dominant population of northern Yemen (Houthis) and a significant portion of the Iraqi armed forces represented by the Shiite militias (the PMF or Popular Mobilization Forces) are no less civilized and no more prone to sectarian violence than anybody else in this woebegone region. And the real head-choppers of ISIS and its imitators and rivals have all been Sunni jihadist insurrectionists, not Shiite-based governments and political parties.

The truth is, America has no dog in the Shiite versus Sunni hunt, which has been going on for 1300 years in the region. And when it comes to spillover of those benighted forces into Europe or America, recent history is absolutely clear: 100% of all Islamic terrorist incidents in the US since they began in the 1990s were perpetrated or inspired by Sunni jihadists, not Iran or its Shiite allies and proxies in the region.

So we needs be direct. The aggression in the Persian Gulf region during the last three decades has originated in the Washington DC nest of neocon vipers and among Bibi Netanyahu's proxies, collaborators and assigns who rule the roost in the Imperial City and among both political parties. And the motivating force has all along been the malicious quest for regime change -- first in Iraq and then in Syria and Iran.

Needless to say, Washington instigated "regime change" tends to provoke a determined self-defense and a usually violent counter-reaction among the changees. So the truth is, the so-called Shiite crescent is not an alliance of terrorists inflicting wanton violence on the region; it's a league of regime-change resisters and armed combatants who have elected to say "no" to Washington's imperial schemes for remaking the middle eastern maps.

So in taking out Soleimani, the usually befuddled and increasingly belligerent occupant of the Oval Office was not striking a blow against "terrorism". He was just dramatically escalating Washington's long-standing regime-change aggression in the region, thereby risking an outbreak of even greater violence and possibly a catastrophic conflagration in the Persian Gulf where one-fifth of the world's oil traverses daily.

And most certainly, the Donald has now crushed his own oft-repeated intent to withdraw American forces from the middle east and get out of the regime change business -- the very platform upon which he campaigned in 2016. There are now upwards of 50,000 US military personnel in the immediate Persian Gulf region and tens of thousands of more contractors, proxies and mercenaries. After Friday's reckless maneuver, that number can now only go up -- and possibly dramatically.

In joy-sticking Soleimani while lounging in his plush digs at Mar-a-Lago, the Donald was also not avenging the innocent casualties of Iranian aggression -- Americans or otherwise. He was just jamming another regime-change stick in the hornets nest of anti-Americanism in the region that Washington's bloody interventions have spawned over the decades, and which will now intensify by orders of magnitude.

Sometimes a picture does tell a thousand words, and this one from the funeral procession in Tehran yesterday surely makes a mockery of Secretary Pompeo's idiotic claim that the middle east is now safer than before. If there was ever a case that this neocon knucklehead should be immediately dispatched to his hog and corn farm back in Kansas, this is surely it.

Iranians carried the coffins of top general Qassem Soleimani and his allies in Kerman, Iran

The larger point here is that Imperial Washington and its mainstream media megaphones have so egregiously and relentlessly vilified Iran and falsified the middle east narrative that the Iranian side of the story has been completely lost -- literally airbrushed right off the pages of contemporary history in Stalineseque fashion.

Not that the benighted, mullah-controlled Iranian regime is comprised of anything which resembles white hats. One of the great misfortunes of the last four decades is that the long-suffering people of Iran have not been able to throw-off the cultural and religious shackles imposed by this theocratic regime or escape the economic backwardness and incompetence of what is essentially rule by authoritarian clerics.

But that's exactly the crime of Washington's neocon-inspired hostility and threats to the Iranian regime. It merely rekindles Iranian nationalism and causes the public to rally to the support of the regime, as is so evident at the current moment.

Worse still, the underlying patriotic foundation of this pro-regime sentiment is completely lost on Imperial Washington owing to its false narrative about post-1979 history. Yet the fact is, in the eyes of the Iranian people the Quds forces and Soleimani have plausible claims to having been valiant defenders of the nation.

In the original instance, of course, Soleimani earned his chops on the battlefield contending with the chemical weapons-dropping air force of Saddam Hussein during the 1980s. And Saddam was the invader whose chemical bombs achieved especially deadly accuracy against often barely armed teenage Iranian soldiers owing to spotting and targeting assistance rendered by the U.S. air force -- a Washington assisted depredation that a whole generation of Iranians know all about, even if present day Washington feints ignorance.

Then after Bush the Younger visited uninvited and unrequested Shock & Awe upon Baghdad and much of the Iraqi countryside, it transpired that the nation's majority Shiite population didn't cotton much to being "liberated" by Washington. Indeed, the more radical elements of the Iraqi Shiite community in Sadr City and other towns of central and south Iraq took up arms during 2003-2011 against what they perceived to be the American "occupiers" because, well, it was their country.

Needless to say, their Shiite kinsman in Iran were more than ready to give aid and comfort to the Iraqi Shiite in their struggle against what by then was perceived as Iran's own mortal enemy. After all, a full year before Bush the Younger launched the utterly folly of the second gulf war in March 2003, his demented neocon advisors and speechwriters, led by the insufferable David Frum, had concocted a bogeyman called the Axis of Evil, which included Iran and marked it as next in line for Shock & Awe.

But the idea that the Iraqi people and especially its majority Shiite population would have been dancing in the streets to welcome the US military save for the insidious interference of Iran is just baseless War Party propaganda.

Stated differently, Washington sent 158,000 lethally armed fighters into a country that had never threatened America's homeland security or harbored its enemies, and had no capacity to do so in any event. But contrary to the glib assurances of Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of the neocon jackals around Bush, these U.S. fighters soon came to be widely viewed as "invaders", not liberators, and met resistance from a wide variety of Iraqi elements including remnants of Saddam's government and military, radicalized Sunni jihadists and a motley array of Shiite politicians, clerics and militias.

Foremost among these was the Sadr clan which emerged as the tribune of the the dispossessed Shiite communities in the south and Baghdad. They rose to prominence after Bush the Elder urged the Shiite to rise up against Saddam after the 1991 Gulf War, and then left them dangling in the wind.

No U.S. support materialized as the regime's indiscriminate crackdown on the population systematically arrested and killed tens of thousands of Shiites and destroyed Shiite shrines, centers of learning, towns and villages. According to eyewitness accounts, Baathist tanks were painted with messages like "No Shiites after today," people were hanged from electric poles, and tanks ran over women and children and towed bodies through the streets.

From this horror and brutality emerged Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr, the founder of the Sadrist movement that today, under the leadership of his son Muqtada, constitutes Iraq's most powerful political movement. After the collapse of the Baathist regime in 2003, the Sadrist movement formally established its own militia, known as the Jaysh al-Mahdi, or the Mahdi Army .

The vast Shiite underclass needed protection, social services and leadership, and the Sadrist movement stepped into these gaps by reactivating Sadeq al-Sadr's network. In the course of U.S. occupation, the Mahdi Army's ranks of supporters, members and fighters swelled, particularly as sectarian conflict intensified and discontent towards the occupation grew out of frustration with the lack of security and basis services.At one point the Mahdi Army numbered more than 60,000 fighters, and especially as Iraq degenerated into total sectarian chaos after 2005, it became a deadly thorn in the side of U.S. forces occupying a country where they were distinctly unwelcome.

But the Mahdi Army was homegrown; it was Arab, not Persian, and it was fighting for its own homes and communities, not the Iranians, the Quds or Soleimani. In fact, the Sadrists strongly opposed the Iranian influence among other Shiite dissident groups including the brutal Badr Brigade and the Iran-aligned Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIRI). As the above study further noted,

I raqis today refer to the Sadrist Movement's Peace Brigades as the "rebellious" militias, because of their refusal to submit not only to Iran , but also to the federal government and religious establishment. Muqtada al-Sadr has oriented his organization around Iraqi nationalistic sentiments and derided the Iran-aligned militias . In line with the true political outlook of his father and his followers, Muqtada's supporters chanted anti-Iranian slogans and stormed the offices of the Dawa Party, ISCI and the Badr Brigade when they protested against the government in May 2016.

As it happened, the overwhelming share of the 603 US servicemen the Pentagon claims to have been killed by Iranian proxies were actually victims of the Mahdi Army uprisings during 2003-2007. These attacks were led by the above mentioned Iraqi nationalist firebrand and son of the movements founder, Muqtada al-Sadr.

In fact, however, the surge in U.S. deaths at that time was the direct result of subsequently disgraced General David Petraeus' infamous "surge" campaign. Among others, it targeted al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in the hope of weakening it. Beginning in late April 2007, the U.S. launched dozens of military operations aimed solely at capturing or killing Mahdi Army officers, causing the Mahdi Army to strongly resist those raids and impose mounting casualties on U.S. troops.

So amidst the fog of two decades of DOD and neocon propaganda, how did Iran and Soleimani get tagged over and over with the "killing Americans" charge, as if they were attacking innocent bystanders in lower Manhattan on 9/11?

It's just the hoary old canard that Iran was the source of the powerful roadside bombs called Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs) that were being used by many of the Shiite militias, as well as the Sunni jihadists in Anbar province and the west. Yet that claim was debunked more than a decade ago by evidence that the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias were getting their weapons not just from the Iranians but from wherever they could, as well as manufacturing their own.

As the estimable Iran export, Gareth Porter, recently noted:

The command's effort to push its line about Iran and EFPs encountered one embarrassing revelation after another. In February 2007 a US command briefing asserted that the EFPs had "characteristics unique to being manufactured in Iran." However, after NBC correspondent Jane Arraf confronted the deputy commander of coalition troops, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, with the fact that a senior military official had acknowledged to her that US troops had been discovering many sites manufacturing EFPs in Iraq, Odierno was forced to admit that it was true.

Then in late February 2007, US troops found another cache of parts and explosives for EFPs near Baghdad, which included shipments of PVC tubes for the canisters that contradicted its claims . They had come not from factories in Iran, but from factories in the UAE and other Arab countries, including Iraq itself. That evidence clearly suggested that the Shiites were procuring EFP parts on the commercial market rather than getting them from Iran.

Although the military briefing by the command in February 2007 pointed to cross-border weapons smuggling, it actually confirmed in one of its slides that it was being handled by "Iraqi extremist group members" rather than by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). And as Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the US commander for southern Iraq, admitted in a July 6 press briefing , his troops had not "captured anybody that we can directly tie back to Iran."

On the other hand, what the Iranian Quds forces have actually accomplished in Iraq and Syria has been virtually expunged from the mainstream narrative. To wit, they have been the veritable tip of the spear in the eradication of the Islamic State.

Indeed, in Iraq it was the wobbly Iraqi national army that Washington stood up at a cost of billions, which turned tail and ran when ISIS emerged in Anbar province in 2014. So doing, they left behind thousands of US armored vehicles, mobile artillery and even tanks, as well as massive troves of guns and ammo, which enabled the Islamic State to briefly thrive and subjugate several million people across the Euphrates Valley.

It was also Washington that trained, equipped, armed and funded the so-called anti-Assad rebels in Syria, which so weakened and distracted Damascus that that the Islamic State was briefly able to fill the power vacuum and impose its barbaric rule on the citizens of Raqqa and its environs. And again, it did so in large part with weaponry captured from or sold to ISIS by the so-called moderate rebels.

To the contrary, the panic and unraveling in Iraq during 2014-2015 was stopped and reversed when the Iranians at the invitation of Baghdad's Shiite government helped organize and mobilize the Iraqi Shiite militias, which eventually chased ISIS out of Mosul and Anbar.

Likewise, outside of the northern border areas liberated by the Syrian Kurds, it was the Shiite alliance of Assad, Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds forces that rid Syria of the ISIS plague.

Yes, the U.S. air force literally incinerated two great cities temporarily occupied by the Islamic State -- Mosul and Raqqa. But it was the Shiite fighters who were literally fighting for their lives, homes and hearth who cleared that land of a barbaric infestation that had been spawned and enabled by the very Washington neocons who are now dripping red in tooth and claw.

So we revert to the Donald's act of utter stupidity. On the one hand, it is now evident that the reason Soleimani was in Baghdad was to deliver an official response from Tehran to a recent Saudi de-escalation offer. And that's by the word of the very prime minister that Washington has stood up in the rump state of Iraq and who has now joined a majority of the Iraqi parliament in demanding that Iraq's putative liberators -- after expending trillions in treasure and blood -- leave the country forthwith:

Before the vote Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told the parliament that he was scheduled to meet with Soleimani a day after his arrival to receive a letter from Iran to Iraq in response to a de-escalation offer Saudi Arabia had made. The U.S. assassinated Soleimani before the letter could be delivered by him. Abdul-Mahdi also said that Trump had asked him to mediate between the U.S. and Iran. Did he do that to trap Soleimani? It is no wonder then that Abdul-Mahdi is fuming.

At the same time, the positive trends that were in motion in the region just days ago -- -ISIS gone, Syria closing in on the remaining jihadists, Saudi Arabia and Iran tentatively exploring a more peaceful modus vivendi, the Yemen genocide winding to a close -- may now literally go up in smoke. As the always sagacious Pat Buchanan observed today,

What a difference a presidential decision can make.

Two months ago, crowds were in the streets of Iraq protesting Iran's dominance of their politics. Crowds were in the streets of Iran cursing that regime for squandering the nation's resources on imperial adventures in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen. Things were going America's way.

Now it is the Americans who are the targets of protests.

Over three days, crowds numbering in the hundreds of thousands and even millions have packed Iraqi and Iranian streets and squares to pay tribute to Soleimani and to curse the Americans who killed him.

We have long believed that there is nothing stupider in Washington than the neocon policy mafia that has wrecked such unspeakable havoc on the middle east as well as upon American

Sasha , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:41 am GMT

"Not that the benighted, mullah-controlled Iranian regime is comprised of anything which resembles white hats. One of the great misfortunes of the last four decades is that the long-suffering people of Iran have not been able to throw-off the cultural and religious shackles imposed by this theocratic regime or escape the economic backwardness and incompetence of what is essentially rule by authoritarian clerics."

I get it that maybe Iranians don't have a Walmart in every town, and may not have the privilege of mortgaging their lives on a Visa or MC – but that's not what I call backwardness, rather progress. If times are tough, is it the backwardness of their system, or might crippling sanctions play a small role in that? What "cultural and religious shackles" might these be? Please be more specific, or I might think you mean that they don't have instant access to Hollywood blockbusters or something. The horror! Finally – if you want to use the term "regime", please apply it with a broad brush, maybe even broad enough to touch on the oh-so-democratic West. Let's just call them "governments", OK?

Carlton Meyer , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:21 am GMT
Nice to see the great David Stockman appear at Unz. Watch him teach Fox Business News blabbers economics and political realities. Then he stuns them by saying the Pentagon's budget must be cut:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/_-fUmMrzzJc?feature=oembed

Haxo Angmark , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:26 am GMT
well said by Stockman, though it's all water under the bridge now.

Drumpf, a life-long Zion-stooge, and the (((neo-conz))) and their cucks

have got their War of Choice. Depending how the Greater MidEast War goes,

it may help solve all sorts of outstanding problems, there

and here. Right now it's just after dawn in Tehran .let's see how far

Drumpf et al. up the bloody ante today.

Justsaying , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:30 am GMT
@Sasha Well and truly spoken. American pop and consumerist culture along with pop drinks and endless fads, crude music and fast foods are being peddled as markers of serious culture. They are shoved down the throats of unsuspecting minds in asymmetric commerce as part of an aggressive campaign to turn the planet into a consumerist backyard for American junk and to consolidate American hegemony.
Justsaying , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:41 am GMT

The larger point here is that Imperial Washington and its mainstream media megaphones have so egregiously and relentlessly vilified Iran and falsified the middle east narrative that the Iranian side of the story has been completely lost --

Iran's foreign minister Zarif has been denied entry into the United States to attend a UN meeting. Speaking of idiocy in denying Iranians their side of the story. That has been the imperial modus operandi in appropriating narratives with the complicity of our poor excuse for journalism, the servile MSM.

JUSA , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:55 am GMT
@Sasha I agree. If Iranians are really that disgusted by the "cultural and religious shackles imposed by this theocratic regime or the economic backwardness and incompetence of what is essentially rule by authoritarian clerics", those clerics wouldn't still be in power. All they have to do is look at the degeneration of the West from drugs, alcohol, money, power, coarsening pop culture, pornography, all manners of sexual perversion and they know they are wise to take a different path.

Culturally, economically, politically, even technologically, the US is on a downward spiral, courtesy of the Jews. This warmongering perpetuated by the same tribe will eventually finish us off. China, Russia and Iran have existed for thousands of years. They will have the last laugh.

A123 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:05 am GMT

Before the vote Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told the parliament that he was scheduled to meet with Soleimani a day after his arrival to receive a letter from Iran to Iraq in response to a de-escalation offer Saudi Arabia had made. The U.S. assassinated Soleimani before the letter could be delivered by him.

So, Iranian de-escalation was based on a sneak attack against the U.S. Embassy? No. Simple logic shows that Mahdi is lying. Iran *escalated* by attacking the embassy.

-- What does Stockman suggest as a response to the Iranian sneak attack on the U.S. Embassy?
-- Why are the voices that are always screaming about 'International Law' not outraged by Iran's violations?

Given the history of such actions from the Carter era, a strong response was necessary and inevitable. Iran offered war. And, Trump responded prudently and proportionally.
________

Based on tonight's news, Khameni made a 'show' reprisal that had little impact on U.S. Forces. (1)

Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops, but preliminary reports suggest there are no U.S. casualties yet, two sources with direct knowledge of actions on the ground told Military Times Tuesday night.

Khameni's attack on the embassy was a failure that backfired badly. He is now desperately trying to back down, because he knows that Iran has no effective defense against U.S. Military options.

PEACE

______

(1) https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2020/01/08/no-us-casualties-in-iran-missile-strike-preliminary-reports-say/

Mark James , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:09 am GMT
Stockman knew Reagan's first budget was a joke. He wrote it: telling the late Bill Greider –in real time– that it was a 'Trojan Horse.'

Now he's telling Pompeo to go back to the pig farm but word is the Sec.State is now not running for a Senate seat. But I tend to believe Pompeo is not directing things it's coming from Trump's inner circle. Kushner strikes me as more of a neocon and he's obviously down with what they want in Tel Aviv. Which I think is an attack on Iran Nuclear capabilities before the end of the summer.

I heard Andrea Mitchell praising Stephen Hadley (Bush Neocon) as a "wise man" who called this an opportunity for negotiation. That's g one Andrea: it went out when Trump got rid of the deal Iran was adhering to, which the neocons and Israel didn't want.

freedom-cat , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:14 am GMT
I was reading earlier today that American Military Contractor company's stock began soaring right after the assassination; Ratheon, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed, Boeing, etc etc

Now Asian market defense contracting company stocks are soaring because Iran has fired missiles at a couple US bases in Iraq.

Insanity. Hitting your head over and over on a brick wall, while thinking you'll start feeling better.

I'm sorry to say I voted for this moron; and all because I hated the alternative and he was flapping his jaws about ending the warring in M.E. I had my doubts from the beginning but I was willing to give him a chance. Won't be voting in this fall's election. There is not one candidate worth voting for; none.

Geez, by November we might be in full blown WW3 & elections suspended. who the hell knows at this point.

gotmituns , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:16 am GMT
As stupid as it gets
-- -- -- -- -- -- –
Well, the Iranians really loused up now. Now Trump and his Israeli loving friends can finally kick their butts really good. Very bad idea attacking us.
Biff , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:31 am GMT
After the latest round of shit-slinging, Washington stinks, Tehran stinks, but Israel is still smelling like a rose even though they are the instigator of the whole affair.
How do they keep getting away with it each and every time?
Mr. Allen , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:38 am GMT
This is absurd. Don't lump all generals in together as the same. You might as well say Nazi generals and Russian generals and British generals and American generals and Japanese generals are all the same – all equally culpable of equal war crimes in WWII.

Unless you truly believe there is no good and bad sides in all these Middle Eastern wars this can't be true.

The Americans are aggressors and invaders in the Middle East. For the Iraqis to turn on the Americans it must mean something.

We get closer to the truth when we see Soleimani as a freedom fighter and Americans as terrorists.

To lump Soleimani with the American lot is devoid of morals and common sense

Lockean Proviso , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:59 am GMT
@JUSA

All they have to do is look at the degeneration of the West from drugs, alcohol, money, power, coarsening pop culture, pornography, all manners of sexual perversion and they know they are wise to take a different path.

Yes, although it is interesting to note that the Iran has been one of the top nations for sex-change surgeries because the regime would rather change tomboys and sissies into "boys" and "girls" rather than allow homosexuality or even atypical gender affect. They do avoid having a pernicious and culturally radicalizing gay lobby though.

Anyway, it's none of our business and if we really had to choose sides in the Saudi vs Iran conflict then Iran would be the rational choice. Maybe neocon stupidity will help bring that conflict to a truce as they unite against the USA.

Passer by , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 7:22 am GMT
Pretty bad news for the US:

Signed:

YOUR ENEMY MOQTADA AL-SADR #Iraq #US #USA_غادروا_العراق pic.twitter.com/CcSmNOHqUu

-- Elijah J. Magnier (@ejmalrai) January 6, 2020

Moqtada al-Sadr, the most influential person in Iraq, is now calling the US an enemy and threatening Trump personally. If Mahdi Army joins the other Shia groups around the world, big damage will be done to the US via many means and no american will be able to stay in Iraq. Embassy could be gone too. US companies working on oil and gas will be kicked out. The country will move strongly towards Russia and China. All US investment in the Iraq adventure will be totally lost.

Angering iraqi shia is very stupid US move. They are an ascending force, with young combat ready population and young and expanding demographics. Last time the US angered the iraqi shia (2004), it lost the war in Iraq even before it knew it.

This is the result of a declining power not recognizing its decline and making enemies everywhere.

The 2020s will be a turbulent period of power transition where the US and Europe decline and the rest of the world rises, the end of the superpower moment and the beginning of a multipolar world.

JackOH , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 8:16 am GMT
That David Stockman? Kudos, Ron.
CBTerry , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 8:16 am GMT
Excellent article by a man so principled that as a representative from Michigan he voted against the Chrysler bail-out.
So please forgive me for pointing out this error:

From the interweb:

A feint (noun) is primarily a deceptive move, such as in fencing or military maneuvering. It can also mean presenting a feigned appearance. Feint can also be a verb, but in that case it simply means to execute a feint.
To feign (verb) is to deceive; either by acting as if you're something or someone you're not, or lying.
There is some overlap between particular meanings of the two words (For example, his ignorance was a feint, he was feigning ignorance), but mostly they are separate.
Both words come from the French feindre, which means to "pretend, represent, imitate, shirk".

Hans Vogel , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 9:03 am GMT
Thanks for this well-written, passionate but nevertheless lucid analysis.

Yet I feel mention should always be made of US corporate and imperial greed as a main motive for intervention anywhere in the world. It is about the oil and the profits and it is highly illuminating to turn to works by non-US authors. A good starting point would be Pino Solanas classic masterpiece La hora de los hornos (The Hour of the Furnaces) from 1968.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/jQOXKoMHOE0?feature=oembed

Also read Alfons Goldschmidt's eloquent and committed Die dritte Eroberung Amerikas (1929). And the recent magnificent overview by Matthieu Auzanneau, Or noir. La grande histoire du pétrole (2015).

Here is the best short analysis of the crime that was the invasion and conquest of Iraq:

eah , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 9:04 am GMT

The Trump presidency has been nothing but neoliberalism and Zionism on steroids and shouldn't be renewed for a second season. Feel free to convince me otherwise

-- EMPEROR WHITEPILL (@CptBlackPill) January 8, 2020

Hans Vogel , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 9:04 am GMT
@Justsaying Spot on!
swamped , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 9:08 am GMT
"In the original instance, of course, Soleimani earned his chops on the battlefield contending with the chemical weapons-dropping air force of Saddam Hussein during the 1980s. And Saddam was the invader whose chemical bombs achieved especially deadly accuracy against often barely armed teenage Iranian soldiers owing to spotting and targeting assistance rendered by the U.S. air force -- a Washington assisted depredation that a whole generation of Iranians know all about, even if present day Washington feints (sic) ignorance" and a whole generation (and more) know that this Washington-assisted depredation was carried out by the U.S. Administration in which Mr.Stockman served, whether or not he prefers now to "feint" ignorance of that, too. An Administration which also gave us the Nicaraguan Contra terrorists, the infamous Iran-Contra deal, Central American death squads, Israel's invasion of Lebanon & much more. Funny how Mr. Stockman was mum on such matters at the time. Maybe, like Jimmy Carter, he's found his moral compass since leaving government but wish he had found it a whole lot sooner. Hate to see a good Harvard Divinity School education go to waste. No matter, the article makes perfect sense even if it comes a little late.
GeeBee , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 9:23 am GMT
'The dead civilian victims in their millions of U.S. generals reaching back to the 1960s 1944 surely attest to that.'

There, fixed it for you.

Sabretache , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 10:15 am GMT
Whenever I see the kind of absurd foul language employed here by Stockman, I simply stop reading. What on earth is a "flying f ** ck' anyway, other than a supposed macho signal of just how big and angry a 'BSD' (to use another swaggering obscenity prevalent on his home turf) he thinks he is. Perhaps he'd care to explain.
Ronnie , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 10:40 am GMT
The recent and nearly simultaneous crash of the newish Ukranian 737 in Tehran (with the 15 missiles launched from Iran) may be quite significant – indirect way to hurt the US (Boeing) again and Israel too – owned by Ukraine's most notorious billionaire Kolomoisky – and the guy who selected the new comedian President – and amazingly no US or Israeli passengers on board. Was it an accident or an exquisite punishment?
Vaterland , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:11 am GMT

And when it comes to spillover of those benighted forces into Europe or America, recent history is absolutely clear: 100% of all Islamic terrorist incidents in the US since they began in the 1990s were perpetrated or inspired by Sunni jihadists, not Iran or its Shiite allies and proxies in the region.

It is especially hard to overlook that the terrorists and self-radicalized (mass-)murders who killed hundreds of Europeans, including my own countrymen, were adherents to the wahhabist ideology, created, funded and often staffed by the very countries which are the closest allies of the USA and Israel. And whom they sell hundreds of billions of weapons to as they wage their so called "war on terror" which is mostly the war to take out Israel's and Saudi-Arabias enemies.

David Stockman may be at the center of the intelligentsia which built the empire that many in the world looked up to and admired, and which crude figures like Pompeo, Bolton, Shapiro, Perle and Nuland are tearing down. But the problems and outright evilness of the empire now are inherent to its system and not merely a question of sophistication versus brutishness.

It's past time to close Rammstein.

ben sampson , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:15 am GMT
@Sabretache Stockman is just guilty and fake thats all..why he uses such language.

there is not a sincere word in all that he wrote above there, save that there is somethng important in there that Stockman is losing or wants..and is trying to set up to get

Ipostle , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:21 am GMT
@Sasha You can't fault David Stockman for calling Islam a shackle. Unless you want to agree with Bush that Islam is peaceful.
Biff , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:28 am GMT
@A123

Iran *escalated* by attacking the embassy.

And you have proof of this where?

Amon , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:33 am GMT
@A123 So this is what a paid shill looks like.
Proud_Srbin , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:49 am GMT
Mass murderer and Assassin in Chief is SIMPLY continuing to execute blood lusty and genocidal policies established by alliance of TERROR which calls itself 5 eyes but Sovereign, FREEDOM loving people call 5 headed BEAST.
God Bless Axis of Resistance!
Resist Slavery, TERROR and neoNazis!
Hans Vogel , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:53 am GMT
@Mr. Allen

This is absurd. Don't lump all generals in together as the same. You might as well say Nazi generals and Russian generals and British generals and American generals and Japanese generals are all the same – all equally culpable of equal war crimes in WWII.

Yes indeed, all generals are fundamentally the same. War crimes are not the exclusive realm of any one nationality or political or religious category.

Hollywood says otherwise, but what Hollywood says is little to do with historical fact and accuracy.

9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:54 am GMT
David Stockman blames "neocon stupidity", but Trump's foreign policy has nothing to do with stupidity it's planned and it's all about Israel ,"endless wars" , arms manufacturing and sales , and ensuring that the "war on terror" continues . We live in a Pathocracy and are governed by psychopaths and narcissists who have no compunction about the killing of civilians (collateral damage ) ,murder by drone , the destruction of cultural sites, the killing of 500,000 Iraqui children by sanctions (it was worth it – Madeleine Albright) and the murder of populist leaders such as Allende .
barr , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 12:09 pm GMT
@Sasha How does the mind develop? A boy grows up loving baseball ,because he grew up watching it since age 3 or 10 . If he watched soccer or Tennis, that would have been his favorite game . A blank page is ready for description of murder or love in English or Iranian language .
It is same about religion ,participation in civic rituals ,enjoying certain shows or music or theaters, food,consumption,and giving into outside demands rather than to self restraint self reflection and self observation and self evaluation of the imposed needs .
Mind learns to praise hollow words and illegal amoral immoral activities . Because we don't appreciate the converse and don't reward the opposite. Gradually society eliminates those thinkers Very soon we have one sort of thinking everywhere . Very soon adult bullying is copied by kids from TV and from watching the praise heaped on psychopaths.
This also means IQ gets distorted . Capacity to analyze gets impaired .
,American mind is manufactured mind by outside . BUt the process never stops. It doesn't get that chance to take internal control at any stage . In childhood and adolescence, when the time is right to inculcate this habit and enforce this angle or build this trait ,it is not done at all. Other nations try and other cultures do. Here is the difference between self assured content mind and nervous expectant mind always on a shopping outing . Most of our problems in society come from this situation,
anonymous [245] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 12:29 pm GMT
@JackOH Hmm.

I enjoyed reading someone with a Washington resume' tearing into the current crew, too. And it was a relief to see addressed the accusation about the Iranian official being not only killed for, but set up by feigned US interest in, peace. Those with a public voice -- especially "journalists" -- who won't even mention this are either inept or corrupt.

But note the condescension towards the people of the Middle East and their "regimes" noted above, starting with comment #1. Read the column carefully, and you'll see that the criticism from Mr. Stockman is tactical, not principled. That's because he puts himself above all of those people over there, including the group shown relative sympathy, who "are no less civilized and no more prone to sectarian violence than anybody else in this woebegone region." Ask yourself the writer's purpose of those last four words, and in his use of "sectarian." Would a more concise "are no less civilized and no more prone to violence than anybody else" be a little too truthful?

I wonder whether this columnist is being brought in to buttress and/or replace the discredited one who he describes as "the always sagacious Pat Buchanan." (Those who haven't should read Mr. Paleoconservative's latest "If Baghdad Wants Us Out, Let's Go!" and the overwhelmingly negative comments it has drawn.) Heretical to their extents, but both remain devout Exceptionalians.

unit472 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 12:34 pm GMT
After more than a decades worth of failed economic prognostications ( that cost anyone who listened to him dearly) Stockman is now going to give us foreign policy advice? Remember this guys only official role was as an OMB appointee in the first term of Ronald Reagan.
Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 12:35 pm GMT
@Ronnie Interestingly the plane just happened to be Ukrainian. Could this be the casus belli the West needs to go ham on Iran? More strikes on Iran justified by this plane crash and perhaps even sanctions on Russa as no doubt they will try an pin it on them as well?
Realist , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 12:35 pm GMT
@Sasha Stockman is notorious for defending cultures and countries (Russia, China, Iran, Islam) by belittling them. Paraphrasing: It is wrong for the US to confront Russia, because they have a third rate economy. or it is wrong for the US to confront China because China can't project power across the world. . He always takes the elitist position the US should not attack lessers like Russia, China, etc'. It seems he is trying to cover his ass against the dreaded charge that he is taking 'the enemy's side'.
SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 12:38 pm GMT
@Justsaying Blast from the past:

"What you want to do is just beam in Melrose Place and 90250 into Tehran because that is subversive stuff. The young kids watch this, they want to have nice clothes, nice things . . and these internal forces of dissension beamed into Iran which is, paradoxically, the most open society, a lot more open than Iraq . . . therefore you have more ability to foment this dynamic against Iran. The question now is, Choose: beam Melrose Place -- it will take a long time (ha ha).
On the other hand if you take out Saddam I guarantee you it will have ENORMOUS positive reverberations that people sitting right next door, young people, in Iran, and many others will say, The time of such despots is gone, it's a new age."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/wHmhf_wrcrM?feature=oembed

https://www.youtube.com/embed/fpQdg4D78Jc?feature=oembed
"A nuclear armed Saddam will place the entire world at risk"

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4501196/user-clip-netanyahu-iran-regime-change

PS C Span broadcast a PSA of Peggy Orenstein who will discuss her book about value of easy access to porn and discussion of masturbation.

anon [876] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:10 pm GMT
How could a plane crash and several mega sky scapers not implode in seconds? Luchy Siverstein had another proctologist appointment?
DanFromCT , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:15 pm GMT
@Haxo Angmark What a trap DJT fell into! The president has proved himself more of a neocon patsy, as he was as much set up as the Iranian general, whose name will be forgotten by week's end in America. The neocons feeding the President a straight diet of cooked intel and their "never Trump" flunkies in the Senate have killed two birds with one stone inasmuch as the President's boasting he'd take out Iran's main cultural landmarks will be cast as a threat of genocide, which the Dems will now use to tar DJT as an intemperate megalomaniac in the minds of independents, probably ending his chances of winning reelection later this year.
Sean , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:15 pm GMT

The truth is, America has no dog in the Shiite versus Sunni hunt, which has been going on for 1300 years in the region. [ ] Needless to say, their Shiite kinsman in Iran were more than ready to give aid and comfort to the Iraqi Shiite in their struggle against what by then was perceived as Iran's own mortal enemy

The Sunni regime in Riyadh ceaselessly complain about the treatment of the Arab minority in Iran even though these are Shia Arabs, The Shia in Iraq are likewise Arabs. Iran is almost as big as Egypt or Turkey. Being a country of 80 million Shia Persians Iran could not possibly be conquered by the US without a massive effort, even if the deep state and joint chiefs wanted to, which they do not. The only time Iran runs into trouble is when it tries to act abroad as a power independent of both the US and Russia.

After the Iranian revolution the US was regarded as an all powerful enemy that would stage a coup, and so the Embassy staff, thought to be spies, were taken hostage. America was totally paralyzed and humiliated. Its raid to rescue the hostages was pathetic and exposed a total lack of special forces capability. the Islamic republic repudiated the Shah's role as America's cop on the beat, but it wanted to remain the most dominant power in the region nonetheless. Already worried by the arms given to Iran under the Shah who also supplied the Kurds fighting in Iraq, the 1974-75 Shatt al-Arab clashes between the Shah and Saddam's forces that led to led to 1000 KIAs, Saddam was faced with a radical Shia Iran appealing to his own oppressed Shia majority. After a series of border clashes with the aggressive Revolutionary Guards, Saddam predictably decided on an all out attack on Iran. The US backed Saddam and there was massive support for Iraq from the Soviet Union in the final phase of the war.

The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran made use of suicide squads of schoolboys to clear minefields and in human wave attacks and by the end the front lines were well within Iraqi territory and Saddam had to settle for merely surviving. Iran had linked up with Assad's minority Alawite regime ruling a Sunni majority, and his Shia allies in Lebanon. Israeli defence minister and former general Ariel Sharon moved Israeli forces into West beirut then allowed Phalange gunmen let into palestinian refugee camps (PLO fighters had already left the city) where they slaughtered thousands of non combatants.

Under the influence of Iranian clerics' interpretations from the war with Saddam justifying suicide if the enemy was killed in the act, Assad's cat's paw Lebanese Shia suicide bombed the US marines out of Beirut. Then Palestinians learnt how suicide bombing was a powerful weapon and in the aftermath of the failure of Camp David 2000 embarked a vicious series of suicide massacres that destroyed Ehud barak and brought Sharon to power. Iran has gained influence in the region but ti is difficult to see what the Palestinians have got ot out of the patronage of Iran, which is first and mainly concerned with itself.

Due entirely to side effects of actions the US took against Saddam's Iraq taken to protect the current regime in Saudi Arabia Iran has went from strength to strength and they seem to think that run of luck will continue. Unfortunately for Iran, they are now a very real threat to Saudi Arabia, and the US knows it cannot put an army in Saudi Arabia to guard it with outraging Islamic nationalist opinion in that country

Instead of poking its nose into Arab affairs why does Iran, which managed to impoverish its own middle class in the last three decades and recently had to cut fuel subsidies, not concentrate on its own business? It seems to be calculating that Trump cannot afford to the bad publicity of starting a war too close to an election, and so they can make hay while the sun shines. Or perhaps they are pressing their luck like any good gambler on a roll. The assassination of Soleimani was intended to be taken a sign that Dame Fortune in the shape of America has grown tired of their insouciance. I think Iran should cut their losses although such is not human nature. The dictates of realism according to Mearsheimer mandate endless offence to gain even the slightest advantage, but he also says a good state must know its limitations.

RichardTaylor , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:16 pm GMT
@Justsaying America's problems don't have anything to do with soda pop or fast food. Nor is "consumerism" a serious problem that the world needs to worry about. I like having new smartphones, fast internet, and the convenience of getting things quickly.
Miro23 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:26 pm GMT
A very good summary by David Stockman of the bad place that the US finds itself in.

With an old and confused Presidential tweeter surrounded by Zionist gangsters.

Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:32 pm GMT
Trump is insane as is the ZUS government and its dual citizens who are calling the shots. Trump is the reincarnation of the Roman emperor Caligula.

All of this was brought on by the joint attack by Israel and traitors in the ZUS government on the WTC on 911, blamed on the muslims to give the ZUS the excuse to destroy the middle east for zionist Israel and their greater Israel agenda.

Anon [398] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:47 pm GMT
Isn't Stockman the guy pumping a large investment newsletter scam? Is Unz getting a % of the scam to promote him? And how about these dumbo boomers who support him. Lmao
Chris Mallory , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:03 pm GMT

Like most generals of whatever army (including the US army), he was a cold-blooded, professional killer.

Modern US Army generals are more likely to be lying, azz kissing politiicans than cold blooded killers.

Z-man , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:04 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

Nice to see the great David Stockman appear at Unz. Watch him teach Fox Business News blabbers economics and political realities. Then he stuns them by saying the Pentagon's budget must be cut:

Yes, I was slightly surprised and gratified by his views.
'Maria' Bartiromo is/was married to a Joo . 'Nuff said.
That other one, the shrill Daegen McDowell, is also married to a Jew but is even more Zionist than your average 'Likudnik'. She was a regular on 'Imus in the Morning' but then had a falling out with Imus and was never back. I hope he haunts her until her demise. (Purple grinning Satan here)

Z-man , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:08 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus Netanyahoo should be taken out with extreme prejudice .
Twodees Partain , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:11 pm GMT
@freedom-cat – Hitting your head over and over on a brick wall, while thinking you'll start feeling better.-

More aptly: Hitting yourself on the head with a hammer because it feels so good when you stop.

Carlton Meyer , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:12 pm GMT
@Mr. Allen

This is absurd. Don't lump all generals in together as the same. You might as well say Nazi generals and Russian generals and British generals and American generals and Japanese generals are all the same – all equally culpable of equal war crimes in WWII.

American censorship ensures that Americans only hear of the greatness of American Generals. American Generals killed far more civilians with weaponry than opposing Generals in World War II, in Korea, and in Vietnam. Few know about mass slaughters they were responsible for, like:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/XVee6taH0iw?feature=oembed

Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:30 pm GMT
@Z-man Taking him out would be boring, if we are talking about hypotheticals, then better to start isolating Israel and sanctioning them. It will be funny watching them kvetch
TomSchmidt , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:34 pm GMT
@barr "A blank page"

Hmmm, not keeping up with the times in mind Research, are we? Start here:

https://read.amazon.com/kp/card?preview=inline&linkCode=kpd&ref_=k4w_oembed_mmOnQFKZcLfUYP&asin=B000QCTNIM&tag=kpembed-20

Hail , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:37 pm GMT
@freedom-cat

I'm sorry to say I voted for this moron

I remember 2016. I remember many saying they were voting (or had voted) for Trump to get out of the endless/pointless Forever Wars, and as often as not they would mention Iran (the need to not go to war with).

During the slow death of Nationalist-MAGA in 2017 and 2018 , many holdouts continued to say "At least we didn't elected Hillary, or we'd for sure be at war with Iran!"

_______

Steve Sailer's six-word summary of US guiding policy from ca. the 1990s to 2010s (and 2020s, so far), " Invade the World, Invite the World (to resettle in the US)," was the core of DJT's campaign (opposition to them, of course); his core supporter base was motivated by both, some more one than the other, others strongly by both together.

I'd propose the core Trump base in 2016 was:

– 20%: primarily against "Invade the World" (soft, or neutral, or otherwise on "Invite")
– 40%: primary against "Invite the World" (soft, neutral, or even supportive of "Invade")
– 40%: against both Invade and Invite, seeing them as a package deal

I count myself in the third category.

(The proprietor of the Unz Review himself has written that he was for Trump primarily because of foreign policy, putting him in the first category.)

This Jan. 2020 assassination affair, we are told over the death of an Iraqi 'contractor' named Nawres Hamid who had recently handed that debased-currency known as a US passport , shows in dramatic form how much Trump has failed at both Invade and Invite. (Nawres Hamid as personification of Invade-Invite; he and three family members were sponsored to resettle in Sacramento some time in the 2010s.)

TomSchmidt , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:41 pm GMT
@freedom-cat "he was flapping his jaws about ending the warring in M.E. I had my doubts from the beginning but I was willing to give him a chance."

To be fair, he was explicit about getting tough with Iran. That's basically the only foreign pledge he has kept. All the dialing down of hostilities was a lie.

He has at least killed fewer people in drone strikes than Obama and Bush.

SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:46 pm GMT
@Sean Sean, your propaganda is old and tired and boring.

You're still shopping at F W Woolworth.

After the Iranian revolution the US was regarded as an all powerful enemy that would stage a coup, and so the Embassy staff, thought to be spies, were taken hostage.

One major precipitant was the information revealed about how US embassy had been spying on Iran, when Iranian weavers re-assembled massed of documents that embassy staff had shredded.

the rest of your screed = hasbara boilerplate. skewing information

Larry Johnson posted this more balanced overview of The Whole Offense:

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2020/01/there-will-be-blood-by-larry-c-johnson.html

Key sentence in the middle of the essay:

Since the terrorist attacks of 9-11, the United States has done a lot of killing of terrorists, real and imagined. Yet, the threat of terrorism has not been erased.

I submit that " the threat of terrorism has not been erased " because the wrong terrorists were being killed.
The real terrorists hive in TelAviv and Washington, DC.

George F. Held , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:48 pm GMT
@Mr. Allen BS. The Nazi generals were trying to save the western world and civilization from the jews; the other generals, whether they knew it or not, were working for the jews to destroy both. The jews won and have largely obtained their desired end. Just look at Europe today
TomSchmidt , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:49 pm GMT
@Vaterland Do it. Complete Nordstream2. Withdraw from NATO. It was 1907 that Britain turned Russia from focusing on Asia to Europe and kicked off the new 30-years war. German organization and Russian spirit and resources would be a fearsome combination.

Putin speaks German, doesn't he?

barr , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:49 pm GMT
@TomSchmidt Is it less than 1oo pages ,?then I am try.
Cross Product of Spider-Man , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:49 pm GMT
If you live in a GOLDen cage, eventually you may develop Stockman syndrome.

This Trump Iran policy seems like pure genius to me. He may be able to obliterate Israel, Hezbollah and Iran, by goading them with one check-mark on the Obama er um Trump Disposition Matrix.

When I was a young teen I used to like that song, "Storm the Embassy", by the Stray Cats, before they had any fame in the states. Decades later the Offspring scored a hit called "The Kid's Aren't Alright", written in a similar key and chord progression. Groovy

Derp , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:50 pm GMT
This is the all-encompassing delusion, the stickiest residual brainwashing of old big shots. The Biggest Big Lie. And you old timers play along with it. Every time.

Stupidity. Stupid my ass.

Wartorn countries are ideal arms-trade entrepots. All the unauditable trillions of stuff that falls off DoD trucks, it's flooding into Syria and Iraq. CIA sells it. And most of it sits in safe caches until the next war. Then CIA sells it again. This is CIA's second biggest profit center, after drugs. And you know this is CIA's war, Right? Right? This is dumb jarheads dumped in there to hold the bag for TIMBER SYCAMORE. Trump has less workplace discretion than a McDonald's fry cook. He's CIA's puppet ruler. Puppets are not stupid, they're inert.

If you're CIA and you've got impunity in municipal law, this is not stupid, this is smart. This is brilliant. Steal arms from the troops, start a war, sell em to wogs, steal em from the wogs, sell to other wogs. Repeat. This is the policy and vital interest of the CIA criminal enterprise that runs your country.

You know it. Say what you actually think ffs. What are they gonna do, send you to Vietnam?

Sick of Orcs , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:55 pm GMT
The Orange Fugazi's autonomy is limited to golf and tweets about closely monitoring situations.

It's a lowdown dirty shame.

DanFromCT , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:05 pm GMT
@Anon If I'm not mistaken, Stockman has been forecasting a market collapse since 2010 or so. I just checked and in 2013 he recommended selling stocks with end-of-the-world fear mongering. At some point he and the libertarians' advice will coincide with a major adjustment or collapse and the scam perpetuates itself. I'm no expert in market timing myself, but my conclusion is that these guys are basically shills for gold and silver trading interests, using political scare tactics to drive sales, and in the process shamelessly costing naive investors to miss the market time and again since it's low in late 2008.
follyofwar , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:05 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer God, if there is one, please save us from such shrill, hysterical female defenders of the military-industrial-complex as Maria Bartiromo and Degan McDowell. I wonder how screechy-voiced Maria could say with a straight face that we were, prior to Trump, "starving the military." Such women, and let's include the women of The View, make good advertisements for why the 19th Amendment should never have been passed.

David Stockman, though I oppose his libertarianism, is worthy of much credit for going into the den with such venomous vipers.

Mike P , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:06 pm GMT
@Hans Vogel

Yes indeed, all generals are fundamentally the same. War crimes are not the exclusive realm of any one nationality or political or religious category.

Still, America leads the world when it comes to killing civilians, POWs, and other war crimes.

I am with Mr. Allen – we shouldn't lump them all together. American generals, and the prostitute "statesmen" that give their orders, deserve a special place in hell – with a guest room, of course, for the likes of Winston Churchill and Bomber Harris.

Sick of Orcs , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:10 pm GMT
@Hail The earliest sign we were betrayed was when post-election, pre-Inauguration Trump said he wouldn't go after Cankles. Most people didn't even notice, or still believed he was playing 32-dimensional underwater quantum chess.
Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:14 pm GMT
@Vaterland Germany still under American (see Jewish) occupation huh? I still here Americans tell me that those European countries are begging for American defence. This is an American trait of arrogance, they think Europeans actually want Americans occupying us and that they are doing us a favour.

I bet they would hit our countries with sanctions and other punishment if we threatened to kick them out just like is the case with Trump demanding billions from Iraq to pay for an air force base that Yankeed built to launch terror raids against Iraqis.

I bet most Germans do not even know about the terrorist occupation of Deutschland by America where they staved and raped with impunity. Americans are truly sickening and nobody would care if they got nuked save for a few Anglos

Alistair , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:18 pm GMT
Regardless of our opinion about General Qassem Soleimani, Trump targeted killing him was for his own personal grudge against Soleimani -- that was independent of the official US policy toward Iran.

Over the last couple of years, in the heat of twitter exchanges between Trump and President Rouhani, Trump was using his usual colorful language – street mob style – he was insulting Rouhani on twitter while president Rouhani kept his cool – restraining himself to engage at the street level exchange with Trump -- meanwhile, Gen. Soleimani seized on the occasion and replied to Trump's insults; he taunted Trump, called him "Bartender, Casino manager, Mobster" etc. and threatened to go after his properties worldwide -- you can check Online history of Soleimani's tweets about Donald Trump. Here is a sample that New York Post had published;

https://nypost.com/2020/01/04/iranian-general-qassem-soleimani-once-taunted-trump-in-fiery-speech/

As we all know Donald Trump does not appreciate threats, and if he gets the chance he punch back harder, and that's what has really happened; Donald Trump's personal grudge against Soleimani had led to his assassination; just the way Street Mobs eliminate their opponents; surely, that seems trivial, but these days, the world is governed by fake leaders who won't hesitate to use the power of their office to boost their own ego -- even at their own nation's expense.

Regardless of our opinion; General Soleimani was a brave soldier, a principled man who has dedicated his life to his nation, and that deserves respect -- just as Ernesto "Che" Guevara and Neilson Manddala did.

follyofwar , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:20 pm GMT
@Miro23 To perhaps soon be replaced by an even older, and definitely more confused successor come next January. The only saving grace would be if Biden doesn't know how to tweet. But he's every much the Zionist as is Trump, and has said so in the past. With a non-working brain, which is where Trump's lost brain is heading, Biden will believe whatever bullshit his neoliberal advisors feed him. Who is there to save us?
JackOH , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:23 pm GMT
@anonymous a#245, thanks for your reply.

You bet, I'm happy to see a Washington name on these pages, because I've been convinced for years a lot of the stuff we talk about here is pretty much mainstream or mainstreamable thought that's been shoved aside by high-motivation rent-seekers of all sorts.

" . . . [N]ote the condescension towards the people of the Middle East . . .". Yes, I did. I don't know squat about foreign policy, but people who sense they're being looked down on or feel they're being used will sometimes want to get back at those who've patronized them when the opportunity arises. I wish our leaders would take that platitude to heart.

America1st , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:26 pm GMT
Foolish elitists like Stockman advocate for the failed policies of the past.

From 1979 to 2020, 41 years most of our politically astute appeased Iran. In the early 80's Reagan sunk half of Iran's navy and they quieted down fora few years.

Since 1988 foolish political elites who thought they new better began appeasing again.

Seems only Reagan learned from History how appeasement helped Hitler.

Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 and Obama all used appeasement. Iran grew stronger and more influential.

Obama foolishly tried to buy peace by releasing $150 billion of frozen Iranian assets, Iran spent it on Missle, Nuclear technologies and funded terrorism.

President Trump is reverting back to the lessons of Historyand trying to clean up Obama's mess.

I pray we reelect him in 2020 and give him 4 more years to save America from the deluded academics.

America1st , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:28 pm GMT
@Haxo Angmark How foolish Liberals are.
Hail , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:39 pm GMT
@America1st

From 1979 to 2020, 41 years most of our politically astute appeased Iran. In the early 80's Reagan sunk half of Iran's navy and they quieted down fora few years.

Since 1988 foolish political elites who thought they new better began appeasing again.

Why not just save time and write Iran Delenda Est , maybe in all-caps, a few times?

Vaterland , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:39 pm GMT
@TomSchmidt Yes he does. He was married to a German teacher and was stationed in Dresden. He touched on many of the issues of trust and fear in this speech to the Bundestag. Years before Merkel took office. Different times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NZQZQLV7tE
Derp , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:43 pm GMT
The other mandatory ritual incantation of US public Juche is to vilify the official enemy. Even pseudo-gonzo mavericks like Taibbi find they must do this. Stockman's new tweak of the government-issue boilerplate is admirable for its subtlety, by comparison with Taibbi's abject obeisance to the war line.

"Not that the benighted, mullah-controlled Iranian regime is comprised of anything which resembles white hats. One of the great misfortunes of the last four decades is that the long-suffering people of Iran have not been able to throw-off the cultural and religious shackles imposed by this theocratic regime or escape the economic backwardness and incompetence of what is essentially rule by authoritarian clerics."

As a founding member of the G-77 Iran brought together 80 per cent of the world's population. When the US took to manifest aggression after the WTC fell down, who did the G-77 choose to lead it? Iran. Iran brokered the Tehran Consensus, which unites more countries and people than NATO and doesn't blow shit up. The Non-Aligned Movement made Iran their nuclear/chemical disarmament envoy for peaceful coexistence. Half the world's people and two-thirds of its countries have made Iran a leader of the world. Why? Because they defend the UN Charter. They actually know what's in Article 2(4) and Article 39 and Article 41. Do you?

In objective human rights terms, Iran sucks about as much as the US in terms of three of the highest-level human rights indicators, outperforms the US in terms of openness to external human rights scrutiny, and falls short of US in terms of reporting compliance (although the US got graded very leniently on its delinquent CAT reporting while it ran its worldwide torture gulag.) So you don't have to do new vocal stylings on BAD BAD DOUBLEPLUSBAD ENEMY BAD. You can actually consult the facts. Imagine that.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx

Vaterland , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:51 pm GMT
@Just passing through I have very ambivalent feelings towards the USA, in the past and present. Complex topic. Simple analogy: George C. Marshall looks like the twin-brother of my grandfather who served in the Wehrmacht. Sons of Europe, at war with Europe; now increasingly no longer European and a threat to Europe as their empire degrades. I see no reason to hate the American people as a whole, there's millions of good hearted, compassionate and reasonable people living in America today. Just look at Tulsi Gabbard's events. But they, too, are held hostage of this evil Empire. Separate peoples and governments; Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn too lived under the Soviet regime.

I do hate Mike Pompeo though. And I'm not ashamed of it.

A123 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:58 pm GMT
@America1st

President Trump is reverting back to the lessons of Historyand trying to clean up Obama's mess.

You are correct. Trump inherited problems from the prior Obama and Bush administrations. Fortunately, Trump is winning.

Khameni's "retaliation" caused no damage. The high visibility launch covered live by FARS was a PR stunt to placate his domestic audience. (1)

"Optically Quite Dramatic" But Officials Confirm No US Casualties From Iranian Missile Strike

[Iran launched] missiles and purposely miss their intended targets.

Iran has superior missile technology that can hit whatever they want – this could be in an attempt to save face as a public relations event for its citizens while attempting to de-escalate the situation and avoid war.

PEACE
_______

(1) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/no-us-casualties-iranian-missile-strike

aandrews , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:58 pm GMT
If War is to Begin, You're Going to Want to Not Commit Sedition

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
January 8, 2020


At time of writing, it is unclear if we're headed to open war with Iran, though it is seeming more and more likely by the hour.

So, I feel the need to remind everyone that they need to be careful not to commit sedition.

In wartime, sedition can be a very serious crime.

Largely, we have not had people in the United States going to jail for anti-war protests since the World Wars, but a war with Iran will be the biggest war the US has been involved in since World War Two, and there is going to be a lot of opposition to it, so it is probable that there will be actions done to chill speech by making examples of people who protest the war too hard.

[ ]

Nobody Really Knows , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:11 pm GMT
Stockman is a curious gloom and doomer. He reliably rants about the permanent war economy and the biggest defense budget in the world but that's as far as he goes. Like Paul Craig Roberts, his propaganda delivering contemporary, he offers a childish oversimplification of how things work.

When things fall apart the cops and the troops will shoot the citizens and protect the rich. Meanwhile, before things fall completely apart, propaganda specialists like Stockman shoot the unsuspecting citizens with propaganda to protect the rich.

The rich learned long ago to divide the lower classes into the obedient subservient voters who love them and the rest of the poor who don't matter because their brothers and sisters protect the rich. What better time to divide, conquer and stage more international tensions than right now?

Paul , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:23 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer Bloated "defense" spending is socialism-for-the-rich and military Keynesianism. ISIS does not even have a rowboat.
Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:30 pm GMT
@A123 Another fine example of American exceptionalism.
There is zero evidence that the American contractor killed, was killed by Kata'ib Hezbollah. It fits the classic Israeli false flag.
The US "retaliates" by killing Iraqis who are the Kata'ib Hezbollah.
It is inconceivable to you that Iraqis may be upset that the country who invaded Iraq in 2003, completely destroyed the infrastructure, built a massive fortified Embassy, and sold off its assets to Jewish interests, primarily, just might be upset that that same country has just massacred the Iraqis who saved the country from ISIS. It had to be Iran behind it, because all Iraqis are grateful for the 2003 US invasion and all of the benefits of occupation that flowed from that. The million Iraqis that died are irrelevant.

Even Stockman doesn't get the Baathists. They don't care about your religious beliefs. They care that your religious beliefs become politicized. Sure Saddam and Assad were minorities, but one was a Sunni, the other a Shi'ite, but both Ba'athists. Both kept the lid on extremists irrespective of religious beliefs. Stockman's reference to Bush 41 incitement and the subsequent backlash is held up as some sort of proof of bad Sunnis. If the Pope successfully goaded German Roman Catholics to take up arms against Protestants, do you think that it just may be, that a Protestant backlash might be severe in places where Protestants were the majority? Nope, it's got to be Hitler's fault, or maybe even Iran's.

Sean , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:37 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus The assassination of was Soleimani was a deliberately stupid and counterproductive act by America because that is the way to send a message that you are a force to be reckoned with and mean what you say. Costly signalling is honest signalling. In this case the US is signalling they are beyond the rhetoric of the last thirty years and willing to get kinetic .

Iran and their theology of suicide martyrs is the greatest thing that ever happened to the Israeli right, influenced by Shia suicide bombing driving the US marines out of Lebanon the Palestinian massacres of Israeli civilians non combatants got a wall built pening them up, took Sharon to the premiership, and made Israelis turn their back on Ehud Barak. No Israeli leader would now dream of offering what Barak did while he was PM.

Iran is to big to be occupied and that is a fact. What can they be so worried about except ceasing to play independent great power in the Arab mainly Sunni Middle East. Well they are not that powerful. I think the leadership of Iran is taking the free ride they have been getting getting for granted. They did not overthrow Saddam, America did and Iran gained got a windfall.

Saddam was overthrown because the threat he represented to Saudi Arabia had to be neutralised so the US army could be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, where its infidel presence was causing outrage and resentment. John Bolton got sacked, and a few days later, Iran gets the bright idea to not just threaten Saudi Arabia, but launch–or at least not forbid their Houthie protégés to launch–blatant drone attacks on vital Saudi oil facilities (Sept 2019) thus forcing Trump to send more and more troops there. Iran was sending a message: we can and we will.

My reading of the American government is that their killing of Soleimani was a sign that for them Iran has entered the danger zone where something more that rhetoric and sanctions will be used. Iran can still turn back and be forgiven, but if they choose to go on and take the consequences of ignoring the costly (and therefore sincere) signal that the US has sent, so be it.

AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:41 pm GMT
This was as stupid as it gets so far. Confidently expect even stupider actions of the Empire in its impotent rage, now that it is losing its grip. Ever since Iraq invasion, the Empire was undermining itself more efficiently than its worst enemies could have hoped for.
TomSchmidt , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:42 pm GMT
@barr Longer. But try the audiobook while you're doing time-wasting activities like driving. It's how I finally read War and Peace.
TKK , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:44 pm GMT
Hmmm . the best way to prevent more American soldiers being killed is to keep alive the man who has been killing so many of them for 20 years?
TomSchmidt , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:45 pm GMT
@America1st When is appeasement the right policy?
Greg Bacon , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:47 pm GMT
Since it's apparent that Israel is making our MENA foreign policy and that the foaming at the mouth Zionists want to start a hot shooting war with Iran, using their American mercs, which US city should be sacrificed to Moloch, the G-d of Israel, to start this war?

New York is the safest bet, since there are tens of thousands loyal Jew sayanim living there who would gladly give all to start a war against Iran. Using the time-tested technique of staging a false flag.

Hail , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:48 pm GMT
@Curmudgeon

There is zero evidence that the American contractor killed, was killed by Kata'ib Hezbollah.

And that so-called American was actually a 33-year-old Iraqi named Nawres Hamid .

Hamid was only recently (2017) handed a (cheap) US-citizenship for services rendered to the empire, along with a free pass to settle his family in the US (Sacramento).

War-nut, dump-refugees-on-Middle-America-advocate, and empire-pusher John McCain is, I am sure, saluting the flag of Empire in his grave, a tear in his eye at the perfect alignment of every aspect of this saga of Nawres Hamid.

Tom Walsh , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:48 pm GMT
@Mr. Allen What about the RAF generals and 8th airforce generals who killed millions of German women and children in WW2? Were they more civilized than Soleimani?
Paul , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:50 pm GMT
A war between the United States and Iran is wanted by the Israel First people.
Rich , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:51 pm GMT
@Alistair One thing you got right is that the dead Iranian general belongs with murderers and terrorists like Mandela and Che. He was as much a piece of garbage as them.
TomSchmidt , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:51 pm GMT
@America1st Was the Iraq war in 2003 a success or a failure, by the way? Just so we have a reference point on success or failure with you.
Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:52 pm GMT
June 6, 2018 Why the US shouldn't build more foreign bases

The United States maintains almost 800 military bases in over 70 countries, which far exceeds our modern day security requirements.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/06/06/why-the-us-shouldnt-build-more-foreign-bases/

Jun 18, 2019 4 Times the US Threatened to Stage an Attack and Blame it on Iran

The US has threatened to stage an attack and blame it on Iran over and over in the last few years. Don't let a war based on false pretenses happen again.

Mar 27, 2019 The MIC and Wall Street Rule The World: Period!

SteveK9 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:54 pm GMT
To dismiss Suleimani as yet another thug, then praise the Shiite militia for driving ISIS from Iraq without acknowledging that it was Soleimani that organized and led that battle (from the front) is a little unfair.
JUSA , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:54 pm GMT
@A123 Says the warmonger. The US needs to get the hell out of the Mideast, period. We are fighting (((someone else's))) war.

@Mark James

Kushner strikes me as more of a neocon and he's obviously down with what they want in Tel Aviv. Which I think is an attack on Iran Nuclear capabilities before the end of the summer.

Ya think? The Kushner family from father to son have publicly declared themselves Israel's most loyal sons. They couldn't have found a better man to be president, a stupid puppet goy as part of the family so they can continue to pull the puppet strings in the background. It's the way (((these people))) operate, for thousands of years. Never the front man, always directing things from the shadow.

Hans Vogel , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:55 pm GMT
@Mike P This stance is very understandable but I believe common sense should tell us otherwise. There can be little doubt that since its colonial war in the Philippines, the US has led the pack in terms of numbers of people killed in what used to be called the Third World.

However, I am quite certain the way many people look at the US today (based on all those millions of poor devils killed in the colonies), wishing their leaders a special place in hell, is no different from how one could look at the English a little over a century ago (Sepoy Mutiny, Sudan, Opium War, etc.). Or, for that matter, how the inhabitants of the Italian states might look at the French during the late 1400s and early 1500s. And what about the German Order in the Baltic, the Byzantines, the Romans etc. etc.?

In other words the US can point to a venerable but sad number of precedents to their own criminal operations abroad. It is impossible to define the worst offender among all those included in the long list of evildoers.

Anyone who enters another country, carrying arms and without the permission of the local inhabitants, deserves to be killed. It is that simple. Unfortunately, because since times immemorial most who do that somehow escape their just fate, one sees the same thing happening again and again.

TKK , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:57 pm GMT
As usual, this has been turned into an Israel and Jew demonizing circle jerk, save a few sane commenters.

Let's examine the imbecility of this site:

A Jewish, gay, open borders advocate multimillionaire selects "chosen ones", the gold star commenters who are posting wily nilly to dominate the discourse –

who all happen to be Muslim, Latino, foreign born or rabidly Anti- American?

As commenters rage about the take over of the world by Jews, who flood America with -- –

Muslims, Latinos, and foreign borns, and shove the Alphabet Mafia down our throats.

You couldn't sell this as a straight to DVD screenplay. It's that absurd.

Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:00 pm GMT
@Sean

Instead of poking its nose into Arab affairs why does Iran, which managed to impoverish its own middle class in the last three decades and recently had to cut fuel subsidies, not concentrate on its own business?

Have you been living under a rock?
The US froze (stole) billions in Iranian assets post revolution. The complaints about Obama "paying" Iran for the JCPOA, were nothing but a partial return of Iranian assets. So, the Iranians were short billions for 30 years, which could have been used to rebuild. It's kind of like building a house and finding out a big chunk of the cash in your bank account has been frozen, illegally, by the bank. It's there, but you have no access to, or benefit of, it.
Of course all of the sanctions have nothing to do with Iran's problems. In particular, any country that bought oil from Iran would also be sanctioned, causing a massive drop in revenue, plays no part in the economic difficulties. Additionally, Iran exercising its rights under an international treaty – the NPT, which the US repudiates in Iran's case, thereby removing another large source of revenue, is not a factor either. At least, not to you.

CyrusTheGreat , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:11 pm GMT
@Realist You have done the greatest description of Stockman.
SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:21 pm GMT
@TKK

The best way to prevent more American soldiers being killed is to keep alive the man who has been killing so many of them for 20 years? [irony]

That's exactly what is being done -- men most responsible for American soldiers being killed are being kept alive:

David Petraeus -- still alive
Robert Kagan -- -still alive
Benjamin Netanyahu -- still alive
George Bush -- – still alive

A year or so ago Mike Morrell commented that "US needs to send maps and crayons to Iran, to demonstrate to them where their borders are: 'Iran HERE, Iran, NOT there.' "

I couldn't get over the irony: USA circles Iran, 7000 miles from continental USA, and somehow Iran is trespassing outside its borders?

Morrell:

"Have the Iranians and the Russians pay a little price. . . . They were supplying weapons that killed Americans . . . kill them covertly . . . I want to scare Assad . . . I want to bomb his offices in the middle of the night, I want to destroy his presidential aircraft . . . I want to destroy his helicopter. . . . I am not advocating assassinating him – I'm not advocating that: I'm advocating going after what he thinks is his power base . . ."

One question: BY WHAT RIGHT?

Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:26 pm GMT
@SteveK9 AL CIADA aka ISIS is a creation of the CIA and the Mossad and MI6 and NATO aka the ZUS and Israel and Britain.

This war in the mideast was brought on by the JOINT Israeli and ZUS attack on the WTC on 911, which was blamed on the muslims to give the ZUS the excuse to destroy the mideast for Israel.

Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:32 pm GMT
@Alistair

just as Ernesto "Che" Guevara and Neilson Manddala did.

Would that be the same "Che" Guevara that thought Negroes were inferior, and Nelson Mandela who was convicted of attempting to blow up a power station that would have killed dozens of innocent people?

Soleimani rarely targeted civilians. For those who would point to the suicide bombings in Israel, I would remind you that all Israelis over the age of 18 will be, or have been, in the armed forces, and are subject to call up even after discharge.

Bitindawg , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:37 pm GMT
It's all about Israel. Netanyahu has been plotting scheming and demanding that we, that the U.S. bomb Iran back to the stone ages for nigh onto twenty years. He has even issued coded and veiled threats to nuke Iran himself.

Trump is a Zionist collaborator and he is Netanyahu's shabbos goy. He has willingly co-operated in turning over the U.S. military to be Israel's running dog.

America is a Christian majority country, and Bret Stephens is absolutely correct. The Jews are an intellectually superior people. Us mere Goyim, are by comparison, utterly stupid.

America does not genuinely and honestly support Israel. America has been hornswoggled by the superior intelligence and guile of the Jewish people to support the Jew state.

When the Jews decided to set up their own country at the turn of the twentieth century, they knew that they would need the support of Christendom. To that end they initiated a psy-op, a psychological operation tasked with rewriting Christian theology.

Up until the turn of the twentieth century Christian theology had held that the coming of Jesus Christ had negated all of God's covenants with the Jews. This was known as, replacement theology. That, in essence, Christians had become God's chosen people.

As a consequence, down through the ages, Christians and Jews had been at odds. Christ killer was a common epithet and there were many pogroms.

Jews would have been aware that there was an obscure Christian theology that held, that God had not revoked his covenants with the Jews. That God's covenants with the Jews remained intact and were still in force.

This obscure theology was being preached by a ne'er do well preacher named Cyrus Scofield. What the Jews did, and surely this was, what is known as, "Jew genius", they financed Cyrus on two trips to Europe.

What the Jews did, was to take this obscure dispensationalist christian theology and write it into the King James version of the bible as study notes. When Scofield returned from Europe, he had the manuscript of the Scofield study bible. It is presumed that Rabbi's and yeshiva students produced it.

It was published, produced and distributed by the very Jewish Oxford University Press, which still holds the patent on it, and periodically updates it to keep up with changing times in the Middle East.

There is an ample historical trail that validates this thesis.

There is also an historical trail that reveals that today's Jews, Ashkenazim Jews, are not descendants of the biblical era Jews, that they are Jewish converts from the land of Khazar.

More, that the circumstances of their conversion to Judaism was a process that selected for intelligence and drive and that is why today's Jews are an intellectually superior, driven and successful, albeit, artificial people.

Artificial, as they are not a people that occurred naturally, over time and in a land of their own.

Liberty Mike , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:38 pm GMT
@follyofwar What specific libertarianism of Stockman do you oppose?
Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:38 pm GMT
@JackOH

" . . . [N]ote the condescension towards the people of the Middle East . . .". Yes, I did. I don't know squat about foreign policy, but people who sense they're being looked down on or feel they're being used will sometimes want to get back at those who've patronized them when the opportunity arises. I wish our leaders would take that platitude to heart.

This is a product of American exceptionalism, and it is not confined to the Middle East. The overwhelming majority of Americans refuse to accept that others may be just fine with their own form of government, economic system, and culture.

Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:39 pm GMT
Jan 7, 2020 Qassem Soleimani, short biography from South Front

Short biography of the Iranian General, murdered by the Trump regime on 3 January 2020.

Liberty Mike , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:42 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus Note that it has been the white man, not the jew, not the nigger, and not the tranny, who has been the principle architect of such death and destruction.
Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:42 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus You are all over it Croesus!

Aug 8, 2016 "I want to scare Assad" Mike Morell on Charlie Rose

Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, discusses the need to put pressure on Syria and Russia. The full conversation airs on PBS on August 8th, 2016.

SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:43 pm GMT
@Rich In the super-liberal town where I live, garbage gets separated: plastics here, paper there, banana peels there.

If Solemeini is "as much a piece of garbage as Mandela, Che," then what category of garbage were Churchill and Stallin?
FDR -- same piece of garbage as Churchill – Stalin, or more like Solemeini?

How about Arthur "Bomber" Harris -- same garbage, or different?

When Solemeini is coordinating military engagements with US military leaders, is he "as much a piece of garbage as Mandela, Che" or is he more like Kagan and Lady Lindsey?

Rev. Spooner , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:45 pm GMT
@9/11 Inside job You are right, stupidity has nothing to do with it, its well thought out and dictated by Israel. The 'tail actually wags the dog.' Americans (most) will never get it as they are trapped in a bubble while the rest of the world has realized it. In Europe the common folks have while the politicians still have to pretend.
When the hour of awakening arrives, I will have no sympathy for the common Jews as they remain silent today. And Jeffery Epstein didn't kill himself.
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:50 pm GMT
It all started with elimination of Mosadeh so US is guilty!
Rurik , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:02 pm GMT
@Sasha

What "cultural and religious shackles" might these be? Please be more specific, or I might think you mean that they don't have instant access to Hollywood blockbusters or something. The horror!

The Shah was notorious for encouraging young women to emulate the West and wear miniskirts and such.

At first glance, it seemed like a positive change for the better. (who approves of burkas, for instance). But as we all know by now, the ((cultural elites)) of the West, are feverishly using liberalism to transform the societies they dominate into moral and spiritual sewers.

[insert here photo of Madonna or Miley or some other gutter skank as role model for little girls)

In a well-known case, the 'brutal' rapist of a ten year old Austrian boy, at a public swimming pool, had his conviction set aside by the high court, because not enough sympathy was shown to the rapist's cultural proclivities. This is a society that is spiritually dead. Contrast that with Iran's equally well-known treatment of men who rape boys, by hanging them by their necks from cranes, for all to witness.

Iran, clearly has a lot to teach the dying ((murdered)) West.

If headscarves are the price of female dignity and honor, then I suppose it really isn't all that big of a deal, especially when you consider the alternative in the West.

[I'm not posting a photo of Kardashian or some other skank, because you all know what I mean]

9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:05 pm GMT
@Sean bbs.chinadaily.com .cn :"Beirut marine [barracks]bombing was Mossad false flag operation "
'I reported that Marines had been sent there to become the focus of a major incident . The Mossad is to arrange for a number of our Marines to be killed in an accident to be blamed on the Arabs! This will be used to inflame American public opinion to help lead us into war ' Dr. Beter, a Pentagon analyst .
Talha , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:12 pm GMT
Not possibly as stupid as declaring openly that you want to deliberately commit war crimes on public record.

Of course, when you have guys cheer leading you that couldn't find Iran on a map if their life depended on it, you might not notice:

Fox host defends America committing war crimes: "I don't care about Iranian cultural sites and I'll tell you why. If they could they would destroy every single one of our cultural sites and build a mosque on top of it" pic.twitter.com/AJolDVtzJR

-- Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) January 6, 2020

For everyone who wants a refresher on how this is defined as a war crime, the Red Cross has a great section on the evolution of these particular protocols in history. I would highly recommend the section titled:
"Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property"

Which starts:
"Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property defines cultural property, for the purposes of the Convention, irrespective of origin or ownership, as:
(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above "
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule38

Note that both Iran and we (the US) are signatories:
http://www.unesco.org/eri/la/convention.asp?KO=13637&language=E&order=alpha

Note also that the US did not sign until 2009. The reasons given are outlined here – main one being*:
"The objections raised by DoD at the time were based on the perceived inability to meet the Convention's obligations in the event of nuclear warfare. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, DoD removed its objection to ratification."
http://usicomos.org/hague-convention-and-usicomos/

Peace.

*Note: This is actually a great starting point for those of us who want to prevent preemptive use of nuclear weapons by our government. The DoD is fully aware that nuclear strikes against population centers will be in violation of the very treaties that they have signed onto in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Mr. Allen , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:13 pm GMT
@Tom Walsh

What about the RAF generals and 8th airforce generals who killed millions of German women and children in WW2? Were they more civilized than Soleimani?

I guess I opened a can of worms I didn't mean to I am an American and understand that Americans are not as innocent or as magnanimous as our history books may make it.

But I had also assumed most people would agree that in general, American generals (and Russian generals) would be seen as on the "right side of history" and hence morally infinitely better as compared to Japanese or Nazi generals.

To the extent that is true, we shouldn't be lumping them morally together as the author here is trying to lump American and Iranian generals together.

In my world view, Americans are aggressors in the Middle East today, Iranians are not. So lumping them together is to refuse to see right and wrong .

Back to WWII: most people in the world today are probably happy they are not under Japanese or German rule. So I assume my statements about Nazis and ally generals were correct.

As for whether most people in the world today would be happy from American / Western imperial rule, I would say yes to that. BUT does that REALLY make WWII just another evil war where evil won and where Nazi generals and American and RAF and Russian generals are the same as Japanese and Nazi generals???

9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:17 pm GMT
@Sean bbs.chinadaily.com .cn:" Beirut Marine[barracks]bombing was a Mossad false flag operation"
" I reported that Marines had been sent there to become the focus of a major incident . The Mossad is to arrange for a number of our Marines to be killed in an incident to be blamed on Arabs! This will be used to inflame American public opinion to help us lead into war " Dr. Beter , a Pentagon analyst
AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:17 pm GMT
Looks like the Empire decided not to escalate further the war it started with Iran. Optimists would say that Trump at least shows some wisdom after utter stupidity of engaging in terrorism. Pessimists would say that the Empire is simply afraid. I am on the fence.
9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:22 pm GMT
streetwisereports.com : "Israel made the [false flag] attack on the Saudi Oil fields " Special Opinion Piece by Bob Moriarty
MLK , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:27 pm GMT
@A123 Thanks for doing your part to introduce some sanity here.

Rather obviously, Iran needs to get it together. I get that it's unhappy that Trump was elected, and wasn't removed from office as the Democrats promised them, so they could get back to the Obama giveaway.

But, hands down, Iran wins the competition for the worst handling of relations with the United States since Trump took the oath.

Now, the ayatollah's train wreck has resulted in the death of his beloved Soleimani.

[Jan 08, 2020] It's very interesting to learn that Soleimani worked alongside US generals. So far none of them have resigned their commissions; that tells me they have no balls and are fine with following orders to go over the cliff with Trump, Pompous, and the rest of the DC Dunces.

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Trailer Trash , Jan 6 2020 20:35 utc | 37

It's very interesting to learn that Soleimani worked alongside US generals. So far none of them have resigned their commissions; that tells me they have no balls and are fine with following orders to go over the cliff with Trump, Pompous, and the rest of the DC Dunces.

The Axis of Resistance will be shouting "MAGA!" as they drive out US killers:
Make
America
Go
Away

I think Trump read the first few chapters of "Dune" and decided he wanted to play Emperor. Too bad he didn't read to the end where the Emperor's landing party is captured and the Empire gets kicked hard.

[Jan 08, 2020] Russian Military Pays Respects to Iran's General Soleiman Assassinated by the US

Jan 08, 2020 | www.anti-empire.com

The commander of the Russian Group of Forces in Syria led a delegation to Iran's Syria embassy mourning ceremony Yuri Lyamin 6 Jan 20 8 Jan 20 Politics 17382 8

  • 31.4k Shares
  • 31.4k Share
  • undefined Tweet
  • undefined Share
  • undefined Share

A military delegation from a group of Russian troops in Syria visited the Iranian embassy to pay tribute and express condolences to the Iranians in connection with the death of General Suleymani, commander of the Kods IRGC Iran, as a result of the American strike. Wreaths were laid from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and directly from our group of forces in Syria.

In the photo from the Iranian embassy as part of the delegation, the commander of the group of forces (forces) of the Armed forces of the Russian Federation in the Syrian Arab Republic, General Alexander Chayko.

Source: Yuri Lyamin

[Jan 08, 2020] For the public version of the CIA reasoning, David Petraeus discusses the situation in Foreign Policy

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Patroklos , Jan 6 2020 22:48 utc | 113

For the public version of the CIA reasoning, David Petraeus discusses the situation in Foreign Policy .

Patroklos , Jan 6 2020 23:19 utc | 121

Summary from David Petraeus (DP):

Foreign Policy (FP): What will Iran do to retaliate?

DP: Right now they are probably doing what anyone does in this situation: considering the menu of options. There could be actions in the gulf, in the Strait of Hormuz by proxies in the regional countries, and in other continents where the Quds Force have activities. There's a very considerable number of potential responses by Iran, and then there's any number of potential U.S. responses to those actions

Given the state of their economy, I think they have to be very leery, very concerned that that could actually result in the first real challenge to the regime certainly since the Iran-Iraq War.

FP: Will the Iraqi government kick the U.S. military out of Iraq?

DP: The prime minister has said that he would put forward legislation to do that, although I don't think that the majority of Iraqi leaders want to see that given that ISIS is still a significant threat. They are keenly aware that it was not the Iranian supported militias that defeated the Islamic State, it was U.S.-enabled Iraqi armed forces and special forces that really fought the decisive battles.

How credible is this line that Iran has a tottering economy and that the 'regime' is clinging to power by a thread and so therefore cannot risk the further instability of a war?

Jackrabbit , Jan 6 2020 23:21 utc | 123
Continuing from @116

Seymour Hirsh wrote about Israel, Saudi Arabia, and USA conspiracy against Iran and Syria in 2007: The Redirection .

Sasha , Jan 6 2020 23:35 utc | 130
@Posted by: WJ | Jan 6 2020 23:23 utc | 125

Well, David Petraeus does not seem the most reliable person in this world.
If you take into account that he supported all the lies of his admnistration to unlseashed Iraqi invasion and alleged WOT when what it was the remodelation of rge ME and looting of its resources. And I fear he made his fortune vand caree in Iraq...by looting and lying...

[Jan 08, 2020] Twitter vid of Orthodox service for Soleimani

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Jan 7 2020 0:32 utc | 138

Twitter vid of Orthodox service for Soleimani correlates his Mission with that Of Jesus's Mission. An amazing and truthful one minute thank you from the Christians of Syria for his efforts:

"'All what Qassem Soleimani did was stand up for Christians against ISIS and Al Qaeda'

"A mass was held in the evangelical church of Aleppo, Syria to honor the martyrdom of General Soleimani who had an essential role in the liberation battle of Aleppo against US-backed Jihadists."

Compared to Soleimani, Trump is the town drunk lying in the gutter awaiting the police van to take him to the drunk tank.

Several barflies have said it's beyond time for China and Russia to arise and collectively put a stop to this madness. As reported today, China will likely delay the implementation of the first phase of the Trade Deal and a high level delegation met with Iraq's president and council today to discuss arms and economic assistance. Russia's already involved with Iraq through the regional anti-terrorist command post in Baghdad. Putin's been very quiet; not even the usual notice of condolences sent to Iran was noted or published by the Kremlin. Tomorrow's Orthodox Christmas, so perhaps in Putin's message to Russia he'll say something further. But you can be sure that behind the scenes much is happening.

[Jan 08, 2020] Is Soleimani murder 'beginning of the end' of US imperialism

Jan 08, 2020 | off-guardian.org

...no coherent plan was behind the Trump administration's cold-blooded murder of Qassem Soleimani.

It was an act of pure stupid. A dumb 'miscalculation'. Another example of the ignorant hubris in the US State Department that almost brought them into direct conflict with Russia in February 2014, when they failed to comprehend the strategic and cultural significance of Crimea and tried to migrate the Kiev 'Maidan' coup to Sevastopol.

I can pretty much guarantee none of those who advised Trump to assassinate Qassem Suleimani saw this coming. Suleimani has been elevated in status to a martyr on the level of Hussein. https://t.co/xUl7Q5x4BG

-- Scott Ritter (@RealScottRitter) January 4, 2020

This one, while posing a less imminent risk of superpower confrontation, is potentially disastrous for US interests in the region, and risks monumental loss of life in any resultant conflict between Iranian and US military forces.

It seems many people are not yet grasping the seismic shifts going on, and are still thinking in terms of this being the prelude to another imperial regime-change operation like those in Iraq, Libya and the failed attempt in Syria.

It isn't. Not even slightly. It is a whole new and unknown situation, and where it ends is currently anyone's guess.

Threats from the ever bombastic fool Trump, like these towards Iran's culture

.targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020

and towards Iraq , might bolster the impression that the empire has the initiative and many cards to play, but does it?

What actually can it do against a military far more well-funded and well-supported than anything it has confronted in recent years? Especially now in a situation where almost the entire Shia Middle East has become united in wanting US forces out of the region.

Far from this being imperial business as usual, the Saker , often an insightful analyst, is predicting this crisis will result in nothing less than the end of the empire :

Folks, this is the beginning of the end for the Empire. Yes, I know, this sounds incredible, yet this is exactly what we are seeing happening before our eyes. The very best which the US can hope for now is a quick and complete withdrawal from the Middle-East.

This is pretty extreme, and I'm not entirely convinced he's correct here, but he shows his reasoning, and it's fairly compelling, and I urge you to read this linked article and others in his recent output for a point of view that goes beyond the less than adequate "bloody Americans doing it again" narrative we are getting from some sources.

Iran must retaliate for this outrage perpetrated against them. The US is compelled by its own rhetoric and self-perception as invincible to respond to this retaliation with disproportionate force.

Conflict of some kind seems inevitable, and, as the Saker sees it, this will be a conflict the US can't ultimately win:

So what next? A major war against Iran and against the entire "Shia crescent"? Not a good option either. Not only will the US lose, but it would lose both politically and militarily. Limited strikes? Not good either, since we know that Iran will retaliate massively. A behind-the-scenes major concession to appease Iran? Nope, ain't gonna happen either since if the Iranians let the murder of Soleimani go unpunished, then Hassan Nasrallah, Bashar al-Assad and even Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will be the next ones to be murdered. A massive air campaign? Most likely, and initially this will feel good (lots of flagwaving in the USA), but soon this will turn into a massive disaster.

Over at RT, in an article titled Iran holds all the cards in coming Middle East conflict with US – unless Trump is ready to drop a tactical NUKE , ex-US Marine intelligence officer, Scott Ritter offers a similar scenario. Like the Saker, he thinks, beyond the bluster and Trump's rather foolish willy-waving tweets, US military options are limited (our emphasis):

Trump's threat, however, rings hollow. First, his tweet constitutes de facto evidence of a war crime (Section 5.16.2 of the US Department of Defense Law of War Manual prohibits threats to destroy cultural objects for the express purpose of deterring enemy operations), and as such would likely not be implemented by US military commanders for whom niceties such as the law of war, which forbids the execution of an unlawful order, are serious business.

Of more relevance, however, is the fact that Trump has been down this road before, when he threatened massive military retaliation against Iran for shooting down an unarmed drone over the Strait of Hormuz last May. At that time, he was informed by his military commanders that the US lacked the military wherewithal to counter what was expected to be a full-spectrum response by Iran if the US were to attack targets inside Iran.

In short, Iran was able to inflict massive harm on US and allied targets in the Middle East region, and there was nothing the US could do to prevent this outcome.

Ritter thinks the recent announcement by Iran that it is committed to ending all restrictions on uranium enrichment might give the US a pretext to attack using the one clear advantage it has – nuclear weapons.

Trump has hinted that any future war with Iran would not be a drawn-out affair. And while the law of war might curtail his commanders from executing any retaliation that includes cultural sites, it does not prohibit the US from using a nuclear weapon against a known nuclear facility deemed to pose a threat to national security.
This is the worst-case scenario of any tit-for-tat retaliation between Iran and the US, and it is not as far-fetched as one might believe.

The Saker also considers it quite possible the US or Israel would resort to nuclear weapons, but thinks this also would be ultimately self-defeating:

US/Israeli nukes: yes, unlike Iran, they have nukes. But what they lack are good targets. Oh sure, then can (and will) strike at some symbolic, high-visibility, targets and they can nuke cities. But "can" does not mean that this is a smart thing to do. The truth is that Iran does not offer any good targets to hit with nukes so using nukes against Iran will only make the determination of Iranians (and they allies) go from "formidable" to "infinite". Not smart.

Whether or not we agree this is the beginning of the end of empire, a messy open-ended conflict seems highly probable as things currently stand. Corporate war profiteers might rub their hands at this, but if the chaos spreads will even they be able to reap real benefits? Will this be the cue for them to up sticks from the foundering Exceptional Nation and re-locate elsewhere in the unending quest for exploitation?

After all it can be argued the British Empire, like the Nazis, didn't die, but just had to move – somewhere a little further west. Maybe, if we're cynical, the same thing is about to happen again. Maybe China is about to inherit the earth with the help of some ex-pat neocons.

But that's speculation for another day.

Another perspective worth reading is that of the Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, whose open 'Memorandum for the President' is published over at Consortium News.

Signed by numerous distinguished intelligence professionals, including Philip Giraldi and Daniel Ellsberg, it urges the Trump admin to "avoid doubling down on catastrophe".

The drone assassination in Iraq of Iranian Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani evokes memory of the assassination of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in June 1914, which led to World War I. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was quick to warn of "severe revenge." That Iran will retaliate at a time and place of its choosing is a near certainty. And escalation into World War III is no longer just a remote possibility, particularly given the multitude of vulnerable targets offered by our large military footprint in the region and in nearby waters.

What your advisers may have avoided telling you is that Iran has not been isolated. Quite the contrary. One short week ago, for example, Iran launched its first joint naval exercises with Russia and China in the Gulf of Oman, in an unprecedented challenge to the U.S. in the region.

Interestingly the corporate media seem currently far from united, or even coherent, in their response to this latest crisis. Threaded through the usual knee jerk demonising of the monster du jour , are unusual elements of skepticism toward the pro-war narrative.

This, for example, on CNN yesterday, in a piece titled Skepticism mounts over evidence of 'imminent' threat that Trump says justified Soleimani killing (our emphasis)

Washington (CNN) – Top US national security officials

[Jan 08, 2020] The murder of Qassem Suleimani and assassination as state policy

Jan 04, 2020 | www.wsws.org

With its drone missile assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Suleimani and seven others at Baghdad's international airport in the early morning hours of Friday, the Trump administration has carried out a criminal act of state terrorism that has stunned the world.

Washington's cold-blooded murder of a general in the Iranian army and a man widely described as the second most powerful figure in Tehran is unquestionably both a war crime and a direct act of war against Iran.

President Donald Trump delivers remarks on Iran, at his Mar-a-Lago property, Friday, Jan. 3, 2020, in Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)

It may take some time before Iran responds to the killing. There is no question that Tehran will, in fact, react, especially in the face of public outrage over the murder of a figure who had a mass following.

But Iran will no doubt devote far more consideration to its response than Washington gave to its criminal action. The country's National Security Council met on Friday, and in all probability Iranian officials will discuss the murder of Suleimani with Moscow, Beijing and, more likely than not, Europe. US officials and the corporate media seem almost to desire immediate retaliation for their own purposes, but the Iranians have many options.

It is a political fact that the killing of Soleimani has effectively initiated a war by the US against Iran, a country four times the size and with more than double the population of Iraq. Such a war would threaten to spread armed conflict across the region and, indeed, the entire world, with incalculable consequences.

This crime, driven by increasing US desperation over its position in the Middle East and the mounting internal crisis within the Trump administration, is staggering in its degree of recklessness and lawlessness. The resort by the United States to such a heinous act testifies to the fact that it has failed to achieve any of the strategic objectives that led to the invasions of Iraq in 1991 and 2003.

The murder of Soleimani is the culmination of a protracted process of the criminalization of American foreign policy. "Targeted killings," a term introduced into the lexicon of world imperialist politics by Israel, have been employed by US imperialism against alleged terrorists in countries stretching from South Asia to the Middle East and Africa over the course of nearly two decades. It is unprecedented, however, for the president of the United States to order and then publicly claim responsibility for the killing of a senior government official who was legally and openly visiting a third country.

Soleimani, the leader of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps's Quds Force, was not an Osama bin Laden or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. On the contrary, he played a pivotal role in defeating the forces of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which those two figures, both assassinated by US special operations death squads, had led.

Hundreds of thousands of people filled the streets of Tehran and cities across Iran on Friday in mourning and protest over the slaying of Soleimani, who was seen as an icon of Iranian nationalism and resistance to US imperialism's decades-long attacks on the country.

In Iraq, the US drone strike has been roundly condemned as a violation of the country's sovereignty and international law. Its victims included not only Soleimani, but also Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the second-in-command of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), the 100,000-strong coalition of Shia militias that is considered part of the country's armed forces.

This response makes a mockery of the ignorant and thuggish statements of Trump and his advisors. The US president, speaking from his vacation resort of Mar-a-Lago in Florida, boasted of having "killed the number one terrorist anywhere in the world." He went on to claim that "Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel, but we caught him in the act and terminated him."

Trump charged that the Iranian general "has been perpetrating acts of terror to destabilize the Middle East for the last 20 years." He declared, "What the United States did yesterday should have been done long ago. A lot of lives would have been saved."

Who does the US president think he is fooling with his Mafia rhetoric? The last 20 years have seen the Middle East devastated by a series of US imperialist interventions. The illegal 2003 US invasion of Iraq, based on lies about "weapons of mass destruction," claimed the lives of over a million people, while decimating what had been among the most advanced societies in the Arab world. Together with Washington's eighteen-year-long war in Afghanistan and the regime-change wars launched in Libya and Syria, US imperialism has unleashed a regionwide crisis that has killed millions and forced tens of millions to flee their homes.

Soleimani, whom Trump accused of having "made the death of innocent people his sick passion" -- an apt self-description -- rose to the leadership of the Iranian military during the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq war, which claimed the lives of some one million Iranians.

He became known to the US military, intelligence and diplomatic apparatus in 2001, when Tehran provided intelligence to Washington to assist its invasion of Afghanistan. Over the course of the US war in Iraq, American officials conducted back-channel negotiations with Soleimani even as his Quds Force was providing aid to Shia militias resisting the American occupation. He played a central role in picking the Iraqi Shia politicians who led the regimes installed under the US occupation.

Soleimani went on to play a leading role in organizing the defeat of the Al Qaeda-linked militias that were unleashed against the government of Bashar al-Assad in the CIA-orchestrated war for regime change in Syria, and subsequently in rallying Shia militias to defeat Al Qaeda's offspring, ISIS, after it had overrun roughly one-third of Iraq, routing US-trained security forces.

To describe such a figure as a "terrorist" only means that any state official or military commander anywhere in the world who cuts across the interests of Washington and US banks and corporations can be labeled as such and targeted for murder. The attack at the Baghdad airport signals that the rules of engagement have changed. All "red lines" have been crossed. In the future, the target could be a general or even president in Russia, China or, indeed, any of the capitals of Washington's erstwhile allies.

After this publicly celebrated assassination -- openly claimed by a US president without even a pretense of deniability -- is there any head of state or prominent military figure in the world who can meet with US officials without having in the back of his mind that if things do not go well, he too might be murdered?

The killing of General Soleimani in Baghdad was compared by Die Zeit , one of Germany's newspapers of record, to the 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. As in the prior case, it stated, "the whole world is holding its breath and anxiously waiting for what may come."

This criminal act carries with it the threat of both world war and dictatorial repression within the borders of the United States. There is no reason to believe that a government that has adopted murder as an instrument of foreign policy will refrain from using the same methods against its domestic enemies.

The assassination of Soleimani is an expression of the extreme crisis and desperation of a capitalist system that threatens to hurl humanity into the abyss.

The answer to this danger lies in the international growth of the class struggle. The beginning of the third decade of the 21st century is witnessing not only the drive to war, but also the upsurge of millions of workers across the Middle East, Europe, the United States, Latin America, Asia and every corner of the globe in struggle against social inequality and the attacks on basic social and democratic rights.

This is the only social force upon which a genuine opposition to the war drive of the capitalist ruling elites can be based. The necessary response to the imperialist war danger is to unify these growing struggles of the working class through the construction of a united, international and socialist antiwar movement.

Bill Van Auken

[Jan 08, 2020] To the silly trolls on this thread, no Iran is not the number one terrorist supporter in the world. That would be Saudi Arabia, closely followed by Qatar.

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

nemo , Jan 6 2020 22:43 utc | 109

To the silly trolls on this thread, no Iran is not the number one terrorist supporter in the world. That would be Saudi Arabia, closely followed by Qatar. You know them don't you? Murica's main regional allies. The same countries that have armed and funded terrorists to over throw the Syrian state. The same terrorist groups given support by the murican intelligence community and propaganda outlets like the White helmets. The US is not a knight in shining armor. It is a vulgar, grasping, dying empire that will use any means at it's disposal to harm perceived rivals. The US establishment has a long history of using terrorists to further its goals, like in Afghanistan during the 80's, or in Chechnya...and of course in Syria. The list is not exhaustive... You know, in fact, Iran should look to execute the cult leader of the Mek. There is another bizzaro terrorist outfit beloved by fat ass Pompeo. That would be an outstanding shatter point that the US couldn't even respond to. Let him "suicide" himself like Le Mesurier...lol!

[Jan 08, 2020] Disruptive Assassinations Killing Qassem Soleimani – OffGuardian

Jan 08, 2020 | off-guardian.org

Search Jan 7, 2020 64 Disruptive Assassinations: Killing Qassem Soleimani Editor Binoy Kampmark

On the surface, it made not one iota of sense. The murder of a foreign military leader on his way from Baghdad airport, his diplomatic status assured by the local authorities, evidently deemed a target of irresistible richness.

"General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region."

The words from the Pentagon seemed to resemble the resentment shown by the Romans to barbarian chiefs who dared resist them.

"This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world."

The killing of Major General Qassem Soleimani of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force in a drone strike on January 3, along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iraq's Popular Mobilisation Forces, or Hash a-Shaabi and PMF Kata'ib Hezbollah, was packaged and ribboned as a matter of military necessity.

Soleimani had been, according to the Pentagon, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more." He was behind a series of attacks on coalition forces in Iraq over the last several months including attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad on December 31, 2019.

US President Donald J. Trump had thrown caution to the wind, suggesting in a briefing at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida that an option on the table would be the killing of Soleimani. The Iran hawks seemed to have his ear; others were caught off guard, preferring to keep matters more general.

A common thread running through the narrative was the certainty – unshakable, it would seem – that Soleimani was on the warpath against US interests.

The increased danger posed by the Quds Force commander were merely presumed, and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was happy to do so despite not being able to "talk too much about the nature of the threats. But the American people should know that the President's decision to remove Soleimani from the battlefield saved American lives."

(Pompeo goes on to insist that there was "active plotting" to "take big action" that would have endangered "hundreds of lives".) How broadly one defines the battlefield becomes relevant; the US imperium has decided that diplomatic niceties and sovereign protections for officials do not count. The battlefield is everywhere.

Trump was far from convincing in reiterating the arguments , insisting that the general had been responsible for killing or badly wounding "thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill may more but got caught!" From his resort in Palm Beach, Florida, he claimed that the attack was executed "to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war."

Whatever the views of US officialdom, seismic shifts in the Middle East were being promised.

Iraq's prime minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi demanded an emergency parliamentary session with the aim of taking "legislative steps and necessary provisions to safeguard Iraq's dignity, security and sovereignty."

On Sunday, the parliament did something which, ironically enough, has been a cornerstone of Iran's policy in Iraq: the removal of US troops from Iraq. While being a non-binding resolution, the parliament urged the prime minister to rescind the invitation extended to US forces when it was attacked by Islamic State forces in 2014.

Iranian Armed Forces' spokesman Brigadier General Abolfazl Shekarchi promised setting "up a plan, patiently, to respond to this terrorist act in a crushing and powerful manner" .

He also reiterated that it was the US, not Iran, who had "occupied Iraq in violation of all international rules and regulations without any coordination with the Iraqi government and without the Iraqi people's demands."

While the appeals to international law can seem feeble, the observation from the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Agnès Callamard was hard to impeach.

"The targeted killings of Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Al-Humandis are most [likely] unlawful and violate international human rights law: Outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal."

To be deemed lawful , such targeting with lethal effect "can only be used where strictly necessary to protect against an imminent threat to life."

The balance sheet for this action, then, is not a good one.

As US presidential candidate Marianne Williamson observed with crisp accuracy, the attack on Soleimani and his companions had little to do with "whether [he] was a 'good man' any more than it was about whether Saddam was a good man. It's about smart versus stupid use of military power."

An intelligent use of military power is not in the offing, with Trump promising the targeting of 52 Iranian sites, each one representing an American hostage held in Iran at the US embassy in Tehran during November 1979.

But Twitter sprays and promises of this sort tend to lack substance and Trump is again proving to be the master of disruptive distraction rather than tangible action.

Even Israeli outlets such as Haaretz , while doffing the cap off to the idea of Soleimani as a shadowy, dangerous figure behind the slayings of Israelis "in terrorist attacks, and untold thousands of Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese and others dispatched by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Quds Force," showed concern.

Daniel B. Shapiro even went so far as to express admiration for the operation, an "impressive" feat of logistics but found nothing of an evident strategy. Trump's own security advisers were caught off guard. A certain bloodlust had taken hold.

Within Congress, the scent of a strategy did not seem to come through, despite some ghoulish cheers from the GOP. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and chairman of the House Intelligence panel, failed to notice "some broad strategy at work".

Michigan Democrat Rep. Elissa Slotkin, previously acting assistant secretary of defence and CIA analyst, explained why neither Democratic or Republic presidents had ventured onto the treacherous terrain of targeting Soleimani. "Was the strike worth the likely retaliation, and the potential to pull us into protracted conflict?" The answer was always a resounding no.

By killing such a high ranking official of a sovereign power, the US has signalled a redrawing of accepted, and acceptable lines of engagement.

The justification was spurious, suggesting that assassination and killing in combat are not distinctions with any difference. But perhaps most significantly of all, the killing of Soleimani will usher in the very same attacks that this decision was meant to avert even as it assists Iranian policy in expelling any vestige of US influence in Iraq and the broader Middle East.

It also signalled to Iran that abiding by agreements of any sort, including the international nuclear deal of 2015 which the US has repudiated, will be paper tigers worth shredding without sorrow.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected] Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest WhatsApp vKontakte Email Filed under: empire watch , Iran , latest , United States Tagged with: Binoy Kampmark , Donald trump , Iran , Iraq , Israel , Middle East , Qassem Soleimani , USA can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

Connect with Connect with Subscribe newest oldest most voted Notify of

wardropper ,

Today's Washington doesn't even have a grasp of common English usage:
"This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans"
You don't deter plans. You deter people from making plans.
A deterrent is something which persuades people not to do something.
I know that "corporations are people today", but only in the sense that they are run by a bunch of people, so you can't deter a corporation either, although you can deter its CEO from doing something.
It's always a question of deterring people from , and not deterring things.
Washington should know better, but I don't know why I'm even addressing this issue concerning a rabid US government of ignorant basket cases. It must be because I'm a teacher, and some sort of alternative to chaos seems necessary

Brian Steere ,

"General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region."

Allegedly. But with no substance provided. Less than with Iraqi WMDs.
But this article takes Pompeo's bait and runs with it.

I have read that Soleimani was invited to a meeting seeking resolution of hostilities in Yemen – and perhaps other things. If that is true it could be that the war is being protected under cover story of averting war. That would make sense in the backwards mind of today's narrative identity. (Doublethink).

If that invitation was set up with the Trump administration – then that casts a darker light on the USa's willingness to openly deceive and openly assassinate – with apparent impunity. But there are always consequences.

However, Once such an act is executed, it would be very rare to not receive open support from the US establishment – whatever any private misgivings. And so it leaves me wondering what and who is involved in oversight and accountability. I don't have a sense of a real government – so much as a captured and corrupted or neutered shell of a government. Perhaps the act was a fait accompli by a coterie who wanted to provoke open war – and are willing to risk everything on getting one.

The 'globalist' idea uses the US as it uses everything. Does it 'use' Israel – and the International Jewish lobby? Or vice verse? Israeli policy is typical in pre-emptive de-personing and execution – and this pattern is spreading through the body politic

I don't know – but a lot of apparently 'national' interest is anything but – excepting for corporate cartels of mutual interest that effectively call the shots in a progressive (sic) deconstruction of the World order to an idea of global possession and control.

Insider dealing applies also to politics. We are not privy to decisions made that are then 'delivered' by all kinds of manipulative appearance.

When Trump threatened disproportionate retaliation – linking to the Iran hostage situation – the Iranians could counter with disclosure as the the weapons deal struck by Reagan camp to delay release until after Carter left office – and lost it in no small part to the failure to get the hostages home.

But it just isn't done. Governing politicians as a rule do not bring out such dirty washing.
People might lose faith in them

Charlotte Russe ,

Washington denied Zarif a visa to attend a scheduled meeting of the United Nations Security
Council and Mike Pompeo mocked Zarif's statement that Suleimani had gone to Baghdad on a diplomatic mission: "Is there any history that would indicate it was remotely possible that this kind gentleman, this diplomat of great order, Qassem Suleimani, traveled to Baghdad for the idea of conducting a peace mission?" he said."

Pompeo, the United States Secretary of State, conducts foreign policy by humiliating, censoring, and promoting lies about sovereign leaders. What's the purpose of the United Nations if leaders of nation-states are prohibited from speaking and stating their case. If the public is only permitted to hear "one" side of an issue, isn't that the definition of propaganda. Of course, Pompeo would deny that Suleimani was on a diplomatic mission, inasmuch, to admit otherwise would reveal the assassination of Suleimani as an especially despicable war crime.

It's unfortunate, that if a nation-state challenges US imperialism they're characterized as not a sovereign state but as a terrorist regime. And if military leaders from these nation-states ensure the stability of their country by destroying ISIS and Al-Qaeda these generals are deemed terrorists. We live in a world where reality has been turned on its end, and is upside down.

So far, the US is extremely lucky that Iran's retaliation for the murder of Sulaimani has been limited. Javad Zarif, Iran's Foreign Minister stated:
"Iran took and concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched Tuesday. We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression."

Now the ball is the Buffoon's court of neoconservative screwballs–let's see if these warmongers can refrain from escalating this crisis, or will they continue to lead the US down the road to another military debacle. One that makes the Iraq War look like child's play.

Below is a link citing the anti-war demonstrations organized and held by Codepink On Thursday, January 9, at 5 p.m.
https://www.codepink.org/01

Tallis Marsh ,

Some people have touched on this subject in other articles/website forums, but can I ask a 'controversial' question? How many dual-passport military bigwigs occupy intelligence/foreign-policy/military positions in the USA/UK/France etc as well as Iran, Iraq etc? Is it anti-semitic now to ask these questions? It is okay to ask about 'Russians' so-called infiltration and subversion but not Israelis?

People here may have heard of Victor Ostrovsky and his books, By Way of Deception and The Other side of Deception – where he details on many aspects of subversion, co-option etc e.g.how the sayanim network that aids mossad infiltrates top powerful positions in Embassies, intelligence agencies, military policy-maker dept and even medicine/charity orgs etc?

David Macilwain ,

I think we may just be playing the Americans' game by discussing the legality of the assassination of the hero of the Resistance; it's like discussing whether water-boarding is a legitimate interrogation technique on a six-year old girl.
The point of the killing was nothing to do with what Soleimani had done or was about to do, but evidently the one thing that Israel and the US knew Iran must respond to, so as to provide a pretext for an attack on Iranian territory – and of course it now has launched such an attack, before another state does it for them.
We might imagine that the US and other forces illegally occupying bases in Iraq, and everywhere else in the region, will now feel unable to operate without threat of attack from multiple unidentified sources. The mere fact that the missiles actually hit the Ain al Asaad base could be a wake-up call, particularly if there is evidence US forces were hit.

But of course the killing of Soleimani was neither justifiable nor legitimate, so Iran's designation of the US army as a terrorist organisation is, and it is now open season.

https://resistancenews.org/2020/01/08/iran-strikes-us-bases-in-iraq-to-avenge-martyr-soleimani-threatens-to-target-israel-and-us-bases-in-the-region-al-manar/

nottheonly1 ,

Leaving religious, organized delusions aside – to which I count all major religions, especially Hypochristianity – Iran has excelled in reason and resolve.

Do not fuck around with Iran any longer.

Donald Trump and his sub-cogniscent advisers on the other hand need to go and fuck themselves. Using the same methods on each other they have used to destroy a free and independent Iran since the great People of Iran kicked the fascist western regimes out of Iran.

Like Lybia, Syria, Bolivia and Venezuela, the government is FOR the People, not against them. Anybody, or anyone with better ideas than those Iran has utilized since 1979? Anybody? I thought so. Because there are assholes – among them corrupt, rich Iranian maggots that prefer the Trump model – who complain about how the revolution took away the freedom to exploit and to corrupt, while it is them that have Julain Assange locked away like a Chimpanzee in a Nazi laboratory.

No, what happened – oddly though in conjunction with a prophecy by Edgar Casey – is, that the whole sane world can see that America has become a drug addicted cheap whore who will do anything to get her fix.

America needs mandatory psychoanalysis and not the reciting of the pledge of allegiance. In Teheran, millions – not one, or two, like in a 'Love Parade' – no, five million real Iranian People filling the streets. What a shame in the face of the fucking Trump regime assholes. Fuck them all. Impeach the entire heap of shit and bring them before a court of justice. In Teheran.

Iran – as the descendant of one of the greatest Empires ever to rule the region – proved itself worthy of its great history. It shlashed the Gordian knot today. The terroristic murder of Lt. General Soleimani has indeed changed everything. Everything. It is now out in the open that ISIS/Daesh was created and funded by wetsern fascist regimes under the lead of the U.S., Israel, SA et al. The people that killed innocent civilians, cut heads off before cameras, putting women and children in cages, destroying important cultural sites in the region were and still are paid for by the U.S. tax payer and that makes every U.S. et al citizen an accomplice in the 'WAR OF TERROR'. You paid for the murder of the one person that defeated the US TERROR GROUPS. He helped Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to fend off the terroristic assault of the fascist western regimes.

ISIS'R'US.

So, leaving the general religious thing aside, Iran has torn down the wall of hypocrisy the west is surrounding itself with. Alliances will now be made and others will crumble and vanish. Saudi Arabia is looking at its last days. The Palestiniancaust and genocide in Yemen will not continue.

Iran has shown that it is capable of defending the truth against the fascist western regimes.

To those who do not want to stop killing innocent women, mothers and children, the elderly and defenseless:

Cease and desist your murderous activities in order not to get killed.

Long live Iran.

Bless its People who have shown the pathetic public in the west what UNITY really means. (Not to discredit the work of countless groups to change things to the better.) But the equivalent would be 300 million Americans weeping in the streets over the loss of their most beloved General.

Go Humanity! Now or never!

Frank Speaker ,

You touch on some valid points, but you ignore there's a huge difference between most Iranians and the fundamentalist nutjobs who rule over them. Similar to the USA in many respects.

andyoldlabour ,

The thing is Frank, I know only too well (from my relatives in Iran) how a lot of ordinary Iranians still feel about the Shah, about UK/US/French imperialism. They and Iraq have been attacked quite a few times over the past hundred years by US/UK (along with Russia). There is still raw evixdence of chemical weapons victims from the Iran Iraq war.
They area very proud people, 98% Shia, and will come together as one if attacked, just as they did back in 1980, when Saddam Hussein backed by the USA attacked them.

nottheonly1 ,

While I am certainly not a friend of any organized religion, to call them 'fundamental nutjobs' gives away the brainwashing program that has achieved this result.

Pence, Pompeo et evangelical al are the real 'fundamental nutjobs'. They kill Muslims by the thousands. And have no regard at all for anybody that does not match their christojudeo-fascist world view.

TFS ,

SpartUSA and its friends in low places, Saudi Arabia, Israel and its Western Allies love giving names to things when they 'Export Democracy ' around the World, like Operation Enduring Freedom.

Cannot the alternative Blogosphere come up with a similar banner as a push back to the Rogue State of SpartUSA?

How About:

1. Operation Jog On!

Harry Stotle ,

One of the avenues Iran could pursue is the legality of the assassination.

The likes of Agnes Callamard (UN rapporteur on extra judicial killings) says "activate Article 99 of the U.N. charter and establish an impartial inquiry into [the] lawfulness of Soleimani's killing and events leading up to it."
https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/UN-Expert-Demands-Official-Investigation-on-Soleimani-Killing-20200107-0008.html?fbclid=IwAR2jw0hmHo8-d3WXvWOQIFTMZusqWtpd0p4Iu4biWqz-kiIQs-MYdIgFEEk

It is high time the question of whether or not the US is above international law was finally confronted.
The extra-judicial murder of General Soleimani brings this issue to the heart of international affairs: if there is no legal redress for Iran then it more or less makes a mockery of the idea that justice is possible in a world dominated by terror states.

andyoldlabour ,

Whilst I agree with the core message of your post Harry, I would have to draw the conclusion that the US has put themselves above and out of the reach of international law.
Drone attacks and civilian deaths all over the World, 80 years of coups, assassinations and wars, shooting down civilian airliners (USS Vincennes and IranAir flight 655), torture.
Then you only have to Google "Hague Invasion Act"

https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law

Frank Speaker ,

Andy you're right, but it now needs to be legally formally addressed at the UN and other courts every time the US violates international law. Time and again. Over years it might make an impact, at least to isolate the them.

andyoldlabour ,

Frank, unfortunately I believe that the UN is merely a New York based vassal of the US. How many sanctions have ever been placed on the US or it's little friend Israel for their obvious war crimes?
I have been saying for many years that the HQ of the UN should not be in the US.

BigB ,

It's a war crime, Harry! I notice Binoy, the UN Rapporteur Agnes Callamard, and you refrain from calling it out. Pre-crime violates every judicial principle known. There has to be a crime for a verdict – let alone an execution. This is the enactment of "Minority Report" Phildickian criminal injustice thinking.

Pre-emptive Justice has been American foreign policy since at least Bush the Lesser Evil. Along with R2P – which defecated on Westphalia Peace Treaty principles – this violated the London Agreement (Nuremberg Principles) which are supposedly the foundation of modern IHL.

So, let's take our pick for pre-emptive murder war crime, crime against the peace, or crime against humanity?

So Trump gets a rap from the Rapporteur: where do we try this most obvious of crimes? The ICC, ICJ, or a kangaroo UN Tribunal where precisely no American will ever show up because they are legally exempt and immune. Agnes' rap is not worth waiting for, I'm sorry to say. The UN is complicit and as toothless as the old imperialist League of Nations that carved up the Middle East to cause these problems.

On the rare occasion the UN has produced a truthful report – ie calling Israel an apartheid state – that report has been recalled and shredded before you can say "Try Netanyahu!". You know the score.

Iran has exacted the only Justice it can in this lawless Wild West Justice of the Gun international anti-diplomacy "free"market-power world. I'd love to share your sentiment, but that world was eclipsed when America turned its back on the ICC circa Nicaragua. If Agnes can pull it back, I'm with her all the way. Also, I'm not holding my breath!

Everything the Nazis did is now neoliberal foreign policy.

Guy ,

I hear you and I agree with the gist of what you are saying but let me suggest that even though the UN is toothless and the rogue US establishment continue with their cowboy rampage over any nation that does not kneel to it's demands ,it is especially important that the criminal actions of this out of control regime be documented for historical purposes . Lets face it it ,right now the United Nations is the best and only body of an international politic that we have to do so. This is what they are so scared about .The truth .

TFS ,

I see two options:

1. Make the relevant International Organisations do their job, although the UN, OPCW, ICC and the like are soemwhat neutered. And if not, stop paying for them, they are a PR exercise.

2. Act like a Democracy, where the people hold those in account to power. Boycott SpartUSA would be my choice.

As a Brexiteer, I partially understand why people jumped ship from Jeremy Corbyn, but Brexit was never about Brexit, it was about killing Jeremy. The EU feared Jeremy more than anything, and when we lost him, the country lost a counter to the Imperial machinations of SpartUSA, the EU and NATO and their friends in low places in the MiddleEast.

I would suggest a third option, Operation Patriot Resolve.

In it, the alternative blogosphere works with ex members of the UK Armed Forces, and forces the UK government to release all the supporting evidence of Article V (I think), which supported the invasion of Afghanistan. We can ask Lord Robertson for his substantial input into the evidence he held. It must be voluminous, given the Offical Report into 9/11; Offical Conspiracy Theory is so highly regarded.

TFS ,

There is a term for different legal treatment based on status, called Affluenza.

Maybe a new term needs to be used for the West selective interpreations of various laws. Maybe Rogue State/Regime will suffice.

noseBag ,

Harry, whilst wholeheartedly agreeing with your sentiment, I fear the definition of being under threat of 'imminent' attack is so broad and vague that the Yanks will be able to claim legality. However, The Saker makes for some very interesting reading regarding likely/possible fallout from this action, none of which looks good for the Yanks, or for that matter, anyone allied to them.

Harry Stotle ,

In answer to my own question, I think Iran has about as much chance of receiving justice for the murder of Qasem Soleimani as Julian Assange does for revealing war crimes.

In answer to BB – apologies for not being clear – yes, I think this is a war crime.
I was just alluding to the fact terror inflicted by Britain and the USA is never defined as such (in a court of law) – quite the opposite, many of the architects, such as Tony Blair grew rich on the back of the misery they authored.

This profound legal failing is one of the reasons the neocons keep getting away with it.
In theory Iran has a strong case, one that has been already backed up by the UN rapporteur on extra-judicial killings, but it will be hard for them to escape a sense of futility that pervades any attempt to investigate the machinations of the US deep state.

For example, and as most of us on Off-G already know, the American authorities have steadfastly refused to properly investigate what happened on 9/11, presumably because a meaningful investigation would reveal a long list of uncomfortable truths?

While in Britain we had the long-winded and expensive charade of Chilcot – many knew from the outset that it was a waste of time and money, and that no actor would have be held to account for the bloodbath that ensued in Iraq, even though the whole thing was built on a pack of lies and led to the mysterious death of Britains foremost weapons inspector.

GEOFF ,

And these dumbfucks in this country can't wait to be part of the evil empire, I would never knowingly buy anything from warmongering evil America, or Israel, I see hairy arse Johnson is making it illegal for councils to boycott the other evil country, Israel , I only wish I was younger , I would get out of this shithole tomorrow.

Francis Lee ,

The real dumbfucks are the Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Romanians, Estonians who are pro-US and EU fanatics. Oh and I forgot about another neoliberal EU basket case, Sweden. The US calls the shots in the EU, primarily through corralling in the Petainist riff-raff into NATO.

Dungroanin ,

And by the way ss we move into a hot war where exactly is our LauraKoftheCIA?
Not a peep since her splurge on 19th December topped of with:

'Right then twitter, that's it from me til next year – Happy Christmas one and all see you on the other side (follow
@BBCPolitics
and
@BBCNews
if you want to keep up, or sit on your sofa and eat Quality Street and come back in 2020)
Laura Kuenssberg
·
19 Dec 2019
Hard time of year for a lot of folks. Suicide Hotline 116 123 (Samaritans) A simple copy and paste might save someone's life.

Would 3 Twitter friends please copy this text and post under their own name? Pass it on

Laura Kuenssberg
·19 Dec 2019
-- -- -- -
My guess is at the same site as bozo as they were briefed on the next phase.
Their role for the Pathocracy and getting their stories rehearsed – I expect her to move into Downing Street as the official press officer!
Presumably they will have been getting their inoculation flu jab which has just been unleashed as zillions of chinese take to the air for their new year intermingling with the zillions of westerners sun seeking crisscrossing the planet.

This world war will not be fought with the outdated nuclear weapons – they have better plans to get rid of us pesky revolters, and shiny multicoloured tellytubby suits as demo'd in Salisbury to clear away the dead and take all our possessions.

How long before the internet shutdown?

Dungroanin ,

For these dumb yankee doodle yahoos and Brit donkeys who still don't understand the significance – imagine if General Washington had been assassinated by King George for having won in the revolution, how would the proto yanks have taken that then and still now 200 years later.

Also how great was the irani General?
– Off-G might want to publish this photo of Soleimani having a walkabout amongs US troops and tanks
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/01/06/censored-photo-shocker-general-soleimani-with-american-troops-in-iraq/

US can't claim they couldn't have got to him without using drones.
.
A Ukrainian Boeing Jet appears to have dropped out of the sky on fire after leaving Tehran
.
A new flu type seems to have kicked off in China just as zillions are traveling for newyear.
-- --

As a large percentage of middleclass westerners travel to sunny paradises of SE Asia and Caribbean at this time of year they may not be traveling back!

TFS ,

People need to be hit the general public with the OPCW chemical evidence whilst this is playing out as another example of the West lying to bomb another soveriegn country, and make sure people know that the impartiality of the OPCW and the UN has been neutered.

Of course, the next stage, a step on from awareness is to hit SpartUSA where it hurts them the most. They are kinda of attached to The Benjamins, and are fond of Sanctions, ask Madeliene Albright.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iFYaeoE3n4

Boycott SpartUSA

Tutisicecream ,

The people of Amerika need to remember that when they vote in the up-and-coming Presidential election they are voting for democracy! Not the kind of democracy that other countries have, such as Iraq who just voted for Amerika to leave their country. But the kind of democracy that has to be created by force. The type of none representative democracy which furthers economic exploitation. It comes as no surprise that Amerika has allies in waiting otherwise known as vassals. Just ask the Eaton Mess and his Galfriend – as Old Blighty soon to be renamed Cor-Blimey is about to be forced to nationalise the railways (shurely a socialist concept ed?). Also ask Macron as a national strike grips France. "No", you will hear the media shills shrill, "It's the international rules based democratic order".

MichaelK ,

I heard a journalist stating with some 'authority' that the US attack couldn't be defined as 'terrorism', because it was carried out by a democratic state. Apparently, the actions and leaders of 'democratic states' cannot be guilty of carrying out 'terrorism.'

Normally, after 'real terrorist' attacks occur, that is, violence directed against us and our interests and allies, if members of the public raise their fists and express joy and enthusiastic support for the 'evil terrorists', such feelings and utterances land them in extremly hot water with the authorities as vocal support for terrorist outrages is illegal and can easily lead to them being prosecuted under anti-terrorism legislation.

But things are different when 'we' are the ones using 'terrorism' against our enemies, then, suddenly, the laws are applied, or not applied, in a radicaly different way.

Dungroanin ,

Iran is a democratic state as much as any.

We have seen how our democracy is a sham with the postal vote rigging of the election and the referendum.

It stopped Corbyn by direct self admitted foreign government gauntlet and is delivering the hard brexit that ONLY benefits the ancient City and it's masters.

They are on the retreat and like the confederacy they are burning Atlanta

David Macilwain ,

While this is certainly true, it's difficult to think of a case where forces allied to the Resistance have actually been responsible for a terrorist attack. One might need to return to the time of the Palestinian Intifada, where suicide bombers certainly terrorised Israelis – even for a just cause. Any suggestions? Not only does the "war on terror" appear to be contrived and concocted, but its evident acts seem always to be false flags, and always serving the interests of those that the attacks are supposed to be against.

Guy ,

War on terror is an oxymoron. War is terror David as I am sure you already know . Leave it to the CIA and or neocons to come up with such a stupid slogan .
Cheers.

Guy ,

The Western media pundits are using mental contortions to rationalize the impossible and looking extremely foolish for doing so.It's kind of like digging your own grave .

richard le sarc ,

An awful lot of Judeofascists and other Zionist and Talmudic psychopaths seem very happy about this cowardly murder. But they are, after all, the world champions of cowardly murders of any who dare 'get in our way'. It is a religious observance, a mitzvah, after all.

George Mc ,

"Judeofascists"? Surely "Zionazis" is more appropriate?

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

Macroeconomic decoupling is occurring and Trump's gambit for irrational war management via threats & intimidation on an international/geopolitical level is not only an outright act of war but it is testament to the desperation that Trump finds himself in pre-election. Trump has already indicated that he will do anything to keep the DOW inflated irrationally at ever increasing nosebleed levels he can push it to even if it means meddling in Federal Reserve independence and undermining confidence in the central bank authority.

Trump is a one man central banking Military Industrial Complex war machine set on autopilot without vision outside of controlling everything from the interest rate benchmark set by central banks to the G7 trade deals and Russian Federation gas deals, and everything in between.

Trump has to be the center of attention every single day of the week & twice on Sundays. He twitterbombed Greta the climate teen to appropriate her limelight as the Davos elite rolled her out onstage.

Trump bombed strategically for the presidential plaudits that never materialized because he leapt to an erroneous conclusion & misperceived that everyone else in the world is not viewing it from an oval office desk like he is. Immediately following the outrage the rationalizations came forth from the White House that their target was for the good of the nation when in fact everyone knows it was for Trump's impression management.

Trump likely made the decision unilaterally and the world is just not being made aware of that. Fortunately, the Democrats see his departure from protocol as a war crime also. Trump is not experienced enough to stay the course any longer given that he must have acted unilaterally to cause the bombing assassination without due diligence from his advisers taking place. When the Democrats press the issue with Congress it will become an issue that Trump used the state to murder for purposes of leveraged deal making.

MOU

Francis Lee ,

"Trump is a one man central banking Military Industrial Complex war machine set on autopilot."

Pretty good! I like it.

Martin Usher ,

Its interesting to speculate about why these people were murdered. Pompero's explanations have a distinct yellowcake feel to them -- "We know what we're doing, trust us" sort of thing. The Administration has zero credibility except among the faithful here in the US. I suspect the real reason could be a combination of two factors. One is that whenever there's any danger of peace breaking out in the Middle East it gets spoiled and invariably there something or someone Israeli at the bottom of it. The leaders killed were particularly dangerous precisely because they're not hot heads, they develop policies in a rational manner and are instrumental in keeping wayward elements under control. This is the kind of ME leader that is feared by Israel -- they need a disorganized rabble without the gates (one that's preferably fighting among itself) so that they can keep their internal politics under control. The other factor is Trump is susceptible to anything that appeals to his vanity, especially if its one-up against Obama. There's already been the claim that this was a proper response, unlike Benghazi. (..and apparently ISIS is an Obama creation .) So I could see a situation where a back channel suggestion is whispered into an ear, orders are given, people are killed and we have to deal with the consequences.

I just hope that the Isranians and Iraqis are sophisticated enough to provide a measured response. I thought the Iraqi lawmakers' response was perfect -- the US has breached the terms of the agreement by which its supposed to be in that country so it should leave. (Trump's response is more typical of his responses -- bluster about sanctions and threaten the Iraqis with a bill for an airbase.)

lundiel ,

Strictly speaking, ISIS is a CIA creation under the Obama administration. I draw your attention to the shiploads of Libyan weapons delivered to international jihadists in Syria by way of Turkey. Along with John McCain's close association with Prince Bandar of KSA (Before he was chopped-up because Saudi finance became common knowledge and the beast got out of control). It's interesting to note that Obama, a democrat, used McCain, a neocon hawk as his middle east special envoy. Not that Trump has changed much, he can't, he's not in control.

Antonym ,

Correction: Strictly speaking, ISIS was a CIA creation under their Obama fig leaf

Guy ,

You gotta hand it to Trump for coming up with such stupid shit as ,we will not leave until you pay us for the costs of building a base in your country. LOL I almost busted a gut laughing at the stupidity of the guy saying this .
Consider that I break into your house and make a mess of things , help myself to the food in the fridge , not to mention your wife and daughters if I took a liking to them , leave all the dirty laundry lying around after a week or so and will not leave .In order to accept leaving the premises , you must pay me .Pay me whatever I ask .
This is how stupid and absurd this charade no minds is descending into .
Somebody stop the world ,I want to get off.

Antonym ,

Even JFK's assassination didn't upset the Anglo military – industrial complex's apple cart, and he was a good guy. QS wasn't and his death won't change much. Donald Trump's might turn out to be more disrupting

Perp all the same: T-Rex CIA, NOT the mossad mosquito however much Zionphobes wish it to.

richard le sarc ,

'QS' was a saint compared to the psychopathic butchers who run Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Israeli colony known as the USA.

andyoldlabour ,

How many deaths were Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Bush x 2, Clinton, Obama and Trump responsible for compared to QS?

Gezzah Potts ,

Multiple United States targets hit by missiles in Iraq, including Ayn Asad Airbase and Al Taji coalition base north of Baghdad.
No news on casualties yet. This response was expected, but the $64 million dollar question is how hard will the nutters in Washington respond? And what of the 6 B-52 bombers that have just been sent to Diego Garcia?
And news just in of a second wave of missiles directed at US targets.
Trump, Pompeo, Esper . You are reaping what You sowed. Total wackjobs.
This is deeply disturbing .

richard le sarc ,

Nothing would work better than closing Hormuz, and destroying Saudi oil installations. That would be a seismic shock to US economic hegemony.

Gezzah Potts ,

Very unconfirmed reports there may have been up to 80 United States personnel killed in the missile attacks on Ayn Assad Airbase today.
This could be fake news tho?
That's appeared on Vanessa Beeley's Facebook page as well as a guy called Laith Marouf, and Press TV has just been reported as 'breaking news' that "there were casualties".
Tellingly, no other independent sites have been reporting this (so far)
And Trumpf is tweeting 'all is well'.
Don't expect the truth from Team USA, or the retarded presstitutes.
Duh What a dumb thing to say. Of course not.
I still believe United States will respond to the Iranian missile strikes. Can you imagine Pompeo or Esper going 'okay, all good, we're all even now' after today.
I can't.
If things do take off, closing the Straits Of Hormuz would be one of the very first options for Iran. And then watch the panic in the 'civilised, democratic, freedom loving' West when the economy starts imploding.

RobG ,

The psychopaths who rule us will now try to close down the internet.

The attacks carried out by the Iranians today are peanuts compared to what's coming in the following days, most of which you won't be told about.

The biggest laugh is how they will try to excuse Donald Trump, who's the biggest joke there's ever been as an American President.

[Jan 08, 2020] 'Jesus, Do We Have To Explain Why We Do These Things'

Jan 08, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

This was the first question of the day, mind you. When asked about specific threats, they won't say, other to claim the threats were against "American diplomats, American military personnel, and American – facilities that house Americans" in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria. When asked if allies had been notified of these attacks, or what is meant by "imminent threats," officials said they couldn't elaborate because that would be revealing "sources and methods." When asked why there had been no information about the dead American contractor in the Dec.27 militia strike on the Iraqi base that touched this all off, one of the three state department officials said, "I haven't asked, and I don't know."

Their real imperiousness comes when a reporter presses officials to explain their repeated suggestions that the Jan. 3 strike against Soleimani was at once well-deserved after Iran's "violent and expansionist foreign policy," a response to the breach of the U.S. embassy last week, and a preemptive action to stop Soleimani's planned attacks, for which we still have no detailed information.

QUESTION: The decision to take him out wasn't necessarily a way of removing this – [Senior State Department Official One], the threat that you were talking about in these different countries and these different facilities – but it's a way to mitigate it in the future? I'm just --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL THREE: It slows it down. It makes it less --

QUESTION: Since we don't know what the threat is – okay, that's what I was --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL THREE: It slows it down. It makes it less likely. It's shooting down Yamamoto in 1942. Jesus, do we have to explain why we do these things? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Ouch.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL THREE: Go look that up.

QUESTION: Yes, you do.

Most tellingly, the officials pushed back hard not only against the suggestion that this was an "assassination" of a government official, but that Iran is a legitimate country at all, protected by any international norms or laws:

We are, again, denying them the fiction that this is some Westphalian country that has, like, a conventional defense ministry and a standard president and a foreign minister. It's a regime with clerical and revolutionary oversight that seeks to dominate the Middle East and beyond. You've heard me say this is a kleptocratic theocracy. And you look at the people of Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, are all rejecting the Iranian model at the same time.

So if the U.S. does not recognize your form of government -- does this include the Communist Party of China? -- you are fair game?

In its reporting this weekend, The Daily Beast found that the President was talking about a "big" response to events on the ground in Iraq with his inner circle at Mar-a-Lago five days before Soleimani's killing.

Those Mar-a-Lago guests received more warning about Thursday's attack than Senate staff did, and about as much clarity. A classified briefing on Friday, the first the administration gave to the Hill, featured broad claims about what the Iranians were planning and little evidence of planning to bring about the "de-escalation" the administration says it wants.

According to three sources either in the room or told about the discussion, briefers from the State Department, Pentagon, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence claimed that killing Soleimani was designed to block Iranian plans to kill "hundreds" or even thousands of Americans in the Mideast. That would be a massive escalation from the recent attack patterns of Iran and its regional proxies, who tend to kill Americans in small numbers at a time.

After this display, it is clear that the "trust us" argument is going to prevail until lawmakers start demanding more, including legal justification for the strikes. There was no hint of an answer, of course, in the state department briefing:

QUESTION: The Secretary talked about this as being wholly legal. I wonder if you can just explain the legal justification of the killing.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: You're going to have to talk to the lawyers.

No one expects satisfaction from these briefings but getting slapped around as the rest of the country is wondering if we are on the brink of war is the height of audacity, even for a government that has proven over the last 18 years that it cares nothing about whether the American people believe them or not.

kouroi • 3 days ago

So, Iran government is illegitimate, same as the Chinese government which is ruled by CCP. They would all be legitimate targets. Russian government is rather just nationalist and probably that is bad too.

It is likely that no direct attacks are carried against Chinese or Russian leaders because of retaliation. It is good that the new hyper-sonic Russian missiles can strike US in less than 30 minutes with great accuracy, being able to hit particular individuals. Let us hope that those missiles and Russian defense systems will start flooding the market... Will then US start using nukes?

Fran Macadam kouroi • 2 days ago
Maybe as soon as deployed in Ukraine where they can strike Moscow with only six minutes' warning, leaving no alternative but a retaliating revenge strike of "launch on warning."
cka2nd kouroi • 2 days ago
That's the only reason the North Korean government is still in place, because they can punch back. The Kim family learned that lesson from Iraq and Libya, and Syria has just reinforced it.

I wonder how many Europeans now realize the folly, the sheer stupidity, of supporting or just passively accepting US and NATO military intervention in the Middle East and North Africa, and that whatever refugee crisis has hit Europe originates from those wars of aggression? Probably the same proportion of Americans who realize that American policies in Latin America help "push" millions of Latin Americans to migrate to the U.S. illegally: too damn few.

Awake and Uttering a Song • 3 days ago
"'Jesus, Do We Have To Explain Why We Do These Things?'"

Jesus: "Why, yes. Yes, you do. If not now, you'll be explaining them later."

In the presence of Truth, we are not plaintiffs -- we are defendants.

Barry_D Awake and Uttering a Song • 2 days ago
Brad DeLong had the greatest and shortest comment about the Catholic scandals (and the same for all other churches): "Don't these people believe in God?".
WellRedMan • 3 days ago
If the media wish to question the transparency and accountability of government, then they need to be consistent in their efforts regardless of which party is in power. While certainly, media political bias has always underlain its motivations and guided its efforts, never has it so openly dominated their entire focus in the relentless pursuit of one overarching objective. This, in turn, has led it to be viewed as simply an organ of political propaganda for one particular political party and it is thereby no longer able to muster the public support required to demand that government, particularly the federal bureaucracy, be responsive to inquiries into policy development and implementation. It should then come as no surprise that the mainstream media has become a tool of manipulation and obfuscation for the government's continued campaign to dominate and figuratively disenfranchise the will of the People. The only outlier here is the Trump Administration and its failure to play the game. Once we have gotten past that, one way or another, it will be back to business as usual.
tz WellRedMan • 3 days ago
I strongly suspect that you need to diversify your assortment of media sources.
If you don't recognize that If Trump had his way, all media everywhere would kiss his butt and lie for him and sing his praises. That is what he demands of his associates and the GOP, and they do. Just look objectively at Lindsay Graham's conduct in the perspective of the past 20 years.
As a commenter on National Review posted yesterday. Be good to Trump, and he will be good too you. Please remind Michael Cohen, Manafort and the other convects who were good to Trump, and Trump was not so good to them in return.
cka2nd WellRedMan • 2 days ago
The mainstream media has been pro-intervention under Democratic and Republican presidents, and parrots the lies of the State Departments, no matter the party in the White House (see Venezuela under Bush, Obama and Trump, Honduras under Obama, and Bolivia under Trump).

In economic policy, the mainstream media is relentlessly pro-establishment, liberal pundits often as much or more so than conservative ones, from teachers unions (until rank-and-file teachers fought back, and forced a change in the narrative) to privatization and deregulation.

Social policy is the only area where the mainstream media is truly liberal, because that hits many journalists where they live, so to speak. And even there, at least until recently, they usually preach moderation and going slow, as veterans of the civil rights, feminist and LGBT movements could recount from the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's (and probably later, too, but I am less in tune with the modern movements).

The Trump ADMINISTRATION plays the game. The fact that its leader is so...Trumpian is the only reason his administration is an outlier.

Null • 3 days ago
The Yamamoto thing is funny, since he was actually against war with the US (he thought, correctly, that they couldn't win) and only plotted the Pearl Harbor attack when forced to by his superiors.
b2020 Null • 3 days ago
The Yamamoto thing is funny, since the US was actually in a declared state of war at the time of his "targeted killing". What is not funny is a US "press corpse" constitutionally - sic - unable to ask that simple question right away:

QUESTION: Are you saying the US is officially at war with Iran at this time?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL THREE: No.
QUESTION: You said: 'It's shooting down Yamamoto in 1942'. Is that just bullshit?

Fran Macadam • 3 days ago
What's overriding is the huge profits to be made through expanding wars, along with the policies being crafted for the United States in a highly influential Mideast country with collusion by Americans whose loyalties are not primarily American.
Fran Macadam • 3 days ago
Our leaders, across the board, are all almost exclusively become madmen, whether in matters of war or social policy.
sglover Fran Macadam • 2 days ago
What rubbish. It wasn't "our leaders" who launched this assassination -- it was *your* hero in the endless War Against The Deep State. Before that he trashed the JCPOA, which very much *was* the creation of some of "our leaders", and was a serious, adult attempt to steer away from the disaster that we're looking at now.
But it's no fun to look at actual history, actual events. It's much more satisfying to dabble in sweeping, vacuous claims, eh?
Fran Macadam sglover • 2 days ago
The reality, outside your TDS bubble, is that war with Iran is very much a bipartisan project. You have to realize that the Deep State's neocons largely defected to the Democrats last election when Trump was the only one who dared criticize the endless unwinnable wars. There isn't a President since 1988 who didn't start or expand never ending wars and who didn't lie knowingly about it. There is a small Mideast nation with outsized influence over policy in this country, with political leaders here who have dual loyalties or even primary loyalties to it, along with major billionaire donors to both parties. Both parties removed any restraint on action against Iran in the recent monster military bill they passed. All are beholden to the war industries which make unimaginable enormous profits from never ending warfare. So it appears that whatever war is chosen this year to be the "good war," as with Obama and Hillary about Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, and which the "bad", that the trajectory of war profits must increase. It was our leader Obama who extended the use of drones to execution from afar, "extrajudicial killing," creating the assassination by drone policy no longer considered controversial or immoral, with his "Kill Tuesday" sessions. Nor did he actually end torture or close Guantanamo.
kid_charlemagne2 • 3 days ago
Nothing conservative about war. Conservatives have lost every war. Big time. Not just politically but culturally. There were all sorts of stories about women becoming tramps during WWII. And look how it was used to advance feminism. We would not be in this degenerate state if not for US involvement in WWII.
Wallstreet Panic kid_charlemagne2 • 2 days ago
"All sorts of stories about women becoming tramps during WWII." I would like to hear some of these stories.
Jack • 3 days ago
It appears that Pompeo's pomposity has rubbed off on senior State Department officials.
Sid Finster Jack • 2 days ago
Personnel is policy.
tz • 3 days ago
War mongers seem to universally believe that they know how the war that they instigate will unfold. They are in fact delusional. Starting a war is rolling the dice in profoundly dangerous and wicked ways. The Iraq invasion and occupation is a great example.
Bob K. tz • 2 days ago • edited
George Bush made the 1st roll of the dice at the neo-cons instigation (Only Buchanan demurred) and then Barack Obama took his turn at the Middle East table. Now President Trump has the dice.

After him? Who knows?

Sid Finster • 2 days ago
The irony is that Trump is profoundly weak, a pathetic weakling.
Martin Ranger • 2 days ago
The legitimate government argument is one that the Trump administration should maybe not make. After all, it could be argued that he has not been elected in a democratic way, that he, his family and associates as well as parts of his cabinet have financially profited from being in power. Moreover, one could very well claim that the US are seeking to dominate the Middle East.
Joseph Waters Martin Ranger • 2 days ago
"The legitimate government argument is one that the Trump administration should maybe not make. After all, it could be argued that he has not been elected in a democratic way..."

Is the line of argumentation here to be that the election of a president into office by the electoral college, without having won the popular vote, should be deemed "not democratic?" Or, is it to be some allegation that the electoral college itself is "not democratic," and that only direct consultation of the electorate can be considered "truly" democratic?

anaisanesse • 2 days ago
The poor vulnerable US forces are not in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya or anywhere else to help the populations, and are now targets for any Iranian or Iraqi retaliation.
deliaruhe • 16 hours ago • edited
Seventeen intelligence agencies and these guys can't come up with even one shred of credible evidence in support of these "threats." Gawd help America.
H.P. Loathecraft • 3 hours ago
We are, again, denying them the fiction that this is some Westphalian country that has, like, a conventional defense ministry and a standard president and a foreign minister. It's a regime with clerical and revolutionary oversight that seeks to dominate the Middle East and beyond. You've heard me say this is a kleptocratic theocracy.

Ah, of course, you mean like Saudis and Israel, right?

[Jan 08, 2020] Russian reaction

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

grr , Jan 7 2020 0:43 utc | 141

Re PCR's latest linked article (post 133.
What PCR is insisting Putin do ("The easiest and cleanest way for Putin to do this is to announce that Iran is under Russia's protection.")Putin has already done so in a landmark speech last year when he unveiled five or six game-changing weapons, or was it 2018.
He declared back then to the evil empire that a nuclear attack on an ally would be considered an attack upon Russia. He made this crystal clear. Of course it wouldn't hurt for him to 'gently' remind them of this.

bjd , Jan 7 2020 0:47 utc | 142

You can read Lavrov's Press Releases here: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation .
bjd , Jan 7 2020 0:58 utc | 147

I do have to say, the silence from the Russians is odd. Even when you read the Russian Foreign Ministry's news releases.

For instance, there's this on January 4th:
" On January 4, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, at the latter's initiative. " (italics mine).

So Lavrov talked to an Iranian official only on January 4th, and the call came from Iran (Zarif), not the other way around. This is odd, and even the explicit
mentioning of Zarif initiating the call --to me-- seems odd.
Hmm...

Sasha , Jan 7 2020 1:39 utc | 155
Why waiting for Putin?

Gerasimov almost never defrauds..

Ya vienen los Reyes Magos.... con el aguinaldo...

Russian high general repudiates US terrorism against Soleimani

[Jan 08, 2020] The lady doth protest too much

Jan 08, 2020 | www.unz.com

Robert Dolan , says: Show Comment January 7, 2020 at 5:31 am GMT

Zion Don is not just a fuckup ..he's a DANGEROUS fuckup.
Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 7, 2020 at 5:59 am GMT
The lady doth protest too much:

On Monday, as the meeting ended, several ministers transmitted Netanyahu's declaration distancing Israel from the Soleimani hit.

"The assassination of Soleimani isn't an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be dragged into it," he said, according to Israeli news outlets.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/netanyahu-distances-from-soleimani-slaying-says-israel-shouldnt-be-dragged-into-it-report

Daniel Rich , says: Show Comment January 7, 2020 at 7:43 am GMT

Netanyahu backs away from Soleimani assassination, warns ministers to ' stay out' of purely 'American event

.'
Does the word 'backpedaling' ring a bell, Bibi?

You'll reap what you sow, oh grand Master of Conception. I sincerely hope it'll be an abundant and infinite harvest. And, of course, mazel tov, ol' boy. You're gonna need it by the bushel

[Jan 08, 2020] A huge amount of Iran's nuclear waste from the years of enriching uranium has been used to create depleted uranium warheads such as the U.S. uses on its Hellfire and other missiles. These are typically one-ton warheads, about 99% uranium, and ignite on contact (uranium is pyrophoric -- it burns) and burn at up to 6,000 C. They can penetrate a good thirty meters of prestressed concrete in less than a second and incinerate everything in the vicinity.

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

RJPJR , Jan 6 2020 23:29 utc | 127

On the previous thread, jared | Jan 6 2020 12:32 utc | 230, posted:
"Iran is already proclaiming it will proceed with unconstrained uranium enrichment - a act which is both pointless and counter productive."

A huge amount of Iran's nuclear waste from the years of enriching uranium has been used to create depleted uranium warheads such as the U.S. uses on its Hellfire and other missiles. These are typically one-ton warheads, about 99% uranium, and ignite on contact (uranium is pyrophoric -- it burns) and burn at up to 6,000°C. They can penetrate a good thirty meters of prestressed concrete in less than a second and incinerate everything in the vicinity.

The (depleted) uranium anti-tank rounds used in the 1991 war against Iraq were five kilograms (11 pounds) and could zip through two or three tanks. When the Americans went inside the tanks later on, they found the Iraqis' bodies turned to black dust. Occasionally, the bodies were intact, in position, but they crumbled to dust when touched. The American troops called them "crispy critters".

ALL the American military who entered those tanks or worked on them afterward became sick with all sorts of horrible illnesses triggered by radiation poisoning.

The one ton of uranium in a bunker buster results in one ton of powder, much of it microscopic. Inhaled, a single microscopic particle of 2.5 microns deposited in an alveol cavity of the lung contains come 210 billion uranium atoms. Uranium spits out alpha particles, which don't travel far (an inch at most, usually), but they are the most powerful force in our universe. That single particle irradiates, permanently, a sphere of up to 350 lung cells.

The military in Iraq were inhaling millions (billions!) of those particles. Those who haven't died yet are deathly ill.

Israel's anti-missile defenses are not what they are claimed to be. Just a few of those bunker busters delivered into Tel Aviv or West Jerusalem would contaminate it permanently.

Israel cannot afford the loss of such territory. (In the United States, the Jefferson Proving Ground where most of the testing was done, was offered to the National Park Service as a wild-life refuge to be off limits in order to protect its biodiversity. The offer was turned down. The site is now off limits, designated a national sacrifice zone...) And Iran has the missiles with the accuracy necessary to make such hits.

Thus, every suspected Iranian missile storage location must be hit simultaneously. Israel does not have the means to do that, hence the need to involve in United States in an all-out colossal attack. This was openly discussed under the George Walker Bush administration until the National Intelligence Estimate of December 2007 pulled the rung out from under the warmongers by openly declaring that Iran had no nuclear program.

Israel used such missiles on south Lebanon in August 2006, so, they know all about this. The bombing of south Lebanon stopped the day that the south-north wind reversed direction. The United Nations Environment Program that investigated the missile craters in south Lebanon found low enriched uranium, the result of mixing the depleted uranium with the enriched uranium from decommissioned Soviet missiles removed from Ukraine, in a failed attempt to restore the original isotopic ratio and make it pass for "natural" uranium that, if discovered, could then be claimed to have been in the ground and turned up by the bombing.

The entire assault on mountains and caves of Tora Bora in southeast Afghanistan in 2001-2002 was a bunker buster testing program. Canadian researchers found uranium-induced radioactivity all over, but they were silenced by death threats and some roughing up.

So, Iran does not need a nuclear arsenal, for it has developed an equally good deterrent on the cheap. Israel knows this, the various intelligence services know this, some people in the corporate media know this, but if one mentions it, one is immediately told that there is "no proof".

[Jan 08, 2020] Iraqi Journalist: Killing Soleimani "Ended An Era In Which Iran And The United States Coexisted In Iraq" by Tim Hains

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States." ..."
"... "Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the game have totally changed," he said. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.youtube.com/embed/TKvE-nIsj1Y?enablejsapi=1&origin=https:%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com

"The Guardian" journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad says that before the attack on Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad last week "there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians" that allowed officials from Iran and the U.S. to move freely within Iraq and maintained relative goodwill toward American bases.

"The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in which both Iran and the United States coexisted in Iraq," he said.

Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States."

"Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the game have totally changed," he said.

AMY GOODMAN: Ghaith, can you comment on this new information that's come to light about the timing of Soleimani's assassination Friday morning? Iraq's caretaker Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi has revealed he had plans to meet with Soleimani on the day he was killed to discuss a Saudi proposal to defuse tension in the region. Mahdi said, quote, "He came to deliver me a message from Iran responding to the message we delivered from Saudi Arabia to Iran" -- Saudi Arabia, obviously, a well-known enemy of Iran. Was he set up? Talk about the significance of this.

GHAITH ABDUL-AHAD: Well, it is very significant if it's actually General Qassem Soleimani came to Iraq to deliver this message, if it was actually there was a process of negotiations in the region. We know that Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government, in general, over the last year had been trying to position Iraq as this middle power, as this power where both -- you know, as a country that has a relationship with both Iran and the United States. In that awkward place Iraq found itself in, Iraq has tried to maximize on this. So they started back in summer and fall, when there was an escalation between Iran and the United States, when Iran shot down an American drone. We've seen Adel Abdul-Mahdi fly to Iran, try to mediate. We've seen Adel Abdul-Mahdi open channels of communications with the Gulf, with Saudi Arabia.

So, if it actually, the killing of General Soleimani, ended that peace initiative, it will be kind of disastrous in the region, because, as Narges was saying earlier, it is -- you know, Pompeo is speaking about Iran being this ultimate evil in the region, as this crescent of Shias, as if they just arrived in the past 10 years in the region. The fact if we see Iran's reactions, it's always a reaction to an American provocation. You've seen the occupation of Iraq in 2003. You've seen Iran declared as an "axis of evil." So, if you see it from an Iranian perspective, it's always this existential threat coming from the United States. And I don't think there is a more existential threat than in past year. So, yes, I know -- I mean, I think Adel Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government were trying to find this middle ground, which I think is totally lost, because even Adel Abdul-Mahdi, the person who was trying to find this middle ground, was the person who proposed this law yesterday in the Parliament to expel all American troops from the country.

And I would like to add like another thing. The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in which both Iran and the United States coexisted in Iraq. So, from 2013, '14, we, as journalists, we've seen on the frontlines how the proxies of each power have been helping each other. So we've seen Iranian advisers helping the American-trained Iraqi Army unit or counterterrorism unit in the fight against ISIS. In the same sense, we've seen American airstrikes on threats to these -- kind of to ISIS when it was threatening these militias. That coexistence, it didn't only come from both having a -- sharing an enemy, which is ISIS, or Daesh, but also these were the rules of the game. These were the rules in which Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, I think the rules of the game have totally changed.

So now I think the first victim of the assassination will be the American bases in Iraq. I don't see any way where the Americans can keep their presence as they did before the assassination of Soleimani. And even the people in the streets, even the people who opposes Iran, who opposes the presence of Iranian militias in power and politics, the corruption of these pro-Iranian parties, even those people would look at these American bases now as not as a force that came to help them in the fight against ISIS, but a force that's dragging them into a war between Iran and the United States.

[Jan 08, 2020] Iran is warning that if there is retaliation for the two waves of attacks they launched their 3rd wave will destroy Dubai and Haifa

Jan 08, 2020 | caucus99percent.com

Interesting if true

"Iran is warning that if there is retaliation for the two waves of attacks they launched their 3rd wave will destroy Dubai and Haifa," tweeted NBC News Tehran Bureau chief. https://t.co/ydzIAfEpzk

-- Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) January 8, 2020

[Jan 08, 2020] The missiles last night is not the promised retribution, Iran is keeping focused on the primary goal to get the usa out

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

james , Jan 8 2020 17:32 utc | 136

thanks b.. it is really unfortunate about the loss of those on the plane.. it is a strange coincidence of timing and a tie in with ukraine is also rather odd...

here is how i look at this.. usa-israel hasn't faked its squeeze on iran which has been going on for what feels like forever.. usa-israel didn't fake taking out qassem s... the sanctions on iran continue.. this war on iran will continue.. how could it stop after all this time? what has changed? nothing has changed in the minds of these sick neo cons..

i share @ James j's comment which i quote here - "The missiles last night is not the promised retribution ...rather, Iran is keeping focused on the primary goal ...to get the usa out..." i don't see that it is going to work though...

It seems to me Iran works quite differently then US-Israel... they have provided a warning so that action last night looked fake and trumps response 'all is well' was fake as he knew they had been issued an advance warming... but the message is clear.. 'get the fuck out'..

i also share @ cynica's position in her earlier posts.. the shit here is real.. the world needs to find a way out of this mess and it won't come from western countries cowtowing to usa-israels warmonger agenda either...

i don't know what the doofus in command has said today.. it doesn't matter what he says... usa-israel will not back down.. they want war.. iran responded very diplomatically... i just don't believe usa-israel are interested in diplomacy, as opposed to war and prep for war.. as someone said last night - all that money to be made off prep for war, the MIC and etc. etc.. i wish this would end, but i can't see it..

[Jan 08, 2020] While symbolic and the USA were waned inadvance, Iran attacks means the end fo full spectrum dominance doctrine used bu the USA since 1991

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Taffyboy , Jan 7 2020 17:55 utc | 1

The blowback from Trump's assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani and PMU leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis is increasing. A scandal is developing as one consequence of Trump's evil deed after Iraq's Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi revealed the gangster methods U.S. President Trump used in his attempts to steal Iraq's oil. ...and a very good essay by Michael Hudson as appeared on the Saker blog, a fine compliment to this work being done here by B.

http://thesaker.is/america-escalates-its-democratic-oil-war-in-the-near-east/

Likklemore , Jan 8 2020 13:47 utc | 31

As usual b, you excel.
Last evening the Iran Missile launch was an aperitif taunt. Just the first wave of the menu.

Iraqi Militia Leader Says Their Response to US Will Not be Lesser Than Iranian Retaliation - Reports

"The initial Iranian response to the assassination of the martyred commander Soleimani has happened. Now it is time for the initial response to the assassination of the martyred commander Muhandis. And because Iraqis are brave and zealous, their response will not be any less than that of Iran's. That is a promise", al-Khazali was quoted as saying.

I endorse this view from Shedlock:
Trump is caught bluffing again-Fortunately. Iran's measured response puts Trump in a no win Scenario

LINK

somebody , Jan 8 2020 13:54 utc | 36
Posted by: Dave | Jan 8 2020 13:24 utc | 23

It is difficult to do perception management in a globalized world. Neither the US nor Iran want full out war, but politically they have to convince their people that they "win", to justify the cost (and unite, though Trump seems to be incapable of this). Actually, Iran has an advantage here, because martyrdom or victory, psychologically they can win either way. They have demonstrated this by the huge - unifying - funerals. They also don't have this stupid Hollywood good guy bad guy thing or if you want to go into protestant religious psychology that god will make the good guys win in this world. It is a huge problem as the reverse perception is that if someone is successful he must be good.
Fact is that Iran has been the first country since WWII to challenge the US directly and not via proxy. They were rational to do it in a way that leaves the US an off ramp. By warning beforehand and not killing anybody (officially, I have my doubts about this Ukrainian plane), they also have the moral high ground.
They managed to make the US stop the escalation. It is quite impressive.

There will be a lot of diplomacy now.

Walter , Jan 8 2020 13:55 utc | 37
Interesting "tweet" Elijah J. Magnier Retweeted
Misión Verdad
‏ @Mision_Verdad
9m

La base de los Estados Unidos en Ayn al-Assad en Irak, bombardeada anoche por Irán, es la base donde despegaron los drones que asesinaron a Qassem Soleimani y Abu Mahdi al Muhandis. Así lo informó el corresponsal de guerra

MT> The US base at Ayn al-Assad in Iraq, bombed last night by Iran, is the base where the drones that killed Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al Muhandis took off. This was reported by the war correspondent

Likklemore , Jan 8 2020 14:07 utc | 40
I caution Netiyahoo not to crow. His prison time is on the horizon.

China's Global Times has a piece noting Israel gave assistance.
And this editorial:
Has the US lost direction in Middle East?

"US national power is on the wane [;/]now considers China as its primary rival and wants to use its resources from Europe and the Middle East to contain China. If it is so, its presence in the Middle East will be surely diminished."[./]

After a US drone strike killed top Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani in Iraq, it was expected that Iran would retaliate. But the way it fought back - launching missiles against US bases in Iraq - was unexpected. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps carried out the mission.

Since Iran did not target US soil, the move cannot be viewed as a declaration of war. Iran did aim at US troops, but the troops are stationed in Iraq. This showed Tehran is well aware how far it should go and has left some ground. Iran doesn't want a fierce clash or a war with the US. As Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif claimed on Wednesday morning after the attack, the country was taking measures in self-defense. "We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression," he said. [.]

How should the US react, the White House must be deliberating, because what it does next may directly determine whether Washington and Tehran would reduce tensions or storm into a war. Currently, it is the lull before the storm.
US military killed Iran's most powerful military commander on Iraq's soil, which is an act of state terrorism although the US itself does not think so. [.]
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1176167.shtml

The U.S. collapse is not one event. It is a slow, slow process and then the $250 trillion debt pile goes out with a bang.

moon , Jan 8 2020 14:08 utc | 41
"where Bannon found" correction: when Bannon founded his ...

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/01/07/how-iran-can-checkmate-trump/
Eric Zuesse to or via b.

take care ... LeaNder

/div> The reason the Qiam rocket, a derivation of the nazi A4, is built is that it is cheap and has the capability to be modified such that the "pay-load" comes in very fast and within 10 meters of zero-zero-zero. It's not an old rocket. But I assume the Persians used the oldest first. Inventory managements is vital to logistics and ammunition reliability. The cheap version is 500 meter accurate at range, but the range was not exteem, so probably < 500

Posted by: Walter , Jan 8 2020 14:31 utc | 45

The reason the Qiam rocket, a derivation of the nazi A4, is built is that it is cheap and has the capability to be modified such that the "pay-load" comes in very fast and within 10 meters of zero-zero-zero. It's not an old rocket. But I assume the Persians used the oldest first. Inventory managements is vital to logistics and ammunition reliability. The cheap version is 500 meter accurate at range, but the range was not exteem, so probably < 500

Posted by: Walter | Jan 8 2020 14:31 utc | 45

Annie , Jan 8 2020 14:35 utc | 46
B, great article. You and Elijah Marnier and a few others are my first go to's for information as to what is going on on the middle east.
One of my favorite reporters out of Syria said the US abandoned Deir Ezzor oil fields yesterday leaving the SDF there alone and totally open for Russian and Syrian forces to go in and to secure. If so this attack would have been well worth it. Obviously, I can't verify it but do trust the source.

Hezbollah is also well within reach of Israhell and can launch ballistic missiles upon it should the US attack Iran. People tend to forget that this was not just about Soleimani, but an entire resistance. His death has just made that resistance much stronger and unified.
The US will have to leave. And soon.

gadzooks , Jan 8 2020 15:29 utc | 69
walter@45,ghost_ship@47 believe Iran is using "old stocks".

I respectfully disagree. This is Iran's debut in showing off their technical prowess - they are trying to scare off the US from escalating the conflict.

IMHO they would make sure the US got the message that they pulled their punches and could have caused *much* more damage if they wanted to. Using older stock would make sense, but only after you establish your cred - otherwise, you are sending exactly the wrong message, the US could read the hit as "gosh, 500m is the best you can do?"

Cynica , Jan 8 2020 15:56 utc | 85
Following up on the end of #78, the point is that it seems very unlikely that the air defenses would be shut down even if the bases were evacuated. In that case, the success of the attack (however limited its objectives) shows Iran's ability to penetrate US air defenses and disable or destroy US air-supremacy infrastructure.

@PavewayIV #75

The US will ALWAYS try to spin this against Iran no matter what. Even if we hear the captain screaming that he can see the engine is tearing itself apart.

Indeed! If there's one thing the US does all the time, it's spin. But especially with last night's attack, they're starting to resemble the Talosians of Star Trek, whose seemingly incredible powers were all, well, illusory.

somebody , Jan 8 2020 16:34 utc | 108
Posted by: TheBAG | Jan 8 2020 16:20 utc | 98

Of course.

Ayatollah Khamenei: Iran's retaliation against US only 'a slap'

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says Iran's early Wednesday missile attack on US bases in Iraq following the American assassination of a top general was just "a slap".

"The talk of revenge and such debates are a different issue. For now, a slap was delivered on their face last night," Ayatollah Khamenei said in remarks broadcast live on national television Wednesday.

"What is important about confrontation is that the military action as such is not sufficient. What is important is that the seditious American presence in the region must end," he said to chants of "Death to America" by an audience in Tehran.

The threats on how to answer on new US attacks have been issued without a date of expiry.

It all depends now on Trump's reelection strategy: Will he run on bringing the troups home or will he run on another Middle East war.

omid , Jan 8 2020 17:33 utc | 138
„The Qiam missiles Iran launched are a derivative of the Soviet Scud type. They are liquid fueled with a warhead of about 700 kilogram. They have a range of some 800 kilometer. Iran has more capable and precise solid fueled missiles it could have used."

According to Fars news agency 2 of the missiles were of type Fateh313 (solid fueled – 500km range) the rest were a modified version of Ghiyam (multiple warheads - 800km range).

„No U.S. air or missile defense against the incoming projectiles was observed."

In spite of public and unofficial announcement by Iran about the attack even short time ahead, Yankee was not able to repel and defend their modern and costy military base. According to Fars news agency radar jamming technology were used in this attack.
The attack is over, Trump's reaction is published, but still no one is allowed to enter the military base.

Erlindur , Jan 8 2020 17:35 utc | 141
@ Fog of War | Jan 8 2020 17:12 utc | 127

You are missing the point. An airbase is a huge target with mostly empty space. The fact that the Iranians were able to target and hit specific buildings in it, is a truly nightmarish scenario. They actually told US that they have the capability to hit whatever they want. USA can send a drone and kill a general but US has generals too. It is easy to find where a general's house in Qatar base is for example and hit it with the same accuracy. How does that general sleeps at night from now on? How can you plan the typical US bombing campaign, when your enemy has the ability to strike back at you where it hurts?

Peter AU1 , Jan 8 2020 17:42 utc | 144
Magnier..
"#Iran informed #Iraq Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi of its intention to bomb #US military bases in #Anbar and #Kurdistan before the attack.

Abdel Mahdi warned the Americans who took their precautions before the attack."

If this is true then there really is no hope for the Iraqi's. This is the clown that writes letters to the US saying US has been naughty and resigned when Trump puts some pressure on him, leaving Iraq gov parylized..

A P , Jan 8 2020 17:43 utc | 146
Iran was proving the reach and accuracy of their armaments, and the inadequacy of the US Patriot etc. anti-air-attack systems. Trumps Tomahawks fired at Syria either went wrong guidance-wise, were hacked or were shot down by Russian-made defenses. No comparison, Iran wins the "rockets that don't kill anyone" competition. Iran also has Russian-made air defense systems. Cheaper too... LOL!

I expect that the Iraqi gov't administration will quietly try to back-pedal from the Parliamentary vote to evict the US. Then the various militias will band together (maybe even Shia/Sunni alliances, the enemy of my enemy style) and keep US/ZATO troops mostly bottled up in their bases until the US actually withdraws. The Iraq administration will be forced to bend to the Parliament's and Iraqi peoples' will that the US/ZATO leaves. Pompeo and Trumpty Dumbdy won't be able to tap dance around this scenario, even in front of the US/ZATO public. Iran may not have to lift a finger in Iraq, but will find other ways to hurt the US AND ZATO that don't meet the threshold for US military retaliation.

The US/ZATO deserves to suffer millions of cuts, hopefully one cut for each person murdered by the US since 9/11.

MAGA Make America Go Away

omid , Jan 8 2020 18:01 utc | 154 Piotr Berman , Jan 8 2020 18:01 utc | 155
"Iran misjudged Trump's response/speech, Trump talked about peace and not escalation (he is lying of course), if Iran keep attacking US from now on, Iran will be framed as the threat and that Trump have the right to retaliate.

Aslong as no one was killed on the american side apparently Trump see no reason to use military means, meanwhile Iran is left with no kills which could make them more desperate."

Posted by: Zanon | Jan 8 2020 17:12 utc | 125

I typical post that misses the point. The goal is to remove all the NATO trash from Syria and Iraq. That has to be done by Iraqis, of which the bold ones are clobbered with air strikes and the timid are intimidated. It is utterly pointless how Americans perceive the situation, and even less germane what is the opinion of the vassals. The audience that matters is in Iraq.

So what USA did? Dissed Iraqis quite serially, including the murder at the main airport with no warning to the legal authorities of the place. Iran tries to be as un-American as possible, so duly notifies Iraqi PM about the strike, an hour in advance, and perhaps follows the suggestion to warn Americans directly. Giving the proper recognition of the rights of the allies takes precedence over expedience, even in the moment of extreme pain and grief. Mind you that Saudi, American or whoever has stooges in Iraq that villify it as a dominator taking advantage etc., and that was a major theme in recent riots. It seems that one block of rouble-risers is reconverted to anti-American solidarity, but those people have to be humored, not taken for granted.

Taking opinions of others seriously even if there is no perfect agreement, especially if the other party is not Israel, is the profound lack of Americans, and the rest of the West to to a lesser degree.

The other aspect is how Shia view religious leaders and how those leaders view themselves. There are rather high standards. This is not an operation under a local commander. Supreme Leader is personally engaged. Taking proper account of host country prerogatives is also good regard for Grand Ayatollah Sistani and other Iraqi marjah etc. Contrast with untrustworthy, arrogant and cowardly infidels has to be maintained.

Zanon , Jan 8 2020 18:10 utc | 162
Piotr Berman

US have not been asked to leave by the iraqis so how are they supposed to leave? Especially since they are not going to leave by themselves?

Esper: Iraqi government has not asked US troops to leave

Iraq's government has made no formal request that American forces leave its country, despite a nonbinding vote Sunday to expel U.S. and other troops after the Pentagon killed a top Iranian commander in Baghdad, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Tuesday.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/esper-iraqi-government-has-not-asked-us-troops-to-leave-1.613859

Same for Syria, you cant just tell americans to leave, you have to make them.


Margie , Jan 8 2020 18:13 utc | 165
Regarding warning the Swiss embassy of the attack. Also very strategic move. If there were loss of American life due to no warning, it would have been near impossible for Trump to not counter attack.

Furthermore, the US now thinks their enemy is weak or afraid. I feel kind of disappointed by you guys who also think that, honestly? Did you see the reaction of the millions who came to honor Souleimani? Do you really think the Iranian/Iraqi military and population are wimps?
c'mon! take heart guys!

[Jan 08, 2020] As Michael Flynn relates in his interview with Mehdi Hassan, once kicked out, the Obama Administration took steps that they knew would lead to the creation of ISIS in the region, and fired him as the head of the DIA after he had written them a memo warning them about this.

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

masoud , Jan 7 2020 0:50 utc | 143

@Dan

Iran was definitely involved in organizing, supplying, and even to some extent arming(with small arms) various Iraqi militias. But the best way we know that it wasn't directly involved in attacking US patrols, was that so few soldiers died. Iran has no need to improvise explosive devices, it manufactures landmines on a mass scale which are much more reliable and orders of magnitude more deadly, and operationally easier to use.

Most of the resistance to the US occupation in the Shia regions of Iraq were in the form of non violent demonstrations spearheaded by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani(who btw is also Iranian).

The nonviolent demonstrators were routinely massacred for their trouble, by both the takfiri resistance and the occupation troops, but eventually succeeded in their demands for a democratic vote wherein they elected a government that demanded the US leave.

And as Michael Flynn relates in his interview with Mehdi Hassan, once kicked out, the Obama Administration took steps that they knew would lead to the creation of ISIS in the region, and fired him as the head of the DIA after he had written them a memo warning them about this.

Michael Flynn, who btw is rabidly anti Iranian, then became the first victim of the Russiagaters when Trump was elected into office.

[Jan 08, 2020] Iran has vowed "harsh retaliation": that would be stupid

Resumption of uranium enrichment is already an adequate retaliation.
Jan 08, 2020 | www.truthdig.com

A war with Iran would see it use its Chinese-supplied anti-ship missiles, mines and coastal artillery to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which is the corridor for 20% of the world's oil supply. Oil prices would double, perhaps triple, devastating the global economy. The retaliatory strikes by Iran on Israel, as well as on American military installations in Iraq, would leave hundreds, maybe thousands, of dead. The Shiites in the region, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, would see an attack on Iran as a religious war against Shiism.

The 2 million Shiites in Saudi Arabia, concentrated in the oil-rich Eastern province, the Shiite majority in Iraq and the Shiite communities in Bahrain, Pakistan and Turkey would turn in fury on us and our dwindling allies.

There would be an increase in terrorist attacks, including on American soil, and widespread sabotage of oil production in the Persian Gulf. Hezbollah in southern Lebanon would renew attacks on northern Israel. War with Iran would trigger a long and widening regional conflict that, by the time it was done, would terminate the American Empire and leave in its wake mounds of corpses and smoldering ruins. Let us hope for a miracle to pull us back from this Dr. Strangelove self-immolation.

Iran, which has vowed "harsh retaliation," is already reeling under the crippling economic sanctions imposed by the Trump administration when it unilaterally withdrew in 2018 from the Iranian nuclear arms deal. Tensions in Iraq between the U.S. and the Shiite majority, at the same time, have been escalating. On Dec. 27 Katyusha rockets were fired at a military base in Kirkuk where U.S. forces are stationed. An American civilian contractor was killed and several U.S. military personnel were wounded.

The U.S. responded on Dec. 29 by bombing sites belonging to the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia. Two days later Iranian-backed militias attacked the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, vandalizing and destroying parts of the building and causing its closure. But this attack will soon look like child's play.

Iraq after our 2003 invasion and occupation has been destroyed as a unified country. Its once-modern infrastructure is in ruins. Electrical and water services are, at best, erratic. There is high unemployment and discontent over widespread government corruption that has led to bloody street protests. Warring militias and ethnic factions have carved out competing and antagonistic enclaves. At the same time, the war in Afghanistan is lost, as the Afghanistan Papers published by The Washington Post detail. Libya is a failed state. Yemen after five years of unrelenting Saudi airstrikes and a blockade is enduring one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters. The "moderate" rebels we funded and armed in Syria at a cost of $500 million, after instigating a lawless reign of terror, have been beaten and driven out of the country. The monetary cost for this military folly, the greatest strategic blunder in American history, is between $5 trillion and $7 trillion.

So why go to war with Iran? Why walk away from a nuclear agreement that Iran did not violate? Why demonize a government that is the mortal enemy of the Taliban, along with other jihadist groups, including al-Qaida and Islamic State? Why shatter the de facto alliance we have with Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why further destabilize a region already dangerously volatile?

The generals and politicians who launched and prosecuted these wars are not about to take the blame for the quagmires they created. They need a scapegoat. It is Iran. The hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed, including at least 200,000 civilians, and the millions driven from their homes into displacement and refugee camps cannot, they insist, be the result of our failed and misguided policies. The proliferation of radical jihadist groups and militias, many of which we initially trained and armed, along with the continued worldwide terrorist attacks, have to be someone else's fault. The generals, the CIA, the private contractors and weapons manufacturers who have grown rich off these conflicts, the politicians such as George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, along with all the "experts" and celebrity pundits who serve as cheerleaders for endless war, have convinced themselves, and want to convince us, that Iran is responsible for our catastrophe.

The chaos and instability we unleashed in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, left Iran as the dominant country in the region. Washington empowered its nemesis. It has no idea how to reverse its mistake other than to attack Iran.

[Jan 08, 2020] The victims of Iranian retaliation will be America's Arab proxies, be they nations such as Saudi Arabia and its allies, or military factions

Jan 08, 2020 | www.theguardian.com


[Jan 08, 2020] Iraq army says no Iraqi casualties as 22 missiles strike bases News Al Jazeera

Jan 08, 2020 | www.aljazeera.com

Iraq army says no Iraqi casualties as 22 missiles strike bases

Military says 17 missiles hit Ain al-Asad airbase while five others fell in Erbil.

2 hours ago
Iraqi security forces are seen at Ain al-Asad airbase in Anbar province [File: Thaier Al-Sudani/Reuters]
Iraqi security forces are seen at Ain al-Asad airbase in Anbar province [File: Thaier Al-Sudani/Reuters]
more on Soleimani assassination

A total of 22 missiles have hit two bases housing US troops in Iraq but there were no Iraqi casualties, according to Iraq's military.

The online statement came hours after Iranian state television said Iran had launched missiles at US targets in the early hours of Wednesday in retaliation for the United States 's killing last week of top military commander Qassem Soleimani .

More:

"Between 1:45am and 2:15am [22:45 GMT and 23:15 GM] Iraq was hit by 22 missiles, 17 on the Ain al-Asad airbase and ... five on the city of Erbil," the Iraqi military said.

"There were no victims among the Iraqi forces," it added, without mentioning whether or not there were casualties among foreign troops.

Following the strikes, US President Donald Trump said on Twitter that an "assessment of casualties & damages taking place now".

"So far, so good!" he wrote.

https://players.brightcove.net/665003303001/BkeSH5BDb_default/index.html?videoId=6120534310001&usrPersonaAds=0

Iran launches missile attacks on US forces in Iraq (16:15)

More than 5,000 US troops remain in Iraq along with other foreign forces as part of a coalition that has trained and backed up Iraqi security forces in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) armed group.

READ MORE Where did Iran attack US forces in Iraq?

Some 115 German soldiers are stationed in Erbil and all were fine, a spokesman for Bundeswehr operations said.

Denmark, which has about 130 soldiers in Iraq, said no Danish soldiers were wounded or killed in the attack on Ain al-Asad, the largest airbase where US-led coalition troops are based.

It was the first time Iran directly hit a US installation with ballistic missiles.

Soleimani, who headed Iran's Quds Force, the overseas arm of the elite Revolutionary Guards Corps, was buried after the missile attacks, Iranian state television said.

"His revenge was taken and now he can rest in peace," it said.

The missiles were launched at the same time of the day that Soleimani was killed on Friday near the international airport in Iraq's capital, Baghdad. He was buried in the "martyrs section" of a cemetery in his hometown of Kerman.

[Jan 08, 2020] At least two airbases housing US troops in Iraq have been hit by more than a dozen ballistic missiles, according to the US Department of Defence

Brave but useless, and probably damaging action from Iran. Mullahs became way too exited about this insident.
Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi labeled the missile strike that killed Soleimani as a "brazen violation of Iraq's sovereignty and a blatant attack on the nation's dignity".
Jan 08, 2020 | www.bbc.com

At least two airbases housing US troops in Iraq have been hit by more than a dozen ballistic missiles, according to the US Department of Defence.

Iranian state TV says the attack is a retaliation after the country's top commander Qasem Soleimani was killed in a drone strike in Baghdad, on the orders of US President Donald Trump.

The Pentagon says at least two sites were attacked, in Irbil and Al Asad.

It is unclear if there have been any casualties.

"We are aware of the reports of attacks on US facilities in Iraq. The president has been briefed and is monitoring the situation closely and consulting with his national security team," White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said in a statement.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard said the attack was in retaliation for the death of Soleimani on Friday.

"We are warning all American allies, who gave their bases to its terrorist army, that any territory that is the starting point of aggressive acts against Iran will be targeted," it said via a statement carried by Iran's state-run IRNA news agency.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif later issued a statement on Twitter, claiming the attack was self-defence and denied seeking to escalate the situation into war.

Twitter post by @JZarif: Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched.We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression. Image Copyright @JZarif @JZarif Report
<figure> <span> <img alt="Twitter post by @JZarif: Iran took &amp; concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens &amp; senior officials were launched.We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression." src="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/socialembed/https://twitter.com/JZarif/status/1214736614217469953~/news/world-middle-east-51028954" width="465" height="323"> <span>Image Copyright @JZarif</span> <span aria-hidden="true">@JZarif</span> </span> <div><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/contact-us/editorial" aria-label="Report Twitter post by @JZarif">Report</a></div> </figure>

President Trump tweeted shortly afterwards, insisting "all is well", while adding that they had not yet assessed possible casualties.

Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump: All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning. Image Copyright @realDonaldTrump @realDonaldTrump Report
<figure> <span> <img alt="Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump: All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties &amp; damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning." src="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/socialembed/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1214739853025394693~/news/world-middle-east-51028954" width="465" height="279"> <span>Image Copyright @realDonaldTrump</span> <span aria-hidden="true">@realDonaldTrump</span> </span> <div><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/contact-us/editorial" aria-label="Report Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump">Report</a></div> </figure>
Presentational white space

The attacks took place hours after the burial of Soleimani. The second attack occurred in Irbil shortly after the first rockets hit Al Asad, Al Mayadeen TV said.

Map showing US military bases in Iraq
Presentational white space

Earlier in the day, President Trump said a US withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be the worst thing for the country.

His comments came in the wake of a letter, which the US military said had been sent in error , to Iraq's prime minister, apparently agreeing to a request by Iraqi MPs to pull troops out.

The US has around 5,000 troops in Iraq.

The UK foreign office told the BBC: "We are urgently working to establish the facts on the ground. Our first priority is the security of British personnel."

The UK has put the Royal Navy and military helicopters on standby amid rising tensions in the Middle East, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said earlier.

How did we get here?

The assassination of Soleimani on January 3 was a major escalation in already deteriorating relations between Iran and the US.

The general - who controlled Iran's proxy forces across the Middle East - was regarded as a terrorist by the US government, which says he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American troops and was plotting "imminent" attacks.

Iran vowed "severe revenge" for his death.

[Jan 08, 2020] Iran's assault on US bases in Iraq might satisfy both sides

Jan 08, 2020 | www.theguardian.com

The "severe revenge" Iran promised for the death of Qassem Suleimani was heralded on Wednesday morning by at least two waves of short-range missile attacks on bases in Iraq hosting US and coalition personnel.

The attacks will provide an opportunity for hawks inside the Donald Trump administration to ratchet up the conflict with Iran – but also potentially a pathway out of the crisis.

The Iranian strikes were heavy on symbolism. The missiles were launched around 1.30am in Iraq , roughly the same time as the drone strike that killed Suleimani on Friday morning. Top Iranian advisers and semi-official media outlets tweeted pictures of the country's flag during the attack, mirroring Donald Trump's tweet as the first reports of Suleimani's death were emerging. The Revolutionary Guards dubbed the operation "Martyr Suleimani". Videos of the missiles being launched were released to Iranian media outlets.

ss="rich-link"> Iran attacks two US airbases in Iraq in wake of Suleimani killing Read more

But in their immediate aftermath, the attacks appear to have been carefully calibrated to avoid US casualties – fired at bases that were already on high alert.

Iran's foreign minister has said the strikes have concluded and characterised them as self-defence within the boundaries of international law – not the first shots in a war.

Trump, in his first comments after the strikes, also sought to play them down.
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning.

January 8, 2020

If Trump's assessment of the damage holds, Wednesday's strikes might be an opportunity for both sides to de-escalate without losing face. Iran will be able to say it took violent revenge for Suleimani's death and pivot to a campaign of proxy warfare – with which it feels more comfortable, against a vastly more powerful adversary – and diplomatic pressure to eject American forces from Iraq.

The US can also step back, shrugging off the retaliation as being of no significant consequence. That is the best-case scenario, but it rests on two risky premises: that more than a dozen missiles struck bases hosting US military personnel without substantial damage or casualties; and that the White House will resist any urge to respond.

[Jan 08, 2020] Pretty sure Trump and Bibi are not unhappy about this since that's probably what they hoped for.

Trump is implementing the last leg of PNAC. https://www.wanttoknow.info/020907pnacprojectnewamericancentury Iraq, Libya, Afghan, Syria, Iran, China have all been targeted.
Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Pft , Jan 8 2020 1:07 utc | 151
Not sure whats true at this point. If Iran is indeed behind the missile attacks they will pay the price. Hoped they could restrain themselves and make it harder on the US to escalate. But then again, maybe they felt it was inevitable or militant factions from within demanded a response. Anyways, lesson being if you commit an act of war don't be surprised there is retaliation. Pretty sure Trump and Bibi are not unhappy about this since that's probably what they hoped for.

Grieved , Jan 8 2020 1:07 utc | 152

This is a brilliant response by Iran and Iraq.

If we're all alive by morning - and we may not be - subsequent analysis and events will show just how the US has been called out.

We've long said that the US had a big SLAP coming to it. This is it. Because the world has changed. No more bullying.

Walter , Jan 8 2020 1:08 utc | 153
ben | Jan 8 2020 1:02 utc | 143

They're Persians. They are the people that invented war. But you're right, the suits are delusional. Reality can be a real bitxh when one awakens from a delusion. That's a dangerous moment, when the suspension of disbelief goes "poof!"

Grieved , Jan 8 2020 1:34 utc | 177
"State media: Iranian Air Defense downs US Jet near Bandar Abbas on the Persian Gulf."
https://twitter.com/Brasco_Aad/status/1214721053341233158
Piotr Berman , Jan 8 2020 1:34 utc | 178
Arab armies aren't very good at conducting warfare.

Iranians aren't Arabs, they are a branch of Indo-European/Aryan, who historically have been very good at conducting warfare.
----------
This ignores history. For example, in recent decades Italians were much less militarily minded than their Roman ancestors. Similarly, Danes today are not similar to folks who conquered half of England 1100 years ago and the whole of England decades later, only to loose it to Frenchified Danes afterwards.

To provide examples from the Syrian war, 100% Arab Lebanese Hezbollah were reputed to be most effective, and getting less casualties that other units. By the way of contrast, units of Afghan volunteers assembled by Iran were so-so. And ISIS was most effective if you count their numbers, although with a lot of casualties. Syrian themselves had good elite units and many more mediocre units.

Ric G , Jan 8 2020 1:37 utc | 180
It is the monetary system which is the second battlefield as this carnage begins to unfold!

Perhaps the Comex gold warehousing swindle is about to blow up and hundreds of trillions of dollars in oil derivatives will destroy the banksters.

The Persian sword should also be aimed at the banking system!

Circe , Jan 8 2020 1:38 utc | 182
@163 Vasco da Gama

could you please look deep into your Crystal Ball and tell us all here what do you see?

I see bone-spurs Trump shitting his pants, and Netanyahoo and Lindsay peeing with glee.

***************************

@159 Perimetr

USS Abraham Lincoln is in the Arabian Sea and was kept out of Persian Gulf Strait of Hormuz not to be caught as sitting duck.

Unfortunately, here is what the U.S. military has prepared in the area to satisfy Trump's infantile obsession.

How U.S. prepared for the Worst

karlof1 , Jan 8 2020 1:39 utc | 183
Brent's already up 3.5% having broke $70.

USA just lost its first jet :

"State media: Iranian Air Defense downs US Jet near Bandar Abbas on the Persian Gulf."

The info is coming so fast it's crazy to try and keep pace, although it appears there's a break at present.

Piotr Berman , Jan 8 2020 1:44 utc | 185
a tweet (so not reliable)
#BREAKING: First video showing a Fateh-110 precision guided ballistic missile of #IRGC hitting the Ain al-Asad Air Base in #Iraq during Operation #Soleimani of #IRGCASF.#IRGC sources claim they have destroyed several #USArmy helicopters & drones & have killed 80 #US troops there!
Sasha , Jan 8 2020 2:00 utc | 203
Operation Inherent Resolve...

Via Mark Sleboda Twitter...

Hezbollah has said that if America attacks #Iran, it will attack Israel.

Houthis in Yemen have said if America attacks, it will attack US bases.

Some PMU units have said they will also attack US forces if the US attacks #Iran.

https://twitter.com/SinaToossi/status/1214717549419671552

Arioch , Jan 8 2020 2:00 utc | 205
I like BBC headlines

Is expecting Iran to de-escalate realistic?
Iran has a number of possible retaliation options following the US killing of an Iranian commander.

1h ago


Oh, well, whad'ya think.... In just an hour after this BBC masterpiece shit hit the fan.

--------------

NBC Ali Arouzi claims Iran demands USA not to retaliate, quoting Haifa and Dubai for "3rd wave".
Delicious if true. "Sand niggas" returning the "sole hyperpower" the favour. Didn't Pompeo or someone demanded "not to retaliate" just a day or two ago.
But i am not sure we can trust NBC or any other western propaganda office about what Iran did and dis not say.

Intel would not like loosing Haifa, they already loosing market to AMD last year....

---------

Trump got himself his Pearl Harbor 2.0 and "wartime president" status. Maybe will make him re-elected.

But also IRGC "pulled the hook". Due to American hubris they now just can not evacuate USArmy Iraqi garrisons to, say, Kuwait. And would have to infringe upon Iraq sovereignty and to be sitting ducks there. Wagging the dog.

--------

I still wonder about nukes.
I hope Russia and China would prohibit long-range and medium-range vehicles, citing M.A.D. concerns and protocols, so USA would be limited to short-range nuclear-wielding weapons. Which they shouls have much less.

I also hope Trump would get his re-election and stop short of using tactical nukes, but see no rational reasons for such a restrain for today USA.

--------

There was no news yet, however, about US Navy fleeing away from Iran ASMs range. So hopefully Pentagon does not see real threat of real war, not yet. And maybe it will still be contained as one more run of the mill American warlette. Hopefully...

Daniel , Jan 8 2020 2:24 utc | 228
Launching a ballistic missile attack against a US base in al-Anbar is smart from a 'limited escalation' perspective. It prevents the fight from expanding across the region unless the United States loses its mind completely and unleashes a full out attack on Iran. Additionally, targeting American occupation troops in Iraq plays well with ordinary Iraqis sick of American aggression on their soil and such a strike, as opposed to a targeted assassination or an attack outside of Iraq, gives Iran's enemies very little propaganda material to work with. It serves the ball back into the US court and makes Washington 100% responsible if it escalates this conflict into a regional war. Also, not waiting for weeks or months before retaliating makes it much more difficult for Israel or a US proxy to launch a false flag and try to blame it on Iran. Well played.
librul , Jan 8 2020 2:25 utc | 229
website is reporting (not with total confidence) that Iran says that as soon as the US strikes Iran
Iran will strike Israel

http://thesaker.is/according-to-the-site-colonel-cassad-the-irgc-has-declared-that-as-soon-as-the-us-strikes-iran-iran-will-strike-israel/

Clueless Joe , Jan 8 2020 2:32 utc | 232
Well, if it was a limited strike that was designed to look big and make some serious material damage, and not to kill a lot of US troops, then it's quite possible that Trump - assuming he doesn't go the heavy retaliation way - can soon, and definitely before elections, be able to order US to leave Iraq not because they don't want the US there but actually in a magnanimous act, "to make sure that poor country won't be bombed again by evil Iranians" - arguably with a mutual understanding with Iran that both will stick to a limited direct influence over Iraq. But that would be the best-case scenario, where Iran boots the US, the US still got hit, but no more deaths, cycle of reprisals ends, and Iraq is basically free at last.
I'll see how bad it actually is when I wake up...
uncle tungsten , Jan 8 2020 2:35 utc | 236
karlof1 #218

I am sure the morning awaits us and our chants and meditations. But the morning also brings a new sun upon the Saudis and if this process is planned as an extensive revenge (and I believe it is) then the Saudis can awake expecting it to rain stones for some time.

If this struggle to evict the USA is serious then Iran and its Persian army will emasculate the key arab pawn over the coming weeks and the Houthis will be given reprieve to bring them to victory in Yemen. My guess is that this way will give stability and a framework for peace in the region sufficient to counter the belligerence of the occupier of Palestine lands.

The region is subject to endless provocations and the 'gift of Golan' to Israel is just one the more recent grievous affronts that are unlikely to end unless there is a profound military rebuff to the lunacy of western private finance capital scheming.

The illegal occupation of Syrian oilfields could collapse immediately as well if it has not already commenced.

Each new day will tell but I will always wish for peace. Thank you your insights and may you and your wife greet the sun in peace each day.

Grieved , Jan 8 2020 2:41 utc | 241
But Zarif says this is all for now (my emphasis):
Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched.

We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.
https://twitter.com/JZarif/status/1214736614217469953

~~

And so, karlof1 , we shall if the red flag comes down. Perhaps this was enough of a slap? But they must leave, that remains as an imperative that will smolder unceasingly now.

WJ , Jan 8 2020 3:39 utc | 270
James @265,

If Russia has disallowed the use of nukes, then there's not much the US military can do, no matter how bloodthirsty the Zionists are. As soon as the US hits Iran, Tel Aviv goes up in smoke. That's all there is to it. It's been this way for months and months now. The Israeli and US casualties required for a direct attack on Iran are just too high for Zionists to stomach. The use of nukes was the only viable play from the beginning (and I realize this is not really "viable" to any sane person, but Pompeo and Netanyahu are not sane.) If nukes are out, then the US cannot establish dominance over the skies quickly enough to prevent thousands upon thousands of Israeli and US casualties. It seems to me that everybody must know this is true, deep down.

[Jan 08, 2020] Do you really want to be a one term president? Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. Where will you be able to take refuge?

Highly recommended!
Iran has incentives to increase the chance of a Democrat administration, bearing in mind the great deal they got from the last one and the lack of anything they can expect from Trump Term Two.
Notable quotes:
"... Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump. He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4 pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in your face in an hour, Sir ". ..."
"... Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on the military (which likely will obey). ..."
"... These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper. ..."
"... As a thank you to Trump calling the Israel occupied Golan a part of Israel Netanyahu called an (iirc also illegal) new Golan settlement "Ramat Trump" ..."
"... I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have? ..."
"... The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking. ..."
"... Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ..."
"... Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. ..."
"... We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies. If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL ..."
Sep 18, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com
  • You have just several thousand soldiers in Iraq and Syria. These countries have large proxy forces of Iran's allies in the form of Shia militias in Iraq and actual Iranian Quds Force troops in Syria. These forces will be used to attack and kill our soldiers.
  • The Iranians have significant numbers of ballistic missiles which they have already said will be used against our forces
  • The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the IRGC Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed. In that process the US Navy will loose men and ships.
  • In direct air attacks on Iran we are bound to lose aircraft and air crew.
  • The IRGC and its Quds Force will carry out terrorist attacks across the world.

Do you really want to be a one term president? Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. Where will you be able to take refuge? Don't let the neocons like Pompeo sell you on war.

Make the intelligence people show you the evidence in detail. Make your own judgments. pl

Vegetius , 17 September 2019 at 08:37 PM

Whatever else he knows, Trump knows that he can't sell a war to the American people.
confusedponderer -> Vegetius... , 18 September 2019 at 03:51 AM
Vegetius,

re " Trump knows that he can't sell a war to the American people "

Are you sure? I am not.

Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump. He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4 pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in your face in an hour, Sir ".

A good number of the so called grownups who gave such advice were (gameshow style) fired, sometimes by twitter.

Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on the military (which likely will obey).

These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper.

Israel could, if politically just a tad more insane, bomb Iran and thus invite the inevitable retaliation. When that happens they'll cry for US aid, weapons and money because they alone ~~~

(a) cannot defeat Iran (short of going nuclear) and ...
(b) Holocaust! We want weapons and money from Germany, too! ...
(c) they know that ...
(d) which does not lead in any way to Netanyahu showing signgs of self restraint or reason.

Netanyahu just - it is (tight) election time - announced, in his sldedge hammer style subtlety, that (he) Israel will annect the palestinian west jordan territory, making the Plaestines an object in his election campaign.

IMO that idea is simply insane and invites more "troubles". But then, I didn't hear anything like, say, Trump gvt protests against that (and why expect that from the dudes who moved the US embassy to Jerusalem).

confusedponderer -> Vegetius... , 18 September 2019 at 07:28 AM
Vegetius,

as for Trump and Netanyahu ... policy debate ... I had that here in mind, which pretty speaks for itself. And I thought Trumo is just running for office in the US. Alas, it is a Netanyaho campaign poster from the current election:

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/a6e60efd3bde0befbcb8b0a95a42bf4c2624e017/57_296_5123_3074/master/5123.jpg?width=1920&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=1958b9e7cf24d7a3a7b024845de08f7e

As a thank you to Trump calling the Israel occupied Golan a part of Israel Netanyahu called an (iirc also illegal) new Golan settlement "Ramat Trump"

https://cdn.mdr.de/nachrichten/mdraktuell-golan-hoehen-trump-hights-100-resimage_v-variantSmall24x9_w-704.jpg?version=0964

I generously assume that things like that only happen because of the hard and hard ly work of Kushner on his somewhat elusive but of course GIGANTIC and INCREDIBLE Middle East peace plan.

Kushner is probably getting hard and hard ly supported by Ivanka who just said that she inherited her moral compass from her father. Well ... congatulations ... I assume.

Stueeeeeeee said in reply to Vegetius... , 18 September 2019 at 08:31 AM
I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have?

The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking.

The rest of the nation will follow.

prawnik said in reply to Vegetius... , 18 September 2019 at 10:36 AM
Need I trot out Goering's statement regarding selling a war once more?

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

turcopolier , 17 September 2019 at 09:31 PM
jonst

We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies. If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL

Matt said in reply to turcopolier ... , 18 September 2019 at 12:54 AM
I agree with your reply 100%
  • Iranophobia goes back to 1979,
  • Russophobia goes back to at least 1917 if not further, especially in the UK,
  • Sinophobia for the US reaches back to the mid to late 1800's

these phobias are so entrenched now they're a huge obstacle to overcome,

Mark Twain: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

William Casey: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false"

Christian Chuba , 18 September 2019 at 05:22 AM
The 'ivestigations are a formality. The Saudis (with U.S. backing) are already saying that the missiles were Iranian made and according to them, this proves that Iran fired them. The Saudis are using the more judicious phrase 'behind the attack' but Pompeo is running with the fired from Iran narrative.

How can we tell the difference between an actual Iranian manufactured missile vs one that was manufactured in Yemen based on Iranian designs? We only have a few pictures Iranian missiles unlike us, the Iranians don't toss them all over the place so we don't have any physical pieces to compare them to.

Perhaps honest investigators could make a determination but even if they do exist they will keep quiet while the bible thumping Pompeo brays and shamelessly lies as he is prone to do.

PRC90 said in reply to Christian Chuba... , 18 September 2019 at 10:36 AM
These kinds of munition will leave hundreds of bits scattered all over their targets. I'm waiting for the press conference with the best bits laid out on the tables.
I doubt that there will be any stencils saying 'Product of Iran', unless the paint smells fresh.
Nuff Sed , 18 September 2019 at 07:22 AM
1. I am still waiting to read some informed discussion concerning the *accuracy* of the projectiles hitting their targets with uncanny precision from hundreds of miles away. What does this say about the achievement of those pesky Eye-rainians? https://www.moonofalabama.org/images9/saudihit2.jpg

2. "The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the IRGC Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed.: Ahem, Which forces are utterly destroyed? With respect colonel, you are not thinking straight. An army with supersonic land to sea missiles that are highly accurate will make minced meat of any fool's ship that dare attack it. The lesson of the last few months is that Iran is deadly serious about its position that if they cannot sell their oil, no one else will be able to either. And if the likes of the relatively broadminded colonel have not yet learned that lesson, then this can only mean that the escalation ladder will continue to be climbed, rung by rung. Next rung: deep sea port of Yanbu, or, less likely, Ra's Tanura. That's when the price of oil will really go through the roof and the Chinese (and possibly one or two of the Europoodles) will start crying Uncle Scam. Nuff Sed.

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 08:07 AM
nuff Sed

It sounds like you are getting a little "help" with this. You statement about the result of a naval confrontation in the Gulf reflects the 19th Century conception that "ships can't fight forts." that has been many times exploded. You have never seen the amount of firepower that would be unleashed on Iran from the air and sea. Would the US take casualties? Yes, but you will be destroyed.

Nuff Sed -> turcopolier ... , 18 September 2019 at 08:18 AM
We will have to agree to disagree. But unless I am quite mistaken, the majority view if not the consensus of informed up to date opinion holds that the surest sign that the US is getting ready to attack Iran is that it is withdrawing all of its naval power out of the Persian Gulf, where they would be sitting ducks.

Besides, I don't think it will ever come to that. Not to repeat myself, but taking out either deep sea ports of Ra's Tanura and/ or Yanbu (on the Red Sea side) will render Saudi oil exports null and void for the next six months. The havoc that will play with the price of oil and consequently on oil futures and derivatives will be enough for any president and army to have to worry about. But if the US would still be foolhardy enough to continue to want to wage war (i.e. continue its strangulation of Iran, which it has been doing more or less for the past 40 years), then the Yemeni siege would be broken and there would be a two-pronged attack from the south and the north, whereby al-Qatif, the Shi'a region of Saudi Arabia where all the oil and gas is located, will be liberated from their barbaric treatment at the hands of the takfiri Saudi scum, which of course is completely enabled and only made possible by the War Criminal Uncle Sam.

Go ahead, make my day: roll the dice.

scott s. said in reply to Nuff Sed ... , 18 September 2019 at 11:32 AM
AFAIK the only "US naval power" currently is the Abraham Lincoln CSG and I haven't seen any public info that it was in the Persian Gulf. Aside from the actual straits, I'm not sure of your "sitting ducks" assertion. First they wouldn't be sitting, and second you have the problem of a large volume of grey shipping that would complicate the targeting problem. Of course with a reduced time-of-flight, that also reduces target position uncertainty.
CK said in reply to turcopolier ... , 18 September 2019 at 09:55 AM
Forts are stationary.
Nothing I have read implies that Iran has a lot of investment in stationary forts.
Millennium Challenge 2002, only the game cannot be restarted once the enemy does not behave as one hopes. Unlike in scripted war simulations, Opfor can win.
I remember the amount of devastation that was unleashed on another "backwards nation" Linebackers 1 - 20, battleship salvos chemical defoliants, the Phoenix program, napalm for dessert.
And not to put to fine a point on it, but that benighted nation was oriental; Iran is a Caucasian nation full of Caucasian type peoples.
Nothing about this situation is of any benefit to the USA.
We do not need Saudi oil, we do not need Israel to come to the defense of the USA here in North America, we do not need to stick our dick into the hornet's nest and then wonder why they sting and it hurts. How many times does Dumb have to win?
Nuff Sed , 18 September 2019 at 08:07 AM
3. Also, I can't imagine this event as being a very welcome one for Israeli military observers, the significance of which is not lost on them, unlike their US counterparts. If Yemen/ Iran can put the Abqaiq processing plant out of commission for a few weeks, then obviusly Hezbollah can do the same for the giant petrochemical complex at Haifa, as well as Dimona, and the control tower at Ben Gurion Airport.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/239251

https://www.timesofisrael.com/haifa-municipal-workers-block-refinery-access-for-2nd-day/

These are the kinds of issues which are germane: the game has changed. What are the implications?

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 08:08 AM
nuff sed

I have said repeatedly that Hizbullah can destroy Israel. Nothing about that has changed.

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 08:17 AM
Yeah, right

It was late at night when I wrote this. Yeah, Right. the Iranians could send their massive ground force into Syria where it would be chewed up by US and Israeli air. Alternatively they could invade Saudi arabia.

Yeah, Right said in reply to turcopolier ... , 18 September 2019 at 08:38 AM
Thank you for the reply but actually I was thinking that an invasion of Afghanistan would be the more sensible ploy.

To my mind if the Iranian Army sits on its backside then the USAF and IAF will ignore it to roam the length and breadth of Iran destroying whatever ground targets are on their long-planned target-list.

Or that Iranian Army can launch itself into Afghanistan, at which point all of the USA plans for a methodical aerial pummelling of Iran's infrastructure goes out the window as the USAF scrambles to save the American forces in Afghanistan from being overrun.

Isn't that correct?

So what incentive is there for that Iranian Army to sit around doing nothing?

Iran will do what the USAF isn't expecting it to do, if for no other reason that it upsets the USA's own game-plan.

johnf , 18 September 2019 at 08:41 AM
There seems to be a bit of a hiatus in proceedings - not in these columns but on the ground in the ME.

Everyone seems to be waiting for something.

Could this "something" be the decisive word fron our commander in chief Binyamin Netanyahu?

The thing is he has just pretty much lost an election. Likud might form part of the next government of Israel but most likely not with him at its head.

Does anyone have any ideas on what the future policy of Israel is likely to be under Gantz or whoever? Will it be the same, worse or better?

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 08:51 AM
Yeah Right

The correct US move would be to ignore an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan and continue leaving the place. The Iranian Shia can then fight the Sunni jihadi tribesmen.

Yeah, Right said in reply to turcopolier ... , 18 September 2019 at 09:29 AM
Oh, I completely agree that if the Iranians launch an invasion of Afghanistan then the only sensible strategy would be for the US troops to pack up and get out as fast as possible.

But that is "cut and run", which many in Washington would view as a humiliation.

Do you really see the beltway warriors agreeing to that?

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 08:53 AM
Stueee

A flaw in your otherwise sound argument is that the US military has not been seriously engaged for several years and has been reconstituting itself with the money Trump has given them.

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 08:57 AM
Nuff Sed

Re-positioning of forces does not indicate that a presidential decision for war has been made. The navy will not want to fight you in the narrow, shallow waters of the Gulf.

Lars , 18 September 2019 at 09:53 AM
I would think that Mr. Trump would have a hard time sell a war with Iran over an attack on Saudi Arabia. The good question about how would that war end will soon be raised and I doubt there are many good answers.

The US should have gotten out of that part of the world a long time ago, just as they should have paid more attention to the warnings in President Eisenhower's farewell address.

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 10:12 AM
CK

The point was about shore based firepower, not forts. don't be so literal.

CK said in reply to turcopolier ... , 18 September 2019 at 10:34 AM
The Perfumed Fops in the DOD restarted Millennium Challenge 2002,because Gen Van Riper had used 19th and early 20th century tactics and shore based firepower to sink the Blue Teams carrier forces. There was a script, Van Riper did some adlibbing. Does the US DOD think that Iran will follow the US script? In a unipolar world maybe the USA could enforce a script, that world was severely wounded in 1975, took a sucking chest wound during operation Cakewalk in 2003 and died in Syria in 2015. Too many poles too many powers not enough diplomacy. It will not end well.
turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 10:16 AM
lars

We would crush Iran at some cost to ourselves but the political cost to the anti-globalist coalition would catastrophic. BTW Trump's "base" isn't big enough to elect him so he cannot afford to alienate independents.

prawnik , 18 September 2019 at 10:32 AM
Even if Rouhani and the Iranian Parliament personally designed, assembled, targeted and launched the missiles (scarier sounding version of "drones"), then they should be congratulated, for the Saudi tyrant deserves every bad thing that he gets.
turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 10:49 AM
prawnik (Sid) in this particular situation goering's glittering generalization does not apply. Trump needs a lot of doubting suburbanites to win and a war will not incline them to vote for him.
Bill Wade , 18 September 2019 at 10:53 AM
Looks like President Trump is walking it back, tweet: I have just instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to substantially increase Sanctions on the country of Iran!
PRC90 , 18 September 2019 at 11:34 AM
I doubt there will be armed conflict of any kind.
Everything Trump does from now (including sacking the Bolton millstone) will be directed at winning 2020, and that will not be aided by entering into some inconclusive low intensity attrition war.
Iran, on the other hand, will be doing everything it can to increase the chance of a Democrat administration, bearing in mind the great deal they got from the last one and the lack of anything they can expect from Trump Term Two.
This may be a useful tool for determining their next move, but the limit of their actions would be when some Democrats begin making the electorally damaging mistake of critising Trump for not retaliating against Iranian provocations.
Terence Gore , 18 September 2019 at 11:35 AM
Pros and cons of many options considered against Iran

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf

[Jan 08, 2020] Pompeo's Falsehood-Laden Briefing Echoed Uncritically by Media Outlets

Jan 08, 2020 | news.antiwar.com

Antiwar.com Regional News

Unbacked allegations and plain contradictions drive anti-Iran narrative Jason Ditz Posted on January 7, 2020 Categories News Tags Iran , Pompeo

As the Trump Administration continues to barrel toward a war with Iran, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a press conference in which he once again claimed that every dubious accusation made by the administration was true, and the internally inconsistent comments among top officials are all somehow in agreement.

Pompeo's comments, even the ones that made no sense or were obviously untrue, were echoed across US media outlets as absolute facts following the briefing. Everyone was clearly more comfortable just reporting " Pompeo says " than analyzing it.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was very critical of some of the worst claims Pompeo made , saying one would have to be brain-dead to believe them. He noted it made no sense to attack Iran to "preempt" attacks when the attack just made attacks even more likely.

Pompeo was largely dismissive of questions about the US attack, and rejected claims that Gen. Qassem Soleimani was working on Saudi diplomacy, saying nobody believed Soleimani was engaged in diplomacy and that Iranian FM was lying about that. In reality, Iraq's PM Adel Abdul Mahdi was the one who broke the story of why Soleimani was in Iraq. Instead of evidence to the contrary, Pompeo just denied.

On the question of the US barring Zarif from the UN in violation of the headquarters agreement, Pompeo said the US doesn't comment on why they deny people entrance, and insisted that the US always complies with the headquarters agreement, despite it flat out saying you can't block officials from speaking at the UN, and the US doing exactly that.

The closest anyone at the briefing came to calling Pompeo on his contradictions was on the matter of the US attacking cultural sites. President Trump threatened to attack Iranian cultural sites on Saturday, Pompeo said Trump never said that on Sunday, and Trump said it again on Sunday evening. Pompeo was asked to address this.

Pompeo said that what he said, that Trump never said there would be attacks on cultural sites, was "completely consistent with what the President has said," which repeatedly was that he intends to attack cultural sites. This was a bit too glaring, and one of the press said "No, but the President has -" before being interrupted by Pompeo.

At this point, Pompeo went off on a tangent claiming that the ayatollah is the "real threat" to Iranian culture. When asked if that meant US attacks on cultural sites are "ruled out," despite Trump's comments, Pompeo promptly ended the briefing and left.

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper also claimed on Tuesday that Soleimani was planning to attack Americans "within days" if the US hadn't killed him. As with Pompeo, his claim did not include any evidence, and ask with Pompeo's claims, the press is echoing it.

[Jan 08, 2020] Donald Trump presidency Chaos and surprises emerge as twin crises - CNNPolitics

Jan 08, 2020 | www.cnn.com

Washington (CNN) The increasingly chaotic aftermath of the US strike against Iran has left President Donald Trump's team scrambling to keep up with his unpredictable decisions and inflammatory pronouncements, and suggests dysfunction at the heart of the nation's critical national security process.

Top Trump aides are making frantic efforts to justify the killing of Qasem Soleimani , one of Iran's top leaders, and are bracing for a possible reprisal attack as the Islamic Republic moves around military hardware . But they are still refusing to publicly offer Americans details of the "imminent" attacks that they said the top general was planning. A farcical episode on Monday when at one point it seemed the military had announced it was pulling back troops from Iraq -- then said it made a mistake -- painted an unflattering picture of the administration's decision-making process. And t op officials have twice had to rule out Trump's warning that he could strike at "cultural" targets in Iran if it tries to avenge Soleimani's killing. Such action could amount to war crimes. The churn in Washington and growing questions over the rationale for an escalation that some fear could lead the US and Iran closer to war is complicating Trump's hopes of presenting a clean narrative that he acted decisively to eliminate a terrorist mastermind and to save the lives of hundreds of Americans.

[Jan 08, 2020] Is Trump that stupid and malleble? Yes, he is. Now MAGA should be read "Make the USA go away"

Notable quotes:
"... It is clear to me after watching that extraordinary video of Trump's ignorance and stupidity that he is the idiot piper leading the West into the abyss. There could be no better epitome of the neoliberal sociopathy that drives our collapsing phase of late-capitalism. Putin's wet dream: a narcissist half-wit driving the western bus. ..."
"... As for trying to put the blame on Pentagon staffers, even if they chose such weird options for Trump to choose, at the end of the day, it's the President himself who chose - as another one said decades ago, "the buck stops here" and the guy in the Oval Office has to bear the full responsibility. ..."
Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

David G , Jan 6 2020 19:57 utc | 19

b writes:
The New York Times reported yesterday that Trump picked the 'wrong' item from a list of possible courses of action that the military had presented him. That sounded like bullshit invented to take blame away from Trump and to put it onto the military.
To me it looks more like the opposite: the Times's Pentagon sources pinning it on loose cannon Trump's going with the extreme option that the military hadn't intended him to. But whatever. The U.S. is facing the same harsh new reality regardless.

Patroklos , Jan 6 2020 20:03 utc | 21

The Times in London ran with a front page "We Will Kill UK Troops, warns Iran" ( here's the Guardian summary ). Despite initial reports that the UK and EU were distancing themselves from the assassination, the MSM have clearly been given their orders to begin banging the drum for war. The scramble for a casus belli reminds me of WMD, so I think a war of some scope is strongly desired and Boris Johnson has been brought on board. France will stay out and Germany will look first at Russia's position.

It is clear to me after watching that extraordinary video of Trump's ignorance and stupidity that he is the idiot piper leading the West into the abyss. There could be no better epitome of the neoliberal sociopathy that drives our collapsing phase of late-capitalism. Putin's wet dream: a narcissist half-wit driving the western bus.

lgfocus , Jan 6 2020 19:40 utc | 11

Moqtada Al-Sadr to Trump
"We are demanders of peace if you surrender and war if you fight. Do you threaten us? How dare you"

read from Elijah Magnier's thread on Al-Sadr's letter.

Zanon , Jan 6 2020 19:37 utc | 7
Trump is probably not stupid enough to launch such a war and certainly not during an election year.

During his campaign Trump said he wanted the U.S. military out of the Middle East. Iran and its allies will help him to keep that promise.

Hasnt Trump proved he is stupid enough by now? How much more evidence is needed to drop him? Trump start wars to get another election win, I think that is obvious? And allies keeping him back? Which allieshave even remotely criticized his threats and murder? People need to realize that there is nothing stopping Trump, he and Israel will keep bombing and unfortunately its not much Iran could do.

Clueless Joe , Jan 6 2020 19:37 utc | 8
Dan: The guy fought the Talibans and ISIS, and has always been opposed to them; that's good enough for me, and that's definitely more than any of the coward and treacherous Western leaders that pussy-foot instead of calling out the US for what tantamounts to a declaration of war on both Iraq and Iran.

As for trying to put the blame on Pentagon staffers, even if they chose such weird options for Trump to choose, at the end of the day, it's the President himself who chose - as another one said decades ago, "the buck stops here" and the guy in the Oval Office has to bear the full responsibility.

Col. Lang is once again warning that Trump trying to keep the troops in Iraq would be a terrible mistake with bad consequences, and that it's just not realistic. He probably prefers not to say it that way when stating it's a long road from Kuwait to Baghdad, but if shit hits the fan and Iraqis decide to go after the US troops, then those who can't evacuate fast enough will end up in a position similar to that of the British in Kabul, in the very first days of 1842.

Phryne's frock , Jan 6 2020 19:37 utc | 9
Aghast at your words, dan. I am an aging homemaker from usa midwest and I have yet to stop weeping for Qassem Soleimani, his poor widow, and the rest of his family. I feel I owe him a personal debt for fighting zionists/terrorists/imperialists, for if they are not defeated once and for all, my captive government will continue in perpetuity to serve their horridmurderousthieving agenda, enslaving my every descendent and robbing humanity of any chance for peace on this pretty garden harbor planet. May justice be done to give peace a chance.
Paul Bogdanich , Jan 6 2020 20:25 utc | 30
What I wonder is who is the genius in the chain of command who brought this "opportunity" to Trump's attention and who vetted the decision? Trump made a large error when he surrounded himself with neocons (Abrahams, Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel, Esper). Anyway it's a tangle and it's pretty clear he (Trump) is in over his head. When he paniks he talks tough and he's making threats. It's also no wonder he has not received any support on his decision to murder Soleimani. From anywhere. Not even Israel is publicly supporting the decision. I think that surprised him. For 350 years there has been an unwritten rule that you don't go after generals or ambassadors or visiting politicians unless they are actively engaged in a combat zone. Remember the outrage when the barbarian Libyans killed a mere station chief? How outraged we were? Well, Trump overtly and with malice of forethought broke the rule. If I were the Iranian's and I could get to any U.S. generals or high ranking officials (working or visiting overseas) that's what I would do. Create animus within his own military and cabinet departments. Get them at the supermarket, speaking engagements, on vacation, at home, wherever. Doesn't matter. Wherever you can get them. Shitty thing to do no doubt but he started it and something the American and other populations would instinctively understand. Blood for blood retribution. No need to explain it to people.
Alpi , Jan 6 2020 20:43 utc | 41
......." Trump is probably not stupid enough to launch such a war and certainly not during an election year."

b,

you are assuming that you are dealing with someone with a full deck of cards. If He was stupid enough to kill a sovereign nation's top general, he will be stupid enough to start a war. In fact that is his biggest wish. Elections be damned. Maybe the military would put on the breaks but not this stupid sick man.

Robert Snefjella , Jan 6 2020 21:49 utc | 75
Few points: (1) Thanks to Trump, Pompeo and Esper every American soldier everywhere now wears a bulls eye;
(2) Any soldier -including Americans - might find a great deal to admire in Soliemani, a guy with a humble background who accomplished an extraordinary track record, a legendary strategist';

(3) Has the US military's 'faith' in the sanity and competence of the civilian authority been stretched near to some breaking point?

Lurk , Jan 6 2020 22:00 utc | 89
Trump and Pence are dumb and dumber.

Pence claimed on twitter that Suleimani assisted the 12 9/11 hijackers, for which he was instantly ridiculed.

Trump wants billions payback for airbases in Iraq that were already fully transferred upon American withdrawal in december 2011.

BTW, the trolls are obvious trolls. Could be from Tel Aviv, but perhaps from London, too (Integrity Initiative) Brits must be banging their heads against the wall over orange utan dropping a monkey wrench into the gears of the imperial machine that they too depend on. You bet that they need to spin this hard.

Antigone , Jan 6 2020 22:02 utc | 91
"We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that's there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time. We're not leaving unless they pay us back for it,"
Trump said

Paying us back?

Just ask the Iraqis - here is a reminder of what the bitter reality of economic violence looks like:

The Crimes of Neoliberal Rule in Occupied Iraq

The clearest statement of intent for the future of the Iraqi economy is contained in Order 39, which permitted full foreign ownership of Iraqi state-owned assets and decreed that over 200 state-owned enterprises, including electricity, telecommunications and the pharmaceuticals industry, could be dismantled. Order 39 also permitted 100 per cent foreign ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move their profits out of Iraq. It has been argued already in the British courts that Order 39 constitutes an act of ILLEGAL OCCUPATION under the terms of the Hague and Geneva treaties : The effect of Article 55 is to outlaw privatization of a country's assets whilst it is under occupation by a hostile military power."
The mandate of the CPA was clear: to meet the 'humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people', to meet the costs of 'reconstruction and repair of Iraq's infrastructure', to meet the costs of disarmament and the civil administration of the country and other purposes 'benefiting the people of Iraq'. The terms of UNSCR 1483 are unequivocal in this regard. It was this resolution that established the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI)
• DFI revenue, was available to the CPA immediately, in the form of $100,000 bundles of $100 bills, shrink-wrapped in $1.6 million 'cashpaks'. Pallets of cashpaks were flown into Baghdad direct from the US Federal Reserve Bank in New York. Some of this cash was held by the CPA in the basement of its premises in Baghdad Republican Palace. It has been reported that Paul Bremer controlled a personal slush fund of $600 million (Harriman 2005). One advantage of the use of cash payments and transfers was that the CPA transactions left no paper trail and therefore they remained relatively invisible
• The disbursal of Iraqi oil revenue by the CPA also has had profound implications for the future structure of the Iraqi economy. ..Spending (in excess of $20 billion, partly based upon projected income) had to be underwritten by US government loans .. (which) has effectively deepened the debt that was originally accumulated during the period of UN-enforced sanctions following the 1991 Gulf War (Alexander 2005).
• The right to self-determination and sovereign decision making over economic, social and cultural development is in international law a principle of jus cogens In this regard, the CPA clearly acted beyond its remit in terms of both the spirit and the letter of the international laws of conflict. It is the anti-democratic and pre-emptive nature of Anglo-American economic restructuring that most clearly demonstrates that the CPA regime was in violation of international law.
• Similar violations arise from the CPA's governance of Iraqi oil wealth. Article 49 of the Hague rules notes that 'money contributions' levied in the occupied territory 'shall only be for the needs of the army or of the administration of the territory in question'.
The political strategy was characteristically neo-liberal (evasion of 'red tape' and any obstacles that might hinder or limit the reallocation of wealth to the growing armies of private enterprises). This strategy was given momentum by the granting of formal LEGAL IMMUNITY to US personnel for activities related to the reconstruction economy. On the same day that the CPA was created by UNSCR 1483, George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13303, 2 The terms of the exemption provide immunity from prosecution for the theft or embezzlement of oil revenue, or incidentally, from any safety or environmental violations that might be committed in the course of producing Iraqi oil. Executive Order 13303 is therefore a guarantee of IMMUNITY from PROSECUTION for white-collar and corporate crimes that involve Iraqi oil. Two months later, in June 2003, Paul Bremer issued CPA Order 17. Bremer's decree guaranteed that members of the coalition military forces, the CPA, foreign missions and contractors -- and their personnel -- would remain immune from the Iraqi legal process. This carte blanche provision of immunity was extended again in June 2004.

What we are beginning to trace out here is a US government policy of suspending the normal rule of law in the US and Iraq (so much for respecting Iraqi sovereigntx...)

https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/47/2/177/519163
https://www.globalresearch.ca/neoliberalism-and-the-killing-for-profit-in-iraq/5699525

[Jan 08, 2020] Trump as a destoryer of the US empire: Unless the USA reinvades and reoccupies Iraq, the USA military forces will be gone from Syria, probably just after the election in November so Trump can say he stood up to the Iraqis

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Ghost Ship , Jan 6 2020 22:48 utc | 112

The three most important things for doing battle are logistics, logistics and logistics, and as Pat lang explains, the US forces in Syria are essentially fucked:
We have around 5,500 people there now spread across the country in little groups engaged in logistics, intelligence and training missions. They are extremely vulnerable. There are something like 150 marines in the embassy. There are also a small number of US combat forces in Syria east and north of the Euphrates river. These include a battalion of US Army National Guard mechanized troops "guarding" Syria's oil from Syria's own army and whatever devilment the Iranians might be able to arrange.

4. This is an untenable logistical situation. Supply and other functions require a major airfield close to Baghdad. We have Balad airbase and helicopter supply and air support from there into Baghdad is possible from there but may become hazardous. Iraq is a big country. It is a long and lonely drive from Kuwait for re-supply from there or evacuation through there. The same thing is true of the desert route to Jordan.

Unless it reinvades and reoccupies, the United States will be gone from Syria, probably just after the election in November so Trump can say he stood up to the Iraqis.

[Jan 08, 2020] Impeachment as a way out for the USa for create Trump Soliemani muder deadlock with Iran

Jan 08, 2020 | www.nytimes.com

Hineni47 NYC area 6h ago

"Unlike with North Korea, it's difficult to imagine any photo op or exchange of love letters defusing the crisis the president has created. " The only thing that might defuse this crisis would be the Senate convicting Trump and removing him from office. It would be a good idea if the House passes another article of impeachment accusing the president of committing an act of war without Congressional authorization.
Sirlar Jersey City 3h ago Times Pick
Threatening to destroy cultural sites of a country is the sign of a deranged madman. I can't believe a US president would dare say something like that. It goes against all the principles America stands for. Nothing will motivate the people of Iran to fight the US more than the threat of destruction to their cultural sites. If we go to war with Iran, this is a Republican war. They own it. When are decent Republicans going to stand up and do the right thing? If they don't, this could be very, very, bad.
PatMurphy77 Michigan 5h ago
The Defense department is already walking back Trump's tweet about bombing Iran culture sites. Unfortunately, it's too late because the damage to our reputation as the "shining light on the hill" has already been destroyed. I'm afraid more than now than I have ever been in my life. Who knows when or where the revenge will occur but I'm fairly certain it will happen and we'll be more isolated than ever before. It's taken centuries to build goodwill and our reputation as a beacon of democracy for the world. We gave the keys to the kingdom to a false prophet and we'll pay for his indiscretions for the rest of my lifetime. God help us all.
stan continople brooklyn 3h ago Times Pick
You've sure got it right with "rapture-mad", and the most frightening thing is that the religious zealotry of Pompeo, Pence, Mulvaney and Barr, inoculates them against any criticism, because they believe they are serving a "higher"power and any criticism is a testimony to their faith. In fact, by turning themselves into martyrs, they get to advance in line for the Rapture. It seems particularly ironic that Evangelicals who support Israel do so because they see God's plan unfolding there. The Jews, just happen to be sacrificial lambs in the grand scheme. so they must must be preserved until the time is ripe for their rightful annihilation, heralding the Second Coming. So, the problem of Pompeo, et al, is not Iran destroying Israel, it's just that they've determined the timing is off.
Eric Ashland 4h ago Times Pick
As for the "wag the dog" theory, sure, Trump sees no difference between his personal fortunes and national interests. But worse, the impeachment rests upon evidence that points to a personal criminality on an international scale, which is the landscape where we find ourselves. The president pardons convicts like Gallagher and Arpaio because they are cruel or bloodthirsty. He admires dictators and ignores the law whenever he can, both as a private individual and a president, and has obstructed a legal investigation into his corruption. Now, on the international stage, by bypassing Congress, he is ignoring the sovereignty of the American people, while incoherently threatening war crimes. Trump is fully blossoming into a man like those he admires, an unrestrained, unprincipled, heavy hitting international tyrant. I'm so disgusted with those whose job it is to check this man, and have abdicated their responsibility, because they want to be like him. Reply 230 Recommend Share
Aaron San Francisco 4h ago Times Pick
I was at a friend's house on election night ready to celebrate Clinton's victory. When the networks suddenly announced that Trump had won Florida, a professor of international relations who was with us ominously predicted, "we are going to war with Iran." And here we are.
PT Melbourne, FL 4h ago Times Pick
America has become a living nightmare. A global power perceived mostly as benevolent by the world is now a danger to all, including itself. Already having killed the Paris Agreement, and Iran Nuclear Treaty, not to mention walking away from a nuclear arms treaty with the Russians, Trump is now ready to wreak real havoc on the world - start a war. Boy will they forget about impeachment now!
Jonathan Baron Staunton, Virginia 5h ago
We haven't authorized the assassination of a military leader since the daring mission to kill Japanese Admiral Yamamoto in 1943. Although he'd been the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, and we were at war with Japan, this was a departure so significant that it only proceeded after lengthy deliberation. And now, this. Your article fills in precisely how this was so very much not that. But one party is in so cult-deep into this president now that the lies won't stop. Thousands of Iranian have lost their lives in the past month trying to rid themselves of this regime. Not only were those deaths rendered in vain by the assassination of Suleimani, but the Iranian people are also even more yoked to a government they hate. And wasn't the idea of grassroots-driven change in regime a core strategy behind pulling out of the nuclear deal? And it's not okay because Suleimani is "evil." That's both subjective and never a justification for an assassination of a foreign military leader of a nation we're not at war with. As I noted, it was questionable when it was a military leader of nation we were at war with. But, most important, what did we gain from this? Following yet another disasterous military and foreign policy snap decision it only makes the importance of removing Trump from office more urgent. Come for the Constitutional crime but convict because the defendant is also manifestly unfit for the office. People are dying because of it and more will die if he stays. Reply 186 Recommend Share
Joe Portland, ME 3h ago Times Pick
What, then, for an effective response? Outrage is mere fuel: what is the engine? A full year seems too long. The Senate seems hopeless. What does that leave? Must we take to the streets to stop this disaster of a president? All this time spent wondering how this will end makes me feel like a victim of domestic abuse. What a waste. 1 Reply 180 Recommend Share
AnitaSmith New Jersey 4h ago Times Pick
The near silence of the countries frequently referred to as our allies -- before the age of Trump -- is deafening.

[Jan 08, 2020] The Nightmare Stage of Trump's Rule Is Here by Michelle Goldberg Michelle Goldberg

Jan 08, 2020 | www.nytimes.com

After three harrowing years, we've reached the point many of us feared from the moment Donald Trump was elected. His decision to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's second most important official, made at Mar-a-Lago with little discernible deliberation , has brought the United States to the brink of a devastating new conflict in the Middle East.

We don't yet know how Iran will retaliate, or whether all-out war will be averted. But already, NATO has suspended its mission training Iraqi forces to fight ISIS . Iraq's Parliament has voted to expel American troops -- a longtime Iranian objective. (On Monday, U.S. forces sent a letter saying they were withdrawing from Iraq in response, only to then claim that it was a draft released in error .) On Sunday, Iran said it will no longer be bound by the remaining restrictions on its nuclear program in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal that Trump abandoned in 2018. Trump has been threatening to commit war crimes by destroying Iran's cultural sites and tried to use Twitter to notify Congress of his intention to respond to any Iranian reprisals with military escalation.

The administration has said that the killing of Suleimani was justified by an imminent threat to American lives, but there is no reason to believe this. One skeptical American official told The New York Times that the new intelligence indicated nothing but "a normal Monday in the Middle East," and Democrats briefed on it were unconvinced by the administration's case. The Washington Post reported that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- who last year agreed with a Christian Broadcasting Network interviewer that God might have sent Trump to save Israel from the "Iranian menace" -- has been pushing for a hit on Suleimani for months.

Rather than self-defense, the Suleimani killing seems like the dreadful result of several intersecting dynamics. There's the influence of rapture-mad Iran hawks like Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence. Defense officials who might have stood up to Trump have all left the administration. According to Peter Bergen's book "Trump and His Generals," James Mattis, Trump's former secretary of defense, instructed his subordinates not to provide the president with options for a military showdown with Iran. But with Mattis gone, military officials, The Times reported, presented Trump with the possibility of killing Suleimani as the "most extreme" option on a menu of choices, and were "flabbergasted" when he picked it.

Trump likely had mixed motives. He was reportedly upset over TV images of militia supporters storming the American Embassy in Iraq. According to The Post, he also was frustrated by "negative coverage" of his decision last year to order and then call off strikes on Iran.

Beyond that, Trump, now impeached and facing trial in the Senate, has laid out his rationale over years of tweets. The president is a master of projection, and his accusations against others are a decent guide to how he himself will behave . He told us, over and over again , that he believed Barack Obama would start a war with Iran to "save face" and because his "poll numbers are in a tailspin" and he needed to "get re-elected." To Trump, a wag-the-dog war with Iran evidently seemed like a natural move for a president in trouble.

... ... ...

Even if Iran were to somehow decide not to strike back at the United States, it's still ramping up its nuclear program, and Trump has obliterated the possibility of a return to negotiations. "His maximum pressure policy has failed," Nasr said of Trump. "He has only produced a more dangerous Iran."

... ... ... Michelle Goldberg has been an Opinion columnist since 2017. She is the author of several books about politics, religion and women's rights, and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2018 for reporting on workplace sexual harassment issues. @michelleinbklyn

[Jan 08, 2020] No war with Iran

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Noirette , Jan 8 2020 17:31 utc | 135

Trump tweet: All is Well!

Khamenei words: There won't be any war. (link)

Netanyahu: The killing of Soleimani is a U.S. event, not an Israeli event, and we should stay out of it.

-- -- -- --
If Netanyahu got cold feet, that would be very naive of him, completely out of character. No.

My pov re. Israel is that the US-uk and Isr. are in a symbiotic dependency relationship, with the US as the controlling party.

Pov. bashed by USA stalwarts who love to blame Israel, Zionazis, Jews, the Mossad, etc.. for "bad stuff" that the US does.

The most powerful country in the world is controlled by some evil hateful figures in a minuscule, depressing postage-stamp outpost (not..) plus and/or by infiltrating US Gvmt./ Media (more realistic..but was allowed, etc.)

Isr. only exists because of the support, international protection, huge stipends, offered by the Hegemon.
-- -- -- --

No war with Iran. I have said this for years (and hope I continue to be right) see also Petri at 21, others.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-khamenei/irans-supreme-leader-says-there-will-be-no-war-with-us-idUSKCN1SK23T

[Jan 08, 2020] If the world would be a more secure place were Iran to have nuclear weapons

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sasha , Jan 6 2020 22:25 utc | 101

For the USDoS minion who has asked if the world would be a more secure place were Iran to have nuclear weapons...

Absolutely yes, if Iran would have nuclear weapons right now, all this mamoneo would end asap. Definitely it will act as the best deterrent, but that will not happen because that is anti-Islamic and is forbidden by Ayatollah Khamenei.

I for one do not feel safe at all with the US and Israel having nuclear weapons, all the more when both countries have currently at the helms both mafia bosses of the caliber of Trump and Netanyahu.
On the contrary, that DPRK have nuclear weapons, as soon as I know very well that is for deterrence against US bullying, allows me to sleep a pierna suelta...the same for Russia and China..

[Jan 08, 2020] "Debt Wish 2020" Did Iran strike affects dollar status as the world reserve currency, because it is a clear sign the the period of the USA absolute hegemony after the dissolution of the USSR came the end?

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Jan 8 2020 0:02 utc | 110

psychohistorian @88--

What was your take on "Debt Wish 2020"?

Jezabeel @82--

"U.S. Economic Warfare and Likely Foreign Defenses" provides numerous methods besides simply the cessation of dollar use for international commercial transactions. Along with watching the "Debt Wish 2020" vid linked above, I also suggest reading/watching this program . And lastly, I suggest reading this analysis here , although it only tangentially deals with your question.

[Jan 08, 2020] Either the assassination was a drive-by on the way out, or Trump's war cabinet doesn't plan on having to leave Iraq.

Jan 08, 2020 | www.truthdig.com

Trump has from the beginning of his presidential campaign appealed to the worst and most fascistic elements in American political life. At a time when the US has no credible peer military rival, he added hundreds of billions of dollars to the Pentagon budget, and the pudgy old chicken hawk lionized war criminals. Up until now, however, Trump shrewdly calculated that his base was tired of wasting blood and treasure on fruitless Middle Eastern wars, and he avoided taking more than symbolic steps. He dropped a big missile on Afghanistan once, and fired some Tomahawk Cruise missiles at Syria. But he drew back from the brink of more extensive military engagements.

Now, by murdering Qasem Soleimani , the head of the Jerusalem (Qods) Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, Trump has brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran. Mind you, Iran's leadership is too shrewd to rush to the battlements at this moment, and will be prepared to play the long game. My guess is that they will encourage their allies among Iraqi Shiites to get up a massive protest at the US embassy and at bases housing US troops.

They will be aided in this task of mobilizing Iraqis by the simultaneous US assassination of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Forces. Al-Muhandis is a senior military figure in the Iraqi armed forces, not just a civilian militia figure. Moreover, the Kata'ib Hizbullah that he headed is part of a strong political bloc, al-Fath, which has 48 members in parliament and forms a key coalition partner for the current, caretaker prime minister, Adil Abdulmahdi. Parliament won't easily be able to let this outrage pass.

The US officer corps is confident that the American troops at the embassy and elsewhere in Baghdad are sufficient to fight off any militia invasion. I'm not sure they have taken into account the possibility of tens of thousands of civilian protesters invading the embassy, who can't simply be taken out and shot.

Trump may be counting on the unpopularity among the youth protesters in downtown Baghdad, Basra, Nasiriya and other cities of Soleimani and of al-Muhandis to blunt the Iraqi reaction to the murders. The thousands of youth protesters cheered on hearing the news of their deaths, since they were accused of plotting a violent repression of the rallies demanding an end to corruption.

Iraq, however, is a big, complex society, and there are enormous numbers of Iraqi Shiites who support the Popular Mobilization Forces and who view them as the forces that saved Iraq from the peril of the ISIL (ISIS) terrorist organization. The Shiite hard liners would not need all Iraqis to back them in confronting the American presence, only a few hundred thousand for direct crowd action.

You also have to wonder whether Trump and his coterie aren't planning a coup in Iraq. In the absence of a coup, the Iraqi parliament will almost certainly be forced, after this violation of Iraqi national sovereignty, to vote to expel American troops. This is foreseeable. So either the assassination was a drive-by on the way out, or Trump's war cabinet doesn't plan on having to leave Iraq.

Although Trump justified the murder of Soleimani by calling him a terrorist, that is nonsense in the terms of international law. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps is the equivalent of the US National Guard. What Trump did is the equivalent of some foreign country declaring the US military a terrorist organization (some have) and then assassinating General Joseph L. Lengyel, the 28th Chief of the National Guard Bureau (God forbid and may he have a long healthy life).

[Jan 08, 2020] If we assume that Pompeo persuaded Trump to order to kill a diplomatic envoy, Trump is now a dead man walking as after Iran responce Pelosi impeachment gambit now have legs

Highly recommended!
This is truly shocking: Trump assassinates diplomatic envoy he himself arranged for. . If the U.S. lured Soleimani to Iraq with a promise of negotiations with the Iraqis as mediators and then proceeded to kill him, surely that would be an impeachable offense. Particularly in view of the failure to brief Congress. If it was Saudi tricked Soleimani by getting Iraq to "mediate" (Iraq's prime minister was expecting a message by him on the mediation when he was assassinated), Saudi will get targeted.
The US changed the rules of engagement. They had decided to assassinate Soleimani when he was in Syria, having just returned from a short journey to Lebanon, before boarding a commercial flight from Damascus airport to Baghdad. The US killing machine was waiting for him to land in Baghdad and monitored his movements when he was picked up at the foot of the plane. The US hit the two cars, carrying Soleimani and the al-Muhandes protection team, when they were still inside the airport perimeter and were slowing down at the first check-point.
US forces will no longer be safe in Iraq outside protected areas inside the military bases where they are deployed. A potential danger or hit-man could be lurking at every corner; this will limit the free movement of US soldiers. Iran would be delighted were the Iraqi groups to decide to hit the American forces and hunt them wherever they are. This would rekindle memories of the first clashes between Jaish al-Mahdi and US forces in Najaf in 2004-2005.
Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Tom , Jan 5 2020 15:55 utc | 16
Impeachment with GOP support could be just around the corner. And who lost Iraq??? He would be a dead man walking in that case. I can't see the evangelical crowd saving him. President Pence. Might have to get use to that.

Here is a link to a twitter account with a good video of massive crowds on the streets of Mashhad awaiting the arrival of Qassem Suleimani. Very powerful.

https://twitter.com/sonofnariman/status/1213792565075550208

Piotr Berman , Jan 5 2020 16:02 utc | 17

There will be no draining of any swamps. Trump-Kushner just another Bibi lackey.

Posted by: Jerry | Jan 5 2020 15:48 utc | 13

1. Draining swamps was a marker of progress in the past. >>Wiki:But in the late 1960s and early 1970s, researchers found that marshes and swamps "were worth billions annually in wildlife production, groundwater recharge, and for flood, pollution, and erosion control." This motivated the passage of the 1972 federal Water Pollution Control Act.<<

2. To recognize this vital role, parties should adopt more acquatic symbols. Caymans are a bit too similar to alligators, but, say, Alligators vs Snapping Turtles?

Sasha , Jan 5 2020 16:02 utc | 18
A video which says it all...
Gen. #Soleimani, enemy of Daesh and Trump!

Trump has threatened #Iran with destroying its cultural sites but that is not his only similarity with Daesh, they both hated General Soleimani.

https://twitter.com/PressTV/status/1213804505537679362


Bemildred , Jan 5 2020 16:02 utc | 19
Posted by: Tom | Jan 5 2020 15:55 utc | 16

Yes, it might just be that this debacle provides the extra impulse to get him removed. Can't say I can even imagine what that would look like, but there would seem to be a good argument now that he must be restrained somehow. Somebody needs to tell Pompeous to stop digging the hole deeper (shutup) too.

[Jan 07, 2020] As long as Neocons and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're screwed.

Jan 07, 2020 | www.unz.com

Z-man , says: Show Comment January 7, 2020 at 1:27 pm GMT

Yes, as long as Neoco hens and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're screwed.
BTW, Mike Pompeo or as I affectionately call him; Lard face, Plump'eo, crazed CZ-zealot fat boy, etc., is now a legitimate target of the Iranians. May Allah provide justice to the family of Soleimani. (Grin) And look, I'm wishing 'ill will' on a zealot 'goy' (gentile) instead of a typical Neo-cohen snake, how ironic. (Another grin)
A positve spin:
With the 'incorrect' memo leaked by the Pentagon about an orderly exit from Iraq this can be the silver lining in all this mess. This assassination might actually accelerate the exiting of US forces from Iraq and the surrounding quagmires. Who knows, Trump might be a genius.
Again, NO MORE WARS FOR ZION, BDS NOW, ONE STATE SOLUTION-PALESTINE.
And to really stick it to Neo cohens (My apologies to Prof. Steven Cohen ), Trump-Putin Axis Da!! Destroy the Deep State and the CABAL .

[Jan 07, 2020] Chaos Pentagon Denies Poorly Worded Iraq Withdrawal Letter, Esper Says No Decision To Leave Iraq, Period

Jan 07, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Yesterday, Iraqi lawmakers voted to expel foreign troops from the country during an emergency parliamentary session. Interim Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul Mahdi, stressed during the session, that while the US government notified the Iraqi military of the planned strike on Soleimani, his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.

In a meeting Monday, Mahdi, a caretaker prime minister who said in November he would resign, told US Ambassador Matthew H. Tueller that the US and Iraq needed to cooperate "to implement the withdrawal of foreign forces in accordance with the decision of the Iraqi parliament," according to a statement from the PM's office that was cited by the Washington Post .

Though the Iraq war 'officially' ended in 2011, thousands of coalition troops stuck around. Their numbers increased following the rise of ISIS in the region.

Ending the US troop presence in Iraq has been a longtime goal of non-interventionists like Ron Paul and his son, Rand.

That said, even without troops in Iraq, the US will still have plenty of capacity to bully Iran, and other other regional powers.

[Jan 07, 2020] Lisa Monaco The Soleimani killing puts us in uncharted territory. Are we prepared - The Washington Post

Jan 07, 2020 | www.washingtonpost.com

Finally, in a scenario such as this, chaos is the starring player across the entire region. The strike on Soleimani makes even more fraught the position of U.S. troops in Iraq, where the parliament has now voted in favor of a non-binding resolution for the eviction of U.S. forces. The loss of U.S. presence in Iraq would strengthen Iran's hand there and compound the damage to our fight against the Islamic State from our abandonment of Kurdish partners last fall. While the Islamic State has been pushed out of much of the territory it once held, it has melted back into the population and seeks to capitalize on ungoverned space with insurgent attacks. Ungoverned space was oxygen for the Islamic State's rise in 2014. Whatever else Soleimani's death means, it is sure to add to chaos within Iraq and Syria, and that benefits the Islamic State.

[Jan 07, 2020] Fragmentation In 'The Axis Of Resistance' Led To Soleimani's Death

Jan 07, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

me name=

Skip to main content

https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777 Fragmentation In 'The Axis Of Resistance' Led To Soleimani's Death by Tyler Durden Mon, 01/06/2020 - 20:45 0 SHARES

Authored by Elijah Magnier via EJMagnier.com,

It was not the US decision to fire missiles against the IRGC commander Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani that killed the Iranian officer and his companions in Baghdad. Yes, of course, the order that was given to launch missiles from the two drones (which destroyed the two cars carrying Sardar Soleimani and his companion the Iraqi commander in al-Hashd al-Shaabi Jamal Jaafar Al-Tamimi aka Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes and burned their bodies in the vehicle) came from US command and control.

However, the reason President Donald Trump made this decision derives from the weakness of the "axis of resistance", which has completely retreated from the level of performance that Iran believed it was capable of after decades of work to strengthen this "axis".

A close companion of Major General Qassim Soleimani, to whom he spoke hours before boarding the plane that took him from Damascus to Baghdad, told me:

"The nobleman died. Palestine above all has lost Hajj Qassem (Soleimani). He was the "King" of the Axis of the Resistance and its leader. He was assassinated and this is exactly what he was hoping to reach in this life (Martyrdom). However, this axis will live and will not die. No doubt, the Axis of the Resistance needs to review its policy and regenerate itself to correct its path. This was what Hajj Qassim was complaining about and planning to work on and strategizing about in his last hours."

The US struck Iran at the heart of its pride by killing Major General Soleimani. But the "axis of the Resistance" killed him before that. This is how:

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assassinated the deputy head of the Military Council (the highest authority in the Lebanese Hezbollah, which is headed by its Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah), Hajj Imad Mughniyah in Damascus, Syria, Hezbollah could not avenge him until today.

When Trump gave Netanyahu Jerusalem as the "capital of Israel", the "Axis of the Resistance" did not move except by holding television symposia and conferences verbally rejecting the decision.

When President Trump offered the occupied Syrian Golan Heights to Israel and the "Axis of Resistance" did not react, the US President Donald Trump and his team understood that they were opposed by no effective deterrent. The inaction of the Resistance axis emboldened Trump to do what he wants.

And when Israel bombed hundreds of Syrian and Iranian targets in Syria , the "Axis of the Resistance" justified its lack of retaliation by the typical sentence: "We do not want to be dragged along by the timing of the engagement imposed by the enemy," as a senior official in this axis told me.

In Iraq shortly before his death, Major General Soleimani was complaining about the weakening of the Iraqi ranks within this "Axis of the Resistance", represented by the Al-Bina' (Construction) Alliance and other groups close to this alliance like Al-Hikma of Ammar al-Hakim and Haidar al-Abadi, formerly close to Iran, that have gone over to the US side.

In Iraq, Major General Soleimani was very patient and never lost his temper. He was trying to reconcile the Iraqis, both his allies and those who had chosen the US camp and disagreed with him. He used to hug those who shouted at him to lower tensions and continue dialogue to avoid spoiling the meeting. Anyone who raised his voice during discussions soon found that it was Soleimani who calmed everyone down.

Hajj Qassem Soleimani was unable to reach a consensus on the new Prime Minister's name among those he deemed to be allies in the same coalition. He asked Iraqi leaders to select the names and went through all of these asking questions about the acceptability of these names to the political groups, to the Marjaiya, to protestors in the street and whether the suggested names were not provocative or challenging to the US. Notwithstanding the animosity between Iran and the US, Soleimani encouraged the selection of a personality that would not be boycotted by the US. Soleimani believed the US capable of damaging Iraq and understood the importance of maintaining a good relationship with the US for the stability of the country.

Soleimani was shocked by the dissension among Iraqi Shia and believed that the "axis of resistance" needed a new vision as it was faltering. In the final hours before his death, Major General Soleimani was ruminating on the profound antagonisms between Iraqis of the same camp.

When the Iraqi street began to move against the government, the line rejecting American hegemony was fragmented because it was part of the authority that ruled and governed Iraq. To make matters worse, Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr directed his arrows against his partners in government, as though the street demonstrations did not target him, the politician controlling the largest number of Iraqi deputies, ministers and state officials, who had participated in the government for more than ten years.

Major General Soleimani admonished Moqtada Al-Sadr for his stances, which contributed to undermining the Iraqi ranks because the Sadrist leader did not offer an alternative solution or practical project other than the chaos. Moqtada has his own men, the feared Saraya al-Salam, present in the street.

When US Defense Secretary Mark Esper called Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi on December 28 and informed him of America's intentions of hitting Iraqi security targets inside Iraq, including the PMU, Soleimani was very disappointed by Abdul-Mahdi's failure to effectively oppose Esper. Abdul-Mahdi merely told Esper that the proposed US action was dangerous. Soleimani knew that the US would not have hit Iraqi targets had Abdul-Mahdi dared to oppose the US decision. The targeted areas were a common Iranian-Iraqi operational stage to monitor and control ISIS movements on the borders with Syria and Iraq. The US would have reversed its decision had the Iraqi Prime Minister threatened the US with retaliation in the event that Iraqi forces were bombed and killed. After all, the US had no legal right to attack any objective in Iraq without the agreement of the Iraqi government. This decision was the moment when Iraq has lost its sovereignty and the US took control of the country.

This effective US control is another reason why President Trump gave the green light to kill Major General Soleimani. The Iraqi front had demonstrated its weakness and also, it was necessary to select a strong Iraqi leader with the guts to stand to the US arrogance and unlawful actions.

Iran has never controlled Iraq, as most analysts mistakenly believe and speculate. For years, the US has worked hard in the corridors of the Iraqi political leadership lobby for its own interests. The most energetic of its agents was US Presidential envoy Brett McGurk, who clearly realised the difficulties of navigating inside Iraqi leaders' corridors during the search for a prime minister of Iraq before the appointment of Adel Abdel Mahdi, the selection of President Barham Saleh and other governments in the past. Major General Soleimani and McGurk shared an understanding of these difficulties. Both understood the nature of the Iraqi political quagmire.

Soleimani did not give orders to fire missiles at US bases or attack the US Embassy. If it was in his hands to destroy them with accurate missiles and to remove the entire embassy from its place without repercussions, he would not have hesitated. But the Iraqis have their own opinions, methods, modus operandi and selection of targets and missile calibres; they never relied on Soleimani for such decisions.

Iranian involvement in Iraqi affairs was never welcomed by the Marjaiya in Najaf, even if it agreed to receive Soleimani on a few occasions. They clashed over the reelection of Nuri al-Maliki, Soleimani's preferred candidate, to the point that the Marjaiya wrote a letter making its refusal of al-Maliki explicit. This led to the selection of Abadi as prime minister.

Soleimani's views contradicted the perception of the Marjaiya, that had to write a clear message, firstly, to reject the re-election of Nori al-Maliki to a third session, despite Soleimani's insistence.

All of the above is related to the stage that followed the 2011 departure of US forces from Iraq under President Obama. Prior to that, Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis was the link between the Iraqis and Iran: he had the decision-making power, the vision, the support of various groups, and effectively served as the representative of Soleimani, who did not interfere in the details. These Iraqi groups met with Soleimani often in Iran; Soleimani rarely travelled to Iraq during the period of heavy US military presence.

Soleimani, although he was the leader of the "Axis of the Resistance", was sometimes called "the king" in some circles because his name evokes Solomon. According to sources within the "Axis of the Resistance", he "never dictated his own policy but left a margin of movement and decision to all leaders of the axis without exception. Therefore, he was considered the link between this axis and the supreme leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei. Soleimani was able to contact Sayyed Khamenei at any time and directly without mediation. The Leader of the revolution considered Soleimani as his son.

According to sources, in Syria, Soleimani "never hesitated to jump inside a truck, ride an ordinary car, take the first helicopter, or travel on a transport or cargo plane as needed. He did not take any security precautions but used his phone (which he called a companion spy) freely because he believed that when the decision came to assassinate him, he would follow his destiny. He looked forward to becoming a martyr because he had already lived long."

Was the leader of the "resistance axis" managing and running it?

Sayyed Ali Khamenei told Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah: "You are an Arab and the Arabs accept you more than they accept Iran". Sayyed Nasrallah directed and managed the axis of Lebanon, Syria and Yemen and had an important role in Iraq. Hajj Soleimani was the liaison between the axis of the resistance and Iran and he was the financial and logistical officer. According to my source, "He was a friend of all leaders and officials of all ranks. He was humble and looked after everyone he had to deal with".

The "Axis of Resistance" indirectly allowed the killing of Qassem Soleimani. If Israel and the US could know Sayyed Nasrallah's whereabouts, they would not hesitate a moment to assassinate him. They may be aware: the reaction may be limited to burning flags and holding conferences and manifesting in front of an embassy. Of course, this kind of reaction does not deter President Trump who wants to be re-elected with the support of Israel and US public opinion. He wants to present himself as a warrior and determined leader who loves battle and killing.

Iran invested 40 years building the "Axis of the Resistance". It cannot remain idle, faced with the assassination of the Leader of this axis. Would a suitable price be the US exit from Iraq and condemnation in the Security Council? Would that, together with withdrawal from the nuclear deal, be enough for Iran to avenge its General? Will the ensuing battle be confined to the Iraqi stage? Will it be used for the victory of certain Iraqi political players?

The assassination of its leader represents the supreme test for the Axis of Resistance. All sides, friend and foe, are awaiting its response. Tags Politics

https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4879&num_ads=18&cf=1258.5.zerohedge%20190919 Show 200 Comments Login

ZeroHedge Search Today's Top Stories Loading... Contact Information Tips: [email protected]

General: [email protected]

Legal: [email protected]

Advertising: Click here

Abuse/Complaints: [email protected] Suggested Reading Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide

It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer , our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure . Here's our Cookie Policy .

How to report offensive comments

Notice on Racial Discrimination .

Copyright ©2009-2020 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD Want more of the news you won't get anywhere else? Thank you for subscribing! Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again. Sign up now and get a curated daily recap of the most popular and important stories delivered right to your inbox. Please enter a valid email

https://s.amazon-adsystem.com/iu3?cm3ppd=1&d=dtb-pub&csif=t&dl=rbd_oath_r1u

[Jan 07, 2020] Pompeo and his lies got us into this mess with Iran caucus99percent

Jan 07, 2020 | caucus99percent.com

gjohnsit on Mon, 01/06/2020 - 6:14pm Just a few days ago SoS Mike Pompeo said that we assassinated General Soleimani to stop an 'imminent attack' on Americans.
No evidence was presented to back up this claim. We are just supposed to believe it.

It turns out that Pompeo and VP Pence had pushed Trump hard to do this assassination.

[Jan 07, 2020] Why Was Soleimani Assassinated - Trump's Assassination Disaster

Jan 07, 2020 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Is Trump yet ruing the day he lent his ear to the siren songs of the Iran-obsessed neocons? One can almost imagine the president, sitting in the makeshift situation room at Mar-a-Lago just a few days ago surrounded with the likes of Sen. Lindsey Graham, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Defense Secretary Esper, and his Pentagon advisors who breathlessly present him an "opportunity" to kick the Iranian leadership in the face and also dismantle an operation in the works to attack US military and civilian personnel in the region.

All he had to do was sign off on the assassination of Gen. Qassim Soleimani, a man he likely had never heard of a couple of years ago but who, he was told, was "responsible for killing hundreds of Americans" in Iraq.

"Soleimani did 9/11!" - Pence helpfully yet insanely chimed in.

"You're not a wimp like Obama, who refused to assassinate this terrorist," he was probably told. "You're decisive, a real leader. This one blow will change the entire calculus of the Middle East," they likely told him. "If you take out Soleimani, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region."

(Actually, that last one was from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to Congress in 2002 where he promised the US that "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." Brilliant forecasting, Bibi.)

As could be expected, the cover story cooked up by the neocons and signed off on by Trump started taking water the moment it was put to sea.

Soleimani was not traveling like a man plotting a complicated, multi-country assault on US troops in the region. No false mustaches or James Bond maneuvers - he was flying commercial and openly disembarked at the terminal of Baghdad International Airport. He was publicly met and greeted by an Iraqi delegation and traveled relatively unguarded from the airport.

Until a US drone vaporized him and his entire entourage - which included a senior Iraqi military officer.

The furious Iraqi acting-Prime Minister Mahdi immediately condemned the attack in the strongest terms, openly calling for the expulsion of the US forces - who remain in Iraq ostensibly to fight an ISIS that has long been defeated but, de facto , to keep the beachhead clear for a US attack on Iran.

Arguing for the expulsion of the US in a special parliamentary session held on January 5th, Mahdi spilled the truth about Soleimani's mission in Iraq: It was not to plot the killing of US troops: it was to deliver a response from Iran to a peace overture from the Saudis, the result of talks that were being facilitated by Iraq.

And the US side knew about the mission and had, according to press reports, encouraged Iraq to facilitate the Iran/Saudi talks.

Did the US neocons and Pentagon warhawks like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mike Milley knowingly exploit what they anticipated would be relatively lax security for a peace mission between Iran and Saudi Arabia to assassinate Gen. Soleimani (with collateral damage being Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the second-in-command of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Units)?

And, to drill a little deeper, which US "allies" would want to blow up any chance of peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran? Factions within Saudi Arabia, where a fierce power struggle rages below the surface? No doubt. In Israel, where Netanyahu continues fighting for his political life (and freedom) with his entire political career built around mayhem and destruction? Sure. It's not like Trump has ever been able to say "no" to the endless demands of either Bibi or his Saudi counterpart in crime MBS.

Who knows, maybe Trump knew all along and was in on it. Make war on a peace mission.

Whatever the case, as always happens the neocons have steered things completely off the rails. The cover story is in tatters, and the Iraqi democracy - for which we've been ostensibly fighting for 16 years with a loss of US life in the thousands and of Iraqi life in the millions - voted on Sunday that US forces must leave Iraq.

We destroyed Iraq to "give them democracy," but they had the nerve to exercise that democracy to ask us to leave!

Iran could not believe its luck in the aftermath of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, when it soon became clear that Iraq would fall into their hands. Likewise, it appears that the longstanding fervent wish of the Iranian leadership - the end of the US occupation of Iraq (and Syria) - will soon be fulfilled thanks to Trump's listening to the always toxic advice of the neocon warmongers.

Can Trump recover from this near-fatal mistake? It is possible. But with Trump's Twitter finger threatening Iraq with "big big" sanctions and an even bigger bill to cover the cost of our invasion and destruction of their country, it appears that his ability to learn from his mistakes is limited. A bit less time on Twitter and a lot less time with the people who hate his guts - Pompeo, Pence, Graham, etc. - might help.

Meanwhile...will Iran avenge Soleimani's murder directly, or using asymmetrical means?

Trump said of his decision to assassinate a top official from a country with which we are not technically at war, "We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war." But it doesn't work that way. When you kill another country's top military leadership you have definitely started a war.

What remains to be seen is how it will play out.

Sincerely yours,

Daniel McAdams
Executive Director
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

[Jan 07, 2020] Disproportionate and barbarous threat of instant retaliation is a part of "full spectrum dominance" doctrine. A significant part of masking tyranny under terror is the aggressively defended protection racket.

Jan 07, 2020 | off-guardian.org

I agree with the first part. Disproportionate and barbarous threat of instant retaliation is prt of terrorising and unsettling and even freezing the capacity to 'think'.
All thinking proceeds from presumptions, and one of the ways 'power' works deceit is in the ability to set it up so that the 'controlled' or 'leveraged' believe that their thinking is free while setting the fame of their perceived self-interest.

I just watched Corbett and Ryan Cristián of The Last American Vagabond on this issue, that touches on a little of the military political context – a key part of which is the 'Israeli' agenda – and its style of 'politics' by pre-emptive strike under aggressively defended narrative assertion.

As for what the US(a) CAN execute as all-out war is linked to the will to do so – along with the costs or consequences of doing so. Meanwhile broad spectrum dominance operates transnationally by stealth and deceit. The US(a) is wagged by its Corporate tails.

A significant part of masking tyranny under terror is the aggressively defended protection racket. For some this means believing the narrative they are given and for others it means they have to be seen to comply and conform to signal 'virtue' of allegiance under an enforced narrative dictate or lose their jobs, and reputation and incur penalties of social exclusion for the rest of their lives.

The act of state-endorsed murder without trial or evidences – that also kills others in the vicinity – aimed anywhere in the world – based in classified 'intelligence' that is without any oversight, accountability or challenge – is seeking to be as 'gods over men' – indeed a 'god' jealous of any and all rival as monopoly over life on earth – such as will survive under such a parasitic and destructive deceit. 7 0 Reply

[Jan 07, 2020] The Three Victories that Sealed Soleimani's Fate by Jefferson Morley

Jan 07, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org

Why Kill Soleimani?

Soleimani was not feared by U.S. (and Israeli and Saudi) policymakers because primarily he was a terrorist (though he sometimes used terror tactics) but mostly because he successful. According to journalist Yossi Mellman, Israeli intelligence assessed him as "a daring and talented commander , despite the considerable number of mistakes in his assessments and failed operations in the course of his career."

Whether you think Soleimani was "a deadly puppet master" or an "Islamic martyr," there's no disputing he helped the Islamic Republic achieve three significant goals.

First, Soleimani played a key role in driving U.S. occupation forces out of Iraq. As Al-Quds commander he presided over the creation of anti-American militias in 2003 that mounted deadly attacks on the U.S. forces seeking to establish a pro-American government. One Iraqi militia leader, Qais al-Khazali , who debriefed U.S. intelligence officers in 2008, said he had "a few meetings" with Soleimani and other Iranian officials of similar rank.

According to Khazali, Soleimani did not take part in the operational activities–providing weapons, training or cash. He left those tasks to deputies or intermediaries. Under Iranian tutelage, these militias specialized in using improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to kill upwards of 600 soldiers in the U.S. occupation forces, according to general David Petraeus.

Soleimani's attacks–along with the manifest failure of U.S. goals to reduce terrorism and spread democracy–contributed to President Obama's politically popular decision to withdraw of most U.S. troops in 2011. Forcing the U.S. out of Iraq was a priority for the government in Tehran, and Soleimani helped achieve it.

Nemesis of ISIS

Second, Soleimani played a key role in driving ISIS out of Iraq–a victory in which the United States ironically helped boost his reputation.

In this battle, Soleimani took advantage of U.S. vulnerability, not hubris. When ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed an Islamic State in western Iraq six years ago, Tehran was just as alarmed as Washington. The Sunni fundamentalists of ISIS regard the Shia Muslims of Iran and Iraq as infidels, almost as contemptible as Americans and Israelis.

After the regular Iraqi armed forces collapsed, Iraqi Ayotollah Ali Sistani blessed the creation of Shia militias to save the country. Sistani's fatwa empowered Iran to mobilize and expanded Soleimani's militia network. The Iranian-sponsored fighters, along with the Kurdish pesh merga, proceeded to do most of the bloody street fighting that drove ISIS out of Mosul, Kirkuk and other Iraqi cities.

As Soleimani moved about openly in Iraq, U.S. commanders did not attack him because he did not attack them. Sometimes, pro-American and pro-Iranian soldiers even fought side by side. Thanks to this tacit U.S.-Iranian cooperation that neither country cared to publicly acknowledge, ISIS was expelled from Iraq into Syria by 2017.

In Iran, Soleimani emerged as a hero in the fight against the deadliest religious fanatics on the planet, especially after ISIS had carried out a terror attack in Tehran on June 2017 that killed 12 people.

In Iraq, the rout of ISIS enhanced the prestige of Soleimani and the Iranian-backed militias. Some of their leaders entered politics and business, drawing complaints about–and demonstrations against -- heavy-handed Iranian influence. Many Iraqis grew unhappy about Iran's new influence, but success made Soleimani an indispensable security partner for the embattled government in Baghdad. That's why he visited Iraq last week.

Besting the CIA

Third, Soleimani helped defeat ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Syria's civil war. In 2015, President Bashar al-Assad's armed forces were losing ground to Sunni fundamentalist forces funded by the CIA and the Persian Gulf oil monarchies. The CIA wanted to overthrow Assad. Iran feared losing its ally in Damascus to a hostile anti-Shia regime controlled by al-Qaeda. Obama feared another Iraq and refused to commit U.S. forces.

Soleimani brought in Iranian advisers and fighters from Hezbollah, the Shia militia of Lebanon which Iran has supported since the 1980s. With help from merciless Russian bombing and Syrian chemical attacks , the Iranian-trained ground forces helped Syria turn the tide on the jihadists. The CIA, under directors Leon Panetta, John Brennan and Mike Pompeo, spent $1 billion dollars to overthrow Assad. They had less influence on the outcome than Soleimani.

The net effect of Soleimani's three victories -- abetted by U.S. crimes and blunders -- was, for better or worse, to bolster Iranian influence across the region. From Afghanistan in the east to the Mediterranean in the West, Iran gained political ground, thanks to Soleimani. He perfected the art of asymmetric warfare, using local proxies, political alliances, deniable attacks, and selective terrorism to achieve the government's political goals.

(Soleimani, it is worth noting, had no record of attacking non-uniformed Americans. While Pompeo said that Soleimani "had inflicted so much suffering on Americans," it is a fact that not a single American civilian was killed in an Iranian-backed terror attack between 2001 to 2019.)

Iran's cumulative successes provoked dismay Washington (and Tel Aviv and Riyadh). In the course of the 21st century, Iran overcome international isolation and to actually gain, not lose, advantage to its regional rivals. He also became a media personality in the regime using selfies from the battlefield to promote an image of an accessible general who liked to rub shoulders with his men.

Along the way, Iran maintained a terrible record on human rights at home, persecuting journalists, bloggers, and women who spurn the hijab. Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security didn't kill Americans but it did take a number of hostages, including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian . Across the region, Iran's ambitions stirred up widespread opposition from secular, feminist, and nationalist movements that reject the theory and practice of Iranian theocracy.

These non-violent movements, however, never advocated that the United States attack their country. They are not welcoming Soleimani's death, and they are unlikely to support the U.S. (or Israeli) attacks in the coming conflict. Quite the contrary. The anti-Iranian demonstrations in Iran and Iraq are over for the foreseeable future. Iranians and Iraqis who publicly supported the United States and opposed the mullahs, have been silenced. In death as in life, Soleimani had diminished the U.S. influence in the Middle East.

This article first appeared on Jefferson Morley's TheDeepStateBlog .

[Jan 07, 2020] a popular figure

Notable quotes:
"... Naturally, we learned soon after from the Iraqi PM himself that Soleimani was in Iraq as part of a diplomatic effort to de-escalate tensions. In other words, he was apparently lured to Baghdad under false pretenses so he'd be a sitting duck for a U.S. strike. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. ..."
"... As you'd expect, some of the most ridiculous propaganda came from Mike Pompeo, a man who genuinely loves deception and considers it his craft.. For example: ..."
"... Moving on to the really big question: what does this assassination mean for the future role of the U.S. in the Middle East and American global hegemony generally? A few important things have already occurred. For starters, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution calling for U.S. troops to leave. Even more important are the comments and actions of Muqtada al-Sadr. ..."
"... Unmentioned in the above tweet, but extremely significant, is the fact al-Sadr has been a vocal critic of both the American and Iranian presence in Iraq. He doesn't want either country meddling in the affairs of Iraqis, but the Soleimani assassination clearly pushed him to focus on the U.S. presence. This is a very big deal and ensures Iraq will be far more dangerous for U.S. troops than it already was. ..."
Jan 07, 2020 | twitter.com

Before discussing what happens next and the big picture implications, it's worth pointing out the incredible number of blatant lies and overall clownishness that emerged from U.S. officials in the assassination's aftermath. It started with claims from Trump that Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on Americans and was caught in the act. Mass media did its job and uncritically parroted this line, which was quickly exposed as a complete falsehood.

CNN anchor uncritically repeating government lies.
This is what mass media does to get wars going. https://t.co/QK1JET7TIj

-- Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) January 6, 2020

It's incredibly telling that CNN would swallow this fact-free claim with total credulity within weeks of discovering the extent of the lies told about Syrian chemical attacks and the Afghanistan war . Meanwhile, when a reporter asked a state department official for some clarification on what sorts of attacks were imminent, this is what transpired.

When asked by a reporter for details about what kinds of imminent attacks Soleimani was planning, the State Dept. responds with:

"Jesus, do we have to explain why we do these things?"

Totally normal. pic.twitter.com/FDWtpfItEp

-- Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) January 6, 2020

Naturally, we learned soon after from the Iraqi PM himself that Soleimani was in Iraq as part of a diplomatic effort to de-escalate tensions. In other words, he was apparently lured to Baghdad under false pretenses so he'd be a sitting duck for a U.S. strike. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Iraqi Prime Minister AbdulMahdi accuses Trump of deceiving him in order to assassinate Suleimani. Trump, according to P.M. lied about wanting a diplomatic solution in order to get Suleimani on a plane to Baghdad in the open, where he was summarily executed. https://t.co/HKjyQqXNqP

-- Joshua Landis (@joshua_landis) January 5, 2020

As you'd expect, some of the most ridiculous propaganda came from Mike Pompeo, a man who genuinely loves deception and considers it his craft.. For example:

Pompeo on CNN says US has "every expectation" that people "in Iran will view the American action last night as giving them freedom."

-- Josh Lederman (@JoshNBCNews) January 3, 2020

Then there's what actually happened.

Absolutely massive crowds on the streets of Mashhad awaiting the arrival of Qassem Suleimani.

"We are ready for war." pic.twitter.com/ZK4O8KQB17

-- Sam (@sonofnariman) January 5, 2020

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Qassem Soleimani's daughter Zeinab were among the hundreds of thousands mourning Soleimani in Tehran today. Iranian state TV put the crowd size at 'millions,' though that number could not be verified. https://t.co/R6EbKh6Gow

-- CBC News Alerts (@CBCAlerts) January 6, 2020

Moving on to the really big question: what does this assassination mean for the future role of the U.S. in the Middle East and American global hegemony generally? A few important things have already occurred. For starters, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution calling for U.S. troops to leave. Even more important are the comments and actions of Muqtada al-Sadr.

WOW,

Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr orders the return of "Mahdi Army" in response the American strike that killed Suleimani.

Mahdi Army fought against the US troops during the invasion in 2003. Sadr disbanded the group in 2008.

-- Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) January 3, 2020

Unmentioned in the above tweet, but extremely significant, is the fact al-Sadr has been a vocal critic of both the American and Iranian presence in Iraq. He doesn't want either country meddling in the affairs of Iraqis, but the Soleimani assassination clearly pushed him to focus on the U.S. presence. This is a very big deal and ensures Iraq will be far more dangerous for U.S. troops than it already was.

Going forward, Iran's response will be influenced to a great degree by what's already transpired. There are three things worth noting. First, although many Trump supporters are cheering the assassination, Americans are certainly nowhere near united on this , with many including myself viewing it as a gigantic strategic blunder. Second, it ratcheted up anti-American sentiment in Iraq to a huge degree without Iran having to do anything, as highlighted above. Third, hardliners within Iran have been given an enormous gift. With one drone strike, the situation went from grumblings and protests on the ground to a scene where any sort of dissent in the air has been extinguished for the time being.

Exactly right, which is why Iran will go more hardline if anything and more united.
If China admitted to taking out Trump even Maddow wouldn't cheer. https://t.co/zqaEDIoWH1

-- Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) January 6, 2020

Iranian leadership will see these developments as important victories in their own right and will likely craft a response taking stock of this much improved position. This means a total focus on making the experience of American troops in the region untenable, which will be far easier to achieve now.

If that's right, you can expect less shock and awe in the near-term, and more consolidation of the various parties that were on the fence but have since shifted to a more anti-American stance following Soleimani's death. Iran will start with the easy pickings, which consists of consolidating its stronger position in Iraq and making dissidents feel shameful at home. That said, Iran will have to publicly respond with some sort of a counterattack, but that event will be carefully considered with Iran's primary objective in mind -- getting U.S. troops out of the region.

This means no attacks on U.S. or European soil, and no attacks targeting civilians either. Such a move would be as strategically counterproductive as Assad gassing Syrian cities after he was winning the war (which is why many of us doubted the narrative) since it would merely inflame American public opinion and give an excuse to attack Iran in Iran. There is no way Iranian leadership is that stupid, so any such attack must be treated with the utmost skepticism.

[Jan 07, 2020] The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has offered Iraq Tuesday the option to purchase the world's most advanced missile defense system S-400 to protect its airspace

Jan 07, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has offered Iraq Tuesday the option to purchase the world's most advanced missile defense system to protect its airspace, reported RIA Novosti .

According to the report, the Iraqi Armed Forces could purchase the Russian S-400 Triumf air defense system, which RIA points out, can "ensure the country's sovereignty and reliable airspace protection."

"Iraq is a partner of Russia in the field of military-technical cooperation, and the Russian Federation can supply the necessary funds to ensure the sovereignty of the country and reliable protection of airspace, including the supply of S-400 missiles and other components of the air defense system, such as Buk-M3, Tor -M2 "and so on," said Igor Korotchenko, Russian Defense Ministry's Public Council member.

For the last several months, Iraq has considered purchasing Russian air defense and missile systems, including the S-400, however, it has been met with fierce pressure from the US.

But with a political crisis between the US and Iraq underway, thanks partly to the US assassination of Iran's Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Russia could profit as Iraq attempts to decouple from the US.

Wow! I just suggested it yesterday! 😀 After Iraq kicks the US out, it would need protection from American/Israeli warplanes. And Russian S-400 can do the job https://t.co/KCz3v705l1

-- CaliCali2000 (@CaliCali2000) January 7, 2020

A recent U.S. intelligence assessment indicated that at least 13 countries had expressed interest in purchasing the S-400s.

The Palmetto Cynic , 24 minutes ago link

And therein lies the fatal flaw in the thinking of a moron like Trump and the packs of morons that still believe his ********:

They still believe that the US can do whatever the **** it wants without retaliation or reprisal.

The China trade war that Trump started and Xi just ended is one example.

And now these un-warranted attacks on Iran will be a second example.

Will the idiots learn or is a third time a charm? I have my doubts reading the comments from these dimwits daily.

africoman , 30 minutes ago link

Russia signaling Iraq to continue pushing out foreign troops from their territory with less fear they gonna be targeted just like exemplified Sulemani when they took out like that since Iraq can have S-400 and Russian protection if they wanted etc

well well this pesky Russian understands protections will boast their push of the great satan?

problem is the pm is going out

I need to see Iran got S-400 asa

francis scott falseflag , 37 minutes ago link

Imagine how many batteries of S-400 are already installed and operational in Iran

serotonindumptruck , 33 minutes ago link

And Trump is delusional enough to claim air superiority.

Those B52s are well within range of the Russian S400 missile system.

Dzerzhhinsky , 26 minutes ago link

None.

Russia offered the S-400 but Iran opted for the S-300, and then only a couple of batteries.

Russia was going to sell S-300's to Iran years ago, but Russia broke the deal because of US pressure.

So China who have reverse engineered the S-300, gave/sold Iran information, and some critical parts.

Iranian missiles went from 10 meter accuracy to 1 meter accuracy overnight.

What Iran should have is the Russian jamming equipment that makes American missiles fall from the sky.

BlindMonkey , 40 minutes ago link

S-400 is sovereignty in a box. The US erred bigly.

SickDollar , 40 minutes ago link

Well said

[Jan 07, 2020] The victims of Iranian retaliation will be America's Arab proxies, be they nations such as Saudi Arabia and its allies, or military factions

Jan 07, 2020 | www.theguardian.com


[Jan 07, 2020] Russia WON'T Intervene in Iran, the US Will LOSE a War Against Iran, This Is the Beginning of the End of the US Empire

Jan 07, 2020 | russia-insider.com

Will Russia intervene?

First things first. There are NO legal/formal obligations between Russia and Iran and last time I checked, no Iranians have volunteered to die for Russia. Next, yes, Iran is an important ally for Russia. But what most folks are missing is that Iran does not need (or want) a direct Russian intervention. There are lots of reasons (including historical ones) to this. But what most folks are completely misunderstanding is that the Iranians are confident that they can win without any Russian (or other) help . I am in touch with a lot of folks from the Middle-East (including Iran) and I can tell you that their mood is one of not only total determination, but one of quiet confidence. Nobody in the region doubts that it's now over for Uncle Shmuel. I know, this sounds incredible for folks living in the West, but that is the reality in the Middle-East.

From 'The Charge of the Light Brigade'

Besides, you can be sure that Russia will help Iran, but behind the scenes. First and foremost with intelligence: while the Iranian have an extremely sophisticated intelligence community, it is dwarfed by the much larger Russian one which, on top of being much bigger, also has technical means which Iran can only dream about. Russia can also help with early warning and targeting. We can't know what is really going behind the scenes, but I am getting reports that the Russians are on full alert (as they were during the first Gulf war, alas – Saddam Hussein did not listen to the Russian warnings).

6) Should Russia declare that Iran is now under Russian protection ? Absolutely not! Why? Think of what is taking place as if you were sitting in the Kremlin: the Empire is about to embark on its last war (yes, I mean that, see further below) and the Russian specialists all KNOW that the US will lose, and badly. Why in the world would you intervene when your "main foe" (KGB/SVR/FSB expression for "USA") is about to do something terminally stupid?

Besides, this is a cultural issue too. In the West, threats are constantly used. Not only to scare the enemy, but also to feel less terrified yourself. In Asia (and Russia is far more culturally Asian than European) threats are seen as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve. In this entire career, Putin used a threat only ONCE: to convince the Urkonazis that attacking during the World Cup would have "severe consequences for the Ukrainian statehood".

But you have to understand that from a Russian point of view, the Ukraine is militarily so weak as to be laughable as an enemy and nobody in his right mind will ever doubt the outcome of a Ukie war with Russia. This is an extreme and exceptional case. But look at the case of the Russian intervention in Syria: unlike their western counterparts, the Russians did not first spend weeks threatening ISIS or anybody else in Syria. When Putin took the decision, they simply moved in, so quietly that THE BEST military in the galaxy never detected the Russian move.

So, IF, and I don't think that this will happen, Russia ever decided to move in to protect Iran, the US will find out about it when US servicemen will die in large numbers. Until then, Russia will not be issuing threats. Again, in the West threats are a daily occurrence. In the East, they are a sign of weakness.

Now you know why US threats are totally ineffective.

7) US force levels in the Middle-East. The US maintains a large network of bases all around Iran and throughout the entire planet, really. The real numbers are secret, of course, but let us assume, for argument sake, that the US has about 100'000 soldiers more or less near Iran. The actual figure does not matter (and the Iranians know it anyway). What is crucial is this: this does NOT mean that the US has 100'000 soldiers ready to attack Iran. A lot of that personnel is not really combat capable (the ratio of combat ready vs support ranges from country to country and from war to war, but let's just say that most of these 100'000 are NOT combat soldiers). Not only that, but there is a big difference between, say, many companies and battalions in a region and a real armored division. For example, the 82nd AB is an INFANTRY force, not really mechanized, not capable of engaging say, an armored brigade.

Here is a historical sidebar: during the first Gulf war, the US also sent in the 82nd AB as the central force of the operation "Desert Shield". And here is where Saddam Hussein committed his WORST blunder of all. If he had sent in his armored divisions across the Saudi border he would have made minced meat of the 82nd. The US knew that. In fact, Cheney was once asked what the US would have done if the Iraqis has destroyed the 82nd. He replied that the first line of defense was airpower on USN aircraft carriers and cruise missiles. And if that failed, the US would have had to use tactical nukes to stop the Iraqi divisions. That would be one of those instances were using nukes WOULD make sense from a purely military point of view (nukes are great to deal with armor!), but from a political point of view it would have been a PR disaster ( vide supra ). The same is true today.

For the US to engage in any serious ground operation it would need many months to get the force levels high enough and you can be darn sure that Iran would NEVER allow that. Should Uncle Shmuel try to send in a real, big, force into the KSA you can be sure that the Iranians will strike with everything they have!

The bottom line is this: the US has more than enough assets in the region to strike/bomb Iran. The US has nowhere near the kind of force levels to envision a major ground operation even in Iraq, nevermind Iran!

8) What about the Strait of Hormuz? There is no doubt in my mind that Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, all the Iranians need to do to close it is say that they reserve the right to destroy (by whatever means) any ship attempting passage. That will be enough to stop all traffic. Of course, if that happens the US will have no other option than to attack the southern cost of Iran and try to deal with that threat. And yes, I am sorry of I disappoint my Iranian friends, I do believe that the US could probably re-open the Strait of Hormuz, but that will require "boots on the ground" in southern Iran and that is something which might yield an initial success, but that will turn into a massive military disaster in the medium to long run because the Iranians will have not only have time on their side, but they will have a dream come true: finally the US GIs will be within reach, literally. So, typically, the US will prevail coming in, only to find itself in a trap.

9) Do the Iranians seek death? This is an important one (thanks to Larchmonter 445 for suggesting this!). The short answer is no. Not at all. Iranians want to live and they do not seek death. HOWEVER, they also know that death in defense of Islam or in defense of the oppressed is an act of "witness to God", which is what the Arabic word " shahid " is (and why the Greek work μάρτυς "martis" means). What does that mean? That means that while Muslim soldiers should not seek their death, and while they ought to do everything in their power to remain alive, they are NOT afraid of death in the least. To fully understand this mindset, you need only become aware of the most famous and crucial Shia slogan " Every Day Is Ashura and Every Land Is Karbala " (see explanation here ). If I had to translate this into a Christian frame of reference I would suggest this "every day is Good/Passion Friday and every land is the Golgotha". That is to say, " no matter were you are and no matter what time it is, you have to be willing to sacrifice your life for God and for the defense of the oppressed ". So no, Iranians are a joyful people (as are Arabs), and they don't seek death. But neither do they fear it and they accept, with gratitude, the possibility of having to sacrifice their lives in defense of justice and truth. This is one more reason why threats by terminal imbeciles like Pompeo or Trump have no effect whatsoever on Muslims.

10) So what is really happening now? Folks, this is the beginning of the end for the Empire . Yes, I know, this sounds incredible, yet this is exactly what we are seeing happening before our eyes. The very best which the US can hope for now is a quick and complete withdrawal from the Middle-East. For a long list of political reason, that does not seem a realistic scenario right now. So what next? A major war against Iran and against the entire "Shia crescent" ? Not a good option either. Not only will the US lose, but it would lose both politically and militarily. Limited strikes? Not good either, since we know that Iran will retaliate massively. A behind the scenes major concession to appease Iran? Nope, ain't gonna happen either since if the Iranians let the murder of Soleimani go unpunished, then Hassan Nasrallah, Bashar al-Assad and even Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will be the next ones to be murdered. A massive air campaign? Most likely, and initially this will feel good (lots of flagwaving in the USA), but soon this will turn into a massive disaster. Use nukes? Sure, and destroy your political image forever and not only in the Middle-East but worldwide.

As a perfect illustration, just check the latest stupid threat made by Trump : " If they do ask us to leave, if we don't do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they've never seen before ever. It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame" . Folk, this is exactly the kind of stupid language which will deeply offend any Iraqi patriot. This is the kind of language which comes out of an empire in the late stages of agony.

Trump will go down in history as the man who thought he could scare the Iranian and Iraqi people with "tweets".

Pathetic indeed.

CONCLUSION

I hope that these pointers will be useful, especially when you are going to be hit with a massive Tsunami of US flagwaving propaganda (Trump "we are THE BEST"). Simply put: this is bullshit. Modern wars are first and foremost propaganda wars, and what you see as the output of US ruling elites are just that – "information operations". Let them wave their (Chinese made) flags, let them declare "United we stand" (for what exactly they stand is never specified) and let them repeat that the US military is the MOST FORMIDABLE FORCE IN THE GALAXY. These are nothing but desperate attempts to control the narrative, nothing else.

Oh, and one more irony: while the GOP controlled Senate is most unlikely to ever impeach Trump, is it not pathetically hilarious that Trump has now, indeed, committed acts ought to have him removed from office? Of course, in the real world, the US Neocon deep-state controls BOTH parties and BOTH parties fully support a war against Iran. Still, this is one of those ironies of history which should be mentioned.

I will resume my work tomorrow morning.

Until then, I wish you call a good nite/morning/day.

[Jan 07, 2020] The neocon foreign policy brings only bankruptcy moral and financial by Ron Paul

Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

President Trump and his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told us the US had to assassinate Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani last week because he was planning "Imminent attacks" on US citizens. I don't believe them.

Why not? Because Trump and the neocons – like Pompeo – have been lying about Iran for the past three years in an effort to whip up enough support for a US attack. From the phony justification to get out of the Iran nuclear deal, to blaming Yemen on Iran, to blaming Iran for an attack on Saudi oil facilities, the US Administration has fed us a steady stream of lies for three years because they are obsessed with Iran.

And before Trump's obsession with attacking Iran, the past four US Administrations lied ceaselessly to bring about wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Serbia, Somalia, and the list goes on.

At some point, when we've been lied to constantly and consistently for decades about a "threat" that we must "take out" with a military attack, there comes a time where we must assume they are lying until they provide rock solid, irrefutable proof. Thus far they have provided nothing. So I don't believe them.

President Trump has warned that his administration has already targeted 52 sites important to Iran and Iranian culture and the US will attack them if Iran retaliates for the assassination of Gen. Soleimani. Because Iran has no capacity to attack the United States, Iran's retaliation if it comes will likely come against US troops or US government officials stationed or visiting the Middle East. I have a very easy solution for President Trump that will save the lives of American servicemembers and other US officials: just come home. There is absolutely no reason for US troops to be stationed throughout the Middle East to face increased risk of death for nothing.

In our Ron Paul Liberty Report program last week we observed that the US attack on a senior Iranian military officer on Iraqi soil – over the objection of the Iraq government – would serve to finally unite the Iraqi factions against the United States. And so it has: on Sunday the Iraqi parliament voted to expel US troops from Iraqi soil. It may have been a non-binding resolution, but there is no mistaking the sentiment. US troops are not wanted and they are increasingly in danger. So why not listen to the Iraqi parliament?

Bring our troops home, close the US Embassy in Baghdad – a symbol of our aggression – and let the people of the Middle East solve their own problems. Maintain a strong defense to protect the United States, but end this neocon pipe-dream of ruling the world from the barrel of a gun. It does not work. It makes us poorer and more vulnerable to attack. It makes the elites of Washington rich while leaving working and middle class America with the bill. It engenders hatred and a desire for revenge among those who have fallen victim to US interventionist foreign policy. And it results in millions of innocents being killed overseas.

There is no benefit to the United States to trying to run the world. Such a foreign policy brings only bankruptcy – moral and financial. Tell Congress and the Administration that for America's sake we demand the return of US troops from the Middle East! (Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)

[Jan 07, 2020] Impeachment as a way out for the USa for create Trump Soliemani muder deadlock with Iran

Jan 07, 2020 | www.nytimes.com

Hineni47 NYC area 6h ago

"Unlike with North Korea, it's difficult to imagine any photo op or exchange of love letters defusing the crisis the president has created. " The only thing that might defuse this crisis would be the Senate convicting Trump and removing him from office. It would be a good idea if the House passes another article of impeachment accusing the president of committing an act of war without Congressional authorization.
Sirlar Jersey City 3h ago Times Pick
Threatening to destroy cultural sites of a country is the sign of a deranged madman. I can't believe a US president would dare say something like that. It goes against all the principles America stands for. Nothing will motivate the people of Iran to fight the US more than the threat of destruction to their cultural sites. If we go to war with Iran, this is a Republican war. They own it. When are decent Republicans going to stand up and do the right thing? If they don't, this could be very, very, bad.
PatMurphy77 Michigan 5h ago
The Defense department is already walking back Trump's tweet about bombing Iran culture sites. Unfortunately, it's too late because the damage to our reputation as the "shining light on the hill" has already been destroyed. I'm afraid more than now than I have ever been in my life. Who knows when or where the revenge will occur but I'm fairly certain it will happen and we'll be more isolated than ever before. It's taken centuries to build goodwill and our reputation as a beacon of democracy for the world. We gave the keys to the kingdom to a false prophet and we'll pay for his indiscretions for the rest of my lifetime. God help us all.

[Jan 07, 2020] The Nightmare Stage of Trump's Rule Is Here by Michelle Goldberg Michelle Goldberg

Jan 07, 2020 | www.nytimes.com

After three harrowing years, we've reached the point many of us feared from the moment Donald Trump was elected. His decision to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's second most important official, made at Mar-a-Lago with little discernible deliberation , has brought the United States to the brink of a devastating new conflict in the Middle East.

We don't yet know how Iran will retaliate, or whether all-out war will be averted. But already, NATO has suspended its mission training Iraqi forces to fight ISIS . Iraq's Parliament has voted to expel American troops -- a longtime Iranian objective. (On Monday, U.S. forces sent a letter saying they were withdrawing from Iraq in response, only to then claim that it was a draft released in error .) On Sunday, Iran said it will no longer be bound by the remaining restrictions on its nuclear program in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal that Trump abandoned in 2018. Trump has been threatening to commit war crimes by destroying Iran's cultural sites and tried to use Twitter to notify Congress of his intention to respond to any Iranian reprisals with military escalation.

The administration has said that the killing of Suleimani was justified by an imminent threat to American lives, but there is no reason to believe this. One skeptical American official told The New York Times that the new intelligence indicated nothing but "a normal Monday in the Middle East," and Democrats briefed on it were unconvinced by the administration's case. The Washington Post reported that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- who last year agreed with a Christian Broadcasting Network interviewer that God might have sent Trump to save Israel from the "Iranian menace" -- has been pushing for a hit on Suleimani for months.

[Jan 07, 2020] Trump is the kind of child leader that will throw temper tantrums in front of the world. Id impulses are running the world here and when id impulses run the world from the White House we are certain that whatever manifests will be destructive beyond imagination for most adults in the world.

Jan 07, 2020 | off-guardian.org

MASTER OF UNIVE American corporations will start falling into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Q1 if the USA MIC cannot find new contracts to profit from via kinetic war. The USA's last war was Iraq post-911 and the USA MIC made good money & profit from that war. Without forever wars the USA Ponzi Corporatocracy will deflate. If the USA Ponzi Corporatocracy deflates due to recession it means the end of USA Imperialism.
If the hawks can generate forever wars the MIC suppliers may have a chance to stay in business, but if they don't get new contracts for new forever wars they all know implicitly that that is a Zero Sum game for the entire USA population.

BIG Chief Trump little penis has only one chance to stay in power at this juncture. He has ordered troupes to Iraq and approximately 2000 marines are on the way right now. In brief, 2000 marines were not ordered to Iraq to escort the base troupes out of Iraq safely. They were sent on a mission.

Impeachment, DOW Share Price, and no Trade Deal with China will put Trump on the defensive and he will start threatening everyone in the world if he does not get his way.

Trump is the kind of child leader that will throw temper tantrums in front of the world. Temper tantrums worked with his parents, and the Real Estate community in New York shitty.

Trump is a child of roughly 6 or 7 mentally & socially. Id impulses are running the world here and when id impulses run the world from the White House we are certain that whatever manifests will be destructive beyond imagination for most adults in the world.

Children with anger management issues & rage issues will understand Trump best.

[Jan 07, 2020] Trump's Biggest Gamble Yet May Set the Entire Middle East Alight by Martin Jay

It's all about the level of geopolitical control of oil-rich regions. In other words Carter doctrine.
Notable quotes:
"... Don't expect any American journalists to remind viewers that one of Soleimani's achievements was not only to command the entire Iraqi army's campaign against ISIS, but also to do that in cooperation with U.S. forces. ..."
"... Trump doesn't really read. Or even take solace from history. If he did, he would know that many U.S. presidents actually lost the vote at the crucial moment, because of their bungling in the Middle East and, in particular, in Iran. President Reagan for example won the White House in November 1980 after the failed rescue mission of U.S. hostages in April of that year in Iran went spectacularly wrong which gave a "landslide" victory to the former B-movie actor from Hollywood ..."
"... Trump's strike does ring of a president, struggling with an impeachment campaign gaining momentum, who may feel has nothing to lose other than to repeat history, which has doomed him, like Carter or Reagan (who never survived Iran-Contra). ..."
"... But his reckless folly in the Middle East is also a test of how far relations with the U.S. and the rest of the world can go, before something breaks. The assassination of the Iranian general could drive a huge divide between the U.S. and the EU in the next term, if Trump can secure re-election as it will be Europe which pays the real price when the region boils over. ..."
Jan 05, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org
I personally do not think that the strike was a typically capricious move by Trump. I am more inclined to believe that it has been in the works for a long time and his advisers might well have offered it to him as a preferable retaliation option against the Iranian downing of a U.S. drone in June of last year – where Trump floundered and finally held back from launching a conventional military attack on Iranian forces, through fear of civilians being killed, or so he claims.

What we are witnessing is unprecedented in the region. It has caught everyone off guard, even the democrats in the U.S., who can barely believe the stupidity of the move, which arguably, is a measured one. Trump believes that he can come out the winner of a pseudo war – or a proxy one – in the region, even though the Iranians have demonstrated that they easily have the capability of shutting down Saudi Arabia's oil exports with a relatively minor salvo of ordinance.

In fact, Saudi Arabia might well, in my view, be part of this latest move. Much has been made of the petulant twitter goading of Tehran's Supreme leader to Trump directly, which may well have pushed him over a line. But in reality, there is something much deeper and nefarious at play which may well be the true basis of why the decision was taken for the assassination: to destroy any possibilities of Iran and Saudi Arabia patching up their differences and continuing in dialogue, to avoid further tensions.

There is ample evidence to show that since the oilfield attacks carried out by Iran, Saudi crown prince Mohamed bin Salman has softened his stance on Iran and was looking at ways, through intermediaries, to build a working relation. It was early days and progress was slow.

But the Soleimani hit will blow that idea right out of the water. In one fell swoop, the strike galvanises and polarises an anti-Iran front from Saudi Arabia and Israel, which, whilst doing wonders for U.S. arms procurement will cause more tension in the region as it places countries like Qatar, UAE, Turkey and Oman in a really awkward spot with regards to how it should continue to work with Tehran. It may well put back the Qatar blockade to its earlier position as 'rogue state' in the region, prompting it to possibly even go rogue and get more involved in the battle to take Tripoli (supporting Turkish forces, obviously, who are with the UN-recognised government).

In fact, there is an entire gamut of consequences to the move, beyond merely Iran seeking to take revenge against America's allies in the region. It is less about a declaration of war against Iran but more a declaration of anti-peace towards the entire Arab world, which was starting to unfold in the last six months since Trump stepped back from the region and stood down from a retaliation strike against Iran in the Straits of Hormuz. Trump is gambling that he can sustain Saudi Arabia's oil being disrupted and even body bags of U.S. soldiers in Syria and Iraq in return for a fresh wave of popularity from people too ignorant to understand or wish to comprehend the nuances of the Middle East and how so many U.S. presidents use the pretext of a war, or heightened tensions, as part of their chest-beating, shallow popularity campaign.

Don't expect any American journalists to remind viewers that one of Soleimani's achievements was not only to command the entire Iraqi army's campaign against ISIS, but also to do that in cooperation with U.S. forces.

Trump doesn't really read. Or even take solace from history. If he did, he would know that many U.S. presidents actually lost the vote at the crucial moment, because of their bungling in the Middle East and, in particular, in Iran. President Reagan for example won the White House in November 1980 after the failed rescue mission of U.S. hostages in April of that year in Iran went spectacularly wrong which gave a "landslide" victory to the former B-movie actor from Hollywood .

Reagan, in turn, carried on the great tradition of Middle East histrionics by his notably 'mad dog' Libya campaign, which ran concurrent to two devastating attacks on U.S. soldiers and embassy staff in Lebanon, while two different CIA teams worked against each other in trying to secure the release of U.S. hostages in Beirut – while all along he was selling illegal arms to the Iranians and using the cash to fund Contras in Nicaragua.

Trump's strike does ring of a president, struggling with an impeachment campaign gaining momentum, who may feel has nothing to lose other than to repeat history, which has doomed him, like Carter or Reagan (who never survived Iran-Contra).

But his reckless folly in the Middle East is also a test of how far relations with the U.S. and the rest of the world can go, before something breaks. The assassination of the Iranian general could drive a huge divide between the U.S. and the EU in the next term, if Trump can secure re-election as it will be Europe which pays the real price when the region boils over.

Martin Jay is an award -winning freelance journalist and political commentator

[Jan 07, 2020] Either the assassination was a drive-by on the way out, or Trump's war cabinet doesn't plan on having to leave Iraq.

Jan 07, 2020 | www.truthdig.com

Trump has from the beginning of his presidential campaign appealed to the worst and most fascistic elements in American political life. At a time when the US has no credible peer military rival, he added hundreds of billions of dollars to the Pentagon budget, and the pudgy old chicken hawk lionized war criminals. Up until now, however, Trump shrewdly calculated that his base was tired of wasting blood and treasure on fruitless Middle Eastern wars, and he avoided taking more than symbolic steps. He dropped a big missile on Afghanistan once, and fired some Tomahawk Cruise missiles at Syria. But he drew back from the brink of more extensive military engagements.

Now, by murdering Qasem Soleimani , the head of the Jerusalem (Qods) Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, Trump has brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran. Mind you, Iran's leadership is too shrewd to rush to the battlements at this moment, and will be prepared to play the long game. My guess is that they will encourage their allies among Iraqi Shiites to get up a massive protest at the US embassy and at bases housing US troops.

They will be aided in this task of mobilizing Iraqis by the simultaneous US assassination of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Forces. Al-Muhandis is a senior military figure in the Iraqi armed forces, not just a civilian militia figure. Moreover, the Kata'ib Hizbullah that he headed is part of a strong political bloc, al-Fath, which has 48 members in parliament and forms a key coalition partner for the current, caretaker prime minister, Adil Abdulmahdi. Parliament won't easily be able to let this outrage pass.

The US officer corps is confident that the American troops at the embassy and elsewhere in Baghdad are sufficient to fight off any militia invasion. I'm not sure they have taken into account the possibility of tens of thousands of civilian protesters invading the embassy, who can't simply be taken out and shot.

Trump may be counting on the unpopularity among the youth protesters in downtown Baghdad, Basra, Nasiriya and other cities of Soleimani and of al-Muhandis to blunt the Iraqi reaction to the murders. The thousands of youth protesters cheered on hearing the news of their deaths, since they were accused of plotting a violent repression of the rallies demanding an end to corruption.

Iraq, however, is a big, complex society, and there are enormous numbers of Iraqi Shiites who support the Popular Mobilization Forces and who view them as the forces that saved Iraq from the peril of the ISIL (ISIS) terrorist organization. The Shiite hard liners would not need all Iraqis to back them in confronting the American presence, only a few hundred thousand for direct crowd action.

You also have to wonder whether Trump and his coterie aren't planning a coup in Iraq. In the absence of a coup, the Iraqi parliament will almost certainly be forced, after this violation of Iraqi national sovereignty, to vote to expel American troops. This is foreseeable. So either the assassination was a drive-by on the way out, or Trump's war cabinet doesn't plan on having to leave Iraq.

[Jan 06, 2020] The most optimistic post on this thread.

Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com


AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:28 pm GMT

@Cloak And Dagger

Henry Kissinger Predicts 'In 10 Years, There Will Be No More Israel'

That's the most optimistic post on this thread.

[Jan 06, 2020] But they could always find an un-scorched Iranian passport in mint condition among the debris of the explosion.

Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

Commentator Mike , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:08 pm GMT

@Bookish1

Not only Mossad but probably many others would like to see a suicide bomber blow himself up somewhere in the US killing alot of people. That makes it difficult to figure out who did it and maybe impossible to figure it out. It would be a mess.

But they could always find an un-scorched Iranian passport in mint condition among the debris of the explosion.

[Jan 06, 2020] One humble suggestion about resolving the crisis with Iran

Jan 06, 2020 | angrybearblog.com

SW , January 5, 2020 9:12 am

If they want revenge, in the interest of avoiding future bloodshed, I suggest that we give them Mike Pence.

[Jan 06, 2020] Diplomacy Trump-style. Al Capone probably would be allow himself to fall that low

Highly recommended!
Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Fec , Jan 5 2020 15:23 utc | 3

"We have learned today from #Iraq Prime Minister AdilAbdl Mahdi how @realDonaldTrump uses diplomacy:
#US asked #Iraq to mediate with #Iran. Iraq PM asks #QassemSoleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer of his mediation, Trump &co assassinate an envoy at the airport."

https://twitter.com/ejmalrai/status/1213833855754485762

[Jan 06, 2020] Whether he is eating ice cream or not, Trump appears to be on a rampage to recreate the end of The Godfather.

Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:16 am GMT

Doubling down on stupid:

Whether he is eating ice cream or not, Trump appears to be on a rampage to recreate the end of The Godfather.

Less than 24 hours after a US drone shockingly killed the top Iranian military leader, Qasem Soleimani, resulting in equity markets groaning around the globe in fear over Iranian reprisals (and potentially, World War III), the US has gone for round two with Reuters and various other social media sources reporting that US air strikes targeting Iraq's Popular Mobilization Units umbrella grouping of Iran-backed Shi'ite militias near camp Taji north of Baghdad, have killed six people and critically wounded three, an Iraqi army source said late on Friday.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/round-two-us-drone-airstrikes-kill-six-pro-iran-militia-commanders

Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:55 am GMT
Now would be the perfect time for the Mossad to do its false flag shtick. They wouldn't even have to try very hard to pin it on Iran. I'll bet that when the news came out that the Iranian guy had been killed, every neocon on the planet popped a boner that will last for days. Michael Ledeen is probably mazel tov-ing his ass off.

I don't care about the dead Muslim who got killed, since that's the only kind of "good Muslim" you're ever going to find, but I would still prefer for the U.S. to get out of the Middle East altogether. Let those two warring anti-Christ peoples kill each other to their hearts' content.

[Jan 06, 2020] Adam Schiff Demands Public Hearings on Soleimani Strike and suggested Secretary of State Mike Pompeo misrepresented intelligence indicating that killing Soleimani saved American lives.

Jan 06, 2020 | www.breitbart.com

"I think there should be open hearings on this subject," Schiff told the Washington Post in an interview published Monday. "The president has put us on a path where we may be at war with Iran. That requires the Congress to fully engage."

Asked for his thoughts on President Trump warning Iran that the U.S. will hit 52 sites, including cultural sites, if Tehran retaliates the California Democrat said: "None of that could come out of the Pentagon. Absolutely no way."

... ... ...

Schiff 's comments to the Post come after he suggested Secretary of State Mike Pompeo misrepresented intelligence indicating that killing Soleimani saved American lives.

"It was a reckless decision that increased the risk to America all around the world, not decreased it. When Secretary Pompeo says that this decision to take out Qasem Soleimani saved American lives, saved European lives, he is expressing a personal opinion, not an intelligence conclusion," he told CNN State of the Union host Jake Tapper. "I think it will increase the risk to Americans around the world. I have not seen the intelligence that taking out Soleimani was going to either stop the plotting that is going on or decrease other risks to the United States."

[Jan 06, 2020] The imminent threat was fake and was a production of the Pompeo-Ester neocon gang by Zachary Cohen

Now we know the composition of the neocon gang that fooled malleable, jingoistic and incompetent Trump: "Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Pompeo, National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien and Milley".
Notable quotes:
"... The administration has failed to connect the dots in a way that provides a clear picture of an imminent threat and that argument has been obscured by inconsistent messaging from US officials. ..."
"... Democrat Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland also told CNN that one of his representatives was at the Friday briefing and said "nothing that came out of the briefing changed my view that this was an unnecessary escalation of the situation in Iraq and Iran." ..."
"... Van Hollen went on to say: "While I can't tell you what was said, I can tell you, I have no additional information to support the administration's claim that this was an imminent attack on Americans." ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | cnn.com

See also

Washington (CNN) Top US national security officials continue to defend the Trump administration's claim that it killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in response to an impending threat to American lives, but the lack of evidence provided to lawmakers and the public has fueled lingering skepticism about whether the strike was justified.

President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and top military officials have offered similar explanations for targeting Soleimani, citing an "imminent" threat from his plans to carry out what Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley called a "significant campaign of violence" against the US in the coming days, weeks or months.

"If you're an American in the region, days and weeks, this is not something that's relevant," Pompeo told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" Sunday, dodging a question on the imminence of such Iranian attacks. "We have to prepare, we have to be ready, and we took a bad guy off the battlefield."

But questions have continued to swirl in recent days over the timing, whether the administration fully considered the fallout from such a strike against Soleimani, and if an appropriate legal basis was established for the presidential authorization of lethal force.

... ... ...

When Trump finally gets ready to act, they added, "you can't out escalate him." CNN has previously reported that there was internal debate over the decision and work behind the scenes to develop a legal argument before the operation was carried out.

After a meeting Sunday in Mar-a-Lago where President Donald Trump was briefed by senior members of his national security team on options regarding Iran, some officials emerged surprised the President chose to target Soleimani, according to a source familiar with the briefing.

The officials who briefed Trump included Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Pompeo, National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien and Milley.

The source said that some aides expected Trump to pick a less risky option, but once presented with the choice of targeting Soleimani he remained intent on going forward.

...The administration has failed to connect the dots in a way that provides a clear picture of an imminent threat and that argument has been obscured by inconsistent messaging from US officials.

Democrat Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland also told CNN that one of his representatives was at the Friday briefing and said "nothing that came out of the briefing changed my view that this was an unnecessary escalation of the situation in Iraq and Iran."

Van Hollen went on to say: "While I can't tell you what was said, I can tell you, I have no additional information to support the administration's claim that this was an imminent attack on Americans."

[Jan 06, 2020] Russian reaction

Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

grr , Jan 7 2020 0:43 utc | 141

Re PCR's latest linked article (post 133.
What PCR is insisting Putin do ("The easiest and cleanest way for Putin to do this is to announce that Iran is under Russia's protection.")Putin has already done so in a landmark speech last year when he unveiled five or six game-changing weapons, or was it 2018.
He declared back then to the evil empire that a nuclear attack on an ally would be considered an attack upon Russia. He made this crystal clear. Of course it wouldn't hurt for him to 'gently' remind them of this.

bjd , Jan 7 2020 0:47 utc | 142

You can read Lavrov's Press Releases here: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation .
bjd , Jan 7 2020 0:58 utc | 147

I do have to say, the silence from the Russians is odd. Even when you read the Russian Foreign Ministry's news releases.

For instance, there's this on January 4th:
" On January 4, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, at the latter's initiative. " (italics mine).

So Lavrov talked to an Iranian official only on January 4th, and the call came from Iran (Zarif), not the other way around. This is odd, and even the explicit
mentioning of Zarif initiating the call --to me-- seems odd.
Hmm...

[Jan 06, 2020] Warren Questions if Soleimani Strike Linked to Impeachment -- Look at the Timing Breitbart

Notable quotes:
"... Follow Pam Key On Twitter @pamkeyNEN ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.breitbart.com

On Sunday's broadcast of CNN's "State of the Union," 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) questioned if President Donald Trump's reasons for the Qasem Soleimani assassination was to distract from impeachment.

Warren said, "I think that the question that we ought to focus on is why now? Why not a month ago, and why not a month from now? And the answer from the administration seems to be that they can't keep their story straight on this. They pointed in all different directions. And you know, the last time that we watched them do this was the summer over Ukraine. As soon as people started asking about the conversations between Donald Trump and the president of Ukraine and why aid had been held up to Ukraine, the administration did the same thing. They pointed in all directions of what was going on. And of course, what emerged then is that this is Donald Trump just trying to advance Donald Trump's own political agenda. Not the agenda of the United States of America. So what happens right now? Next week, the president of the United States could be facing an impeachment trial in the Senate. We know that he is deeply upset about that. I think that people are reasonably asking why this moment? Why does he pick now to take this highly inflammatory, highly dangerous action that moves us closer to war? We have been at war for 20 years in the Middle East, and we need to stop the war this the Middle East and not expand it."

Tapper asked, "Are you suggesting that President Trump pulled the trigger and had Qasem Soleimani killed as a distraction from impeachment?"

Warren said, "Look, I think that people are reasonably asking about the timing and why it is that the administration seems to have all kinds of different answers. In the first 48 hours after this attack, what did we hear? Well, we heard it was for an imminent attack, and then we heard, no, no, it is to prevent any future attack, and then we heard that it is from the vice president himself and no, it is related to 9/11, and then we heard from president reports of people in the intelligence community saying that the whole, that the threat was overblown. You know, when the administration doesn't seem to have a coherent answer for taking a step like this. They have taken a step that moves us closer to war, a step that puts everyone at risk, and step that puts the military at risk and puts the diplomats in the region at risk. And we have already paid a huge price for this war. Thousands of American lives lost, and a cost that we have paid domestically and around the world. At the same time, look at what it has done in the Middle East, millions of people who have been killed, who have been injured, who have been displaced. So this is not a moment when the president should be escalating tensions and moving us to war. The job of the president is to keep us safe, and that means move back from the edge."

Tapper pressed, "Do you believe that President Trump pulled the trigger on this operation as a way to distract from impeachment? Is that what you think?"

Warren said, "I think it is a reasonable question to ask, particularly when the administration immediately after having taken this decision offers a bunch of contradictory explanations for what is going on."

She continued, "I think it is the right question to ask. We will get more information as we go forward but look at the timing on this. Look at what Donald Trump has said afterward and his administration. They have pointed in multiple directions. There is a reason that he chose this moment, not a month ago and not a month from now, not a less aggressive and less dangerous response. He had a whole range of responses that were presented to him. He didn't pick one of the other ones. He picked the most aggressive and the one that moves us closer to war. So what does everybody talk about today? Are we going to war? Are we going to have another five years, tens, ten years of war in the Middle East, and dragged in once again. Are we bringing another generation of young people into war? That is every bit of the conversation right now. Donald Trump has taken an extraordinarily reckless step, and we have seen it before, he is using foreign policy and uses whatever he can to advance the interests of Donald Trump."

Follow Pam Key On Twitter @pamkeyNEN

[Jan 06, 2020] Soleimani murder what could happen next by The Saker

Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

https://staticxx.facebook.com/connect/xd_arbiter.php?version=45#channel=f1bd48e619c98fc&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com https://www.unz.com/tsaker/soleimani-murder-what-could-happen-next/ The Unz Review - Mobile The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media User Settings: Max Comment Length? Version? Social Media? Read Aloud w/ Show Word Counts No Video Autoplay No Infinite Scrolling
Save Cancel

← EXTREMELY Dangerous Development in the ... The US Is Now at War, de-Facto and de-J... → Blogview The Saker Archive Blogview The Saker Archive Soleimani Murder: What Could Happen Next? The Saker January 3, 2020 2,900 Words 357 Comments Reply Listen ॥ ■ ► RSS

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D45%23cb%3Df2a9166cd961e98%26domain%3Dwww.unz.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.unz.com%252Ff1bd48e619c98fc%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=100&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Ftsaker%2Fsoleimani-murder-what-could-happen-next%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&share=true&size=small&width=90

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/share_button.php?app_id=&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D45%23cb%3Df8941e156f9be8%26domain%3Dwww.unz.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.unz.com%252Ff1bd48e619c98fc%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Ftsaker%2Fsoleimani-murder-what-could-happen-next%2F&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&type=button Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information


=> List of Bookmarks A spiritual father kisses his beloved son
◄ ► Bookmark ◄ ► ▲ ▼ Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Add to Library Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments Search Clear Cancel

First, a quick recap of the situation

We need to begin by quickly summarizing what just happened:

General Soleimani was in Baghdad on an official visit to attend the funeral of the Iraqis murdered by the US on the 29th The US has now officially claimed responsibility for this murder The Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has officially declared that " However, a severe retaliation awaits the criminals who painted their corrupt hands with his and his martyred companions' blood last night "

The US paints itself – and Iran – into a corner

The Iranians simply had no other choice than to declare that there will be a retaliation. There are a few core problems with what happens next. Let's look at them one by one:

First, it is quite obvious from the flagwaving claptrap in the US that Uncle Shmuel is "locked and loaded" for even more macho actions and reaction. In fact, Secretary Esper has basically painted the US into what I would call an "over-reaction corner" by declaring that " the game has changed " and that the US will take " preemptive action " whenever it feels threatened . Thus, the Iranians have to assume that the US will over-react to anything even remotely looking like an Iranian retaliation. No less alarming is that this creates the absolutely perfect conditions for a false flag à la " USS Liberty " . Right now, the Israelis have become at least as big a danger for US servicemen and facilities in the entire Middle-East as are the Iranians themselves. How? Simple! Fire a missile/torpedo/mine at any USN ship and blame Iran. We all know that if that happens the US political elites will do what they did the last time around: let US servicemen die and protect Israel at all costs (read up on the USS Liberty if you don't know about it) There is also a very real risk of "spontaneous retaliations" by other parties (not Iran or Iranian allies) . In fact, in his message, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has specifically declared that " Martyr Suleimani is an international face to the Resistance and all lovers of the Resistance share a demand in retaliation for his blood. All friends – as well as all enemies – must know the path of Fighting and Resistance will continue with double the will and the final victory is decidedly waiting for those who fight in this path. " He is right, Soleimani was loved and revered by many people all over the globe, some of whom might decided to avenge his death. This means that we might well see some kind of retaliation which, of course, will be blamed on Iran but which might not be the result of any Iranian actions at all. Finally, should the Iranians decide not to retaliate, then we can be absolutely sure that Uncle Shmuel will see that as a proof of his putative "invincibility" and take that as a license to engage in even more provocative actions. A spiritual father kisses his beloved son

If we look at these four factors together we would have to come to the conclusion that Iran HAS to retaliate and HAS to do so publicly .

Why?

Because whether the Iranian do retaliate or not, they are almost guaranteed another US attack in retaliation for anything looking like a retaliation, whether Iran is involved or not .

The dynamics of internal US politics

Next, let's look at the internal political dynamics in the US:

I have always claimed that Donald Trump is a "disposable President" for the Neocons . What do I mean by that? I mean that the Neocons have used Trump to do all sorts of truly fantastically dumb things (pretty much ALL his policy decisions towards Israel and/or Syria) for a very simple reason. If Trump does something extremely dumb and dangerous, he will either get away with it, in which case the Neocons will be happy, or he will either fail or the consequences of his decisions will be catastrophic, at which point the Neocons will jettison him and replace him by an even more subservient individual (say Pence or Pelosi). In other words, for the Neocons to have Trump do something both fantastically dangerous and fantastically stupid is a win-win situation !

Right now, the Dems (still the party favored by the Neocons) seem to be dead-set into committing political suicide with that ridiculous (and treacherous!) impeachment nonsense. Now think about this from the Neocon point of view. They might be able to get the US goyim to strike Iran AND get rid of Trump. I suppose that their thinking will go something like this:

Trump looks set to win 2020. We don't want that. However, we have been doing everything in our power to trigger a US attack on Iran since pretty much 1979. Let's have Trump do that. If he "wins" (by whatever definition – more about that further below), we win. If he loses, the Iranians will still be in a world of pain and we can always jettison him like a used condom (used to supposedly safely screw somebody with no risks to yourself). Furthermore, if the region explodes, this will help our beloved Bibi and unite US Jewry behind Israel. Finally, if Israel gets attacked, we will immediately demand (and, of course, obtain) a massive US attack on Iran, supported by the entire US political establishment and media. And, lastly, should Israel be hit hard, then we can always use our nukes and tell the goyim that "Iran wants to gas 6 million Jews and wipe the only democracy in the Middle-East off the face of the earth" or something equally insipid.

Ever since Trump made it into the White House, we saw him brown-nose the Israel Lobby with a delectation which is extreme even by US standards. I suppose that this calculation goes something along the lines of "with the Israel Lobby behind me, I am safe in the White House". He is obviously too stupidly narcissistic to realize that he has been used all along. To his (or one of his key advisor's) credit, he did NOT allow the Neocons to start a major war against Russia, China, the DPRK, Venezuela, Yemen, Syria, etc. However, Iran is a totally different case as it is the "number one" target the Neocons and Israel wanted strike and destroy. The Neocons even had this motto " boys go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran ". Now that Uncle Shmuel has lost all this wars of choice, now that the US armed forces have no credibility left, now is the time to restore the "macho" self-image of Uncle Shmuel and, indeed, "go to Tehran" so to speak.

The Dems (Biden) are already saying that Trump just " tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox ", as if they cared about anything except their own, petty, political goals and power. Still, I have to admit that Biden's metaphor is correct – that is exactly what Trump (and his real bosses) have done.

If we assume that I am correct in my evaluation that Trump is the Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable President", then we also have to accept the fact that the US armed forces the Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable armed forces" and that the US as a nation is also the Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable nation". This is very bad news indeed, as this means that from the Neocon/Israeli point of view, there are no real risks into throwing the US into a war with Iran .

In truth, the position of the Dems is a masterpiece of hypocrisy which can be summed up as follows: the assassination of Soleimani is a wonderful event, but Trump is a monster for making it happen .

A winner, no?

What would the likely outcome of a US war on Iran be?

I have written so often about this topic that I won't go into all the possible scenarios here. All I will say is the following:

    For the US, "winning" means achieving regime change or, failing that, destroying the Iranian economy. For Iran, "winning" simply means to survive the US onslaught.

This is a HUGE asymmetry which basically means that the US cannot win and Iran can only win.

And, not, the Iranians don't have to defeat CENTCOM/NATO! They don't need to engage in large scale military operations. All they need to do is: remain "standing" once the dust settles down.

ORDER IT NOW

Ho Chi Minh once told the French " You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win ". This is exactly why Iran will eventually prevail, maybe at a huge cost (Amalek must be destroyed, right?), but that will still be a victory.

Now let's look at the two most basic types of war scenarios: outside Iran and inside Iran.

The Iranians, including General Soleimani himself, have publicly declared many times that by trying to surround Iran and the Middle-East with numerous forces and facilities the US have given Iran a long list of lucrative targets. The most obvious battlefield for a proxy war is clearly Iraq where there are plenty of pro and anti Iranian forces to provide the conditions for a long, bloody and protracted conflict (Moqtada al-Sadr has just declared that the Mahdi Army will be remobilized). But Iraq is far from being the only place where an explosion of violence can take place: the ENTIRE MIDDLE-EAST is well within Iranian "reach", be it by direct attack or by attack by sympathetic/allied forces. Next to Iraq, there is also Afghanistan and, potentially, Pakistan. In terms of a choice of instruments, the Iranian options range from missile attacks, to special forces direct action strikes, to sabotage and many, many more options. The only limitation here is the imagination of the Iranians and, believe me, they have plenty of that!

If such a retaliation happens, the US will have two basic options: strike at Iranian friends and allies outside Iran or, as Esper has now suggested, strike inside Iran. In the latter case, we can safely assume that any such attack will result in a massive Iranian retaliation on US forces and facilities all over the region and a closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Keep in mind that the Neocon motto " boys go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran " implicitly recognizes the fact that a war against Iran would be qualitatively (and even quantitatively) different war than a war against Iraq. And, this is true, if the US seriously plans to strike inside Iran they would be faced with an explosion which would make all the wars since WWII look minor in comparison. But the temptation to prove to the world that Trump and his minions are "real men" as opposed to "boys" might be too strong, especially for a president who does not understand that he is a disposable tool in the hands of the Neocons.

Now, let's quickly look at what will NOT happen

Russia and/or China will not get militarily involved in this one. Neither will the US use this crisis as a pretext to attack Russia and/or China. The Pentagon clearly has no stomach for a war (conventional or nuclear) against Russia and neither does Russia have any desire for a war against the US. The same goes for China. However, it is important to remember that Russia and China have other options, political and covert ones, to really hurt the US and help Iran. There is the UNSC where Russia and China will block any US resolution condemning Iran. Yes, I know, Uncle Shmuel does not give a damn about the UN or international law, but most of the rest of the world very much does. This asymmetry is further exacerbated by Uncle Shmuel's attention span (weeks at most) with the one of Russia and China (decades). Does that matter?

Absolutely!

If the Iraqis officially declare that the US is an occupation force (which it is), an occupation force which engages in acts of war against Iraq (which it does) and that the Iraqi people want Uncle Shmuel and his hypocritical talking points about "democracy" to pack and leave, what can our Uncle Shmuel do? He will try to resist it, of course, but once the tiny figleaf of "nation building" is gone, replaced by yet another ugly and brutal US occupation, the political pressure on the US to get the hell out will become extremely hard to manage, both outside and even inside the US.

In fact, Iranian state television called Trump's order to kill Soleimani " the biggest miscalculation by the U.S." since World War II. "The people of the region will no longer allow Americans to stay," it said.

Next, both Russia and China can help Iran militarily with intelligence, weapons systems, advisors and economically, in overt and covert ways.

Finally, both Russia and China have the means to, shall we say, "strongly suggest" to other targets on the US "country hit list" that now is the perfect time to strike at US interests (say, in Far East Asia).

So Russia and China can and will help, but they will do so with what the CIA likes to call "plausible deniability".

Back The Big Question: what can/will Iran do next?

The Iranians are far most sophisticated players than the mostly clueless Americans. So the first thing I would suggest is that the Iranians are unlikely to do something the US is expecting them to do. Either they will do something totally different, or they will act much later, once the US lowers its guard (as it always does after declaring "victory").

I asked a well-informed Iranian friend whether it was still possible to avoid war. Here is what he replied:

Yes I do believe fullscale war can be avoided. I believe that Iran can try to use its political influence to unite Iraqi political forces to officially ask for the removal of US troops in Iraq. Kicking the US out of Iraq will mean that they can no longer occupy eastern Syria either as their troops will be in danger between two hostile states. If the Americans leave Syria and Iraq, that will be the ultimate revenge for Iran without having fired a single shot.

I have to say that I concur with this idea: one of the most painful things Iran could do next would be to use this truly fantastically reckless event to kick the US out of Iraq first, and Syria next. That option, if it can be exercised, might also protect Iranian lives and the Iranian society from a direct US attack. Finally, such an outcome would give the murder of General Soleimani a very different and beautiful meaning: this martyr's blood liberated the Middle-East!

Finally, if that is indeed the strategy chosen by Iran, this does not at all mean that on a tactical level the Iranians will not extract a price from US forces in the region or even elsewhere on the planet. For example, there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one in direct retaliation for the deliberate shooting down by the USN of IranAir 655 Airbus over the Persian Gulf. I am not saying that I know for a fact that this is what really happened, only that Iran does have retaliatory options not limited to the Middle-East.

Conclusion: we wait for Iran's next move

The Iraqi Parliament is scheduled to debate a resolution demanding the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. I will just say that while I do not believe that the US will gentlemanly agree to any such demands, it will place the conflict in the political realm. That is – by definition – much more desirable than any form of violence, however justified it might seem. So I strongly suggest to those who want peace that they pray that the Iraqi MPs show some honor and spine and tell Uncle Shmuel what every country out there always wanted from the US: Yankees, go home!

If that happens this will be a total victory for Iran and yet another abject defeat (self-defeat, really) by Uncle Shmuel. This is the best of all possible scenarios.

But if that does not happen, then all bets are off and the momentum triggered by this latest act of US terrorism will result in many more deaths.

As of right now (19:24 UTC) I still think that there is a roughly 80% chance of full scale war in the Middle-East and, again, will leave 20% of "unexpected events" (hopefully good ones).

PS: this is a text I wrote under great time pressure and it has not be edited for typos or other mistakes. I ask the self-appointed Grammar Gestapo to take a break and not protest again. Thank you

Harbinger , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:17 pm GMT

I'm just waiting for the usual suspects to come on here denying it had anything to do with Israel and Judaism.
Nicolás Palacios Navarro , says: Website Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:23 pm GMT
Scenarios 3 and 4 look the most likely in this no-win scenario for Iran at the moment. It would probably be advantageous to Iran to let proxies retaliate, although that would further provoke the blatant US aggression of scenario 4.

The best we can hope for, aside from Russia and China covertly assisting Iran with intelligence and materiel, is for the latter to possibly trigger a Suez Crisis-style scenario by threatening to dump its holdings of US sovereign debt. (The former country used to hold something like $160 billion in US bonds, but has since 2013 sold off all but approximately $15 billion.) However, I doubt the Chinese have the appetite for that -- they still depend vitally on the US market for their goods. And Japan, which holds about as much of that debt as China, will never follow suit. They willingly tanked their own economy to prop up the US with the Plaza Accord; and will likely continue to be a bootlick to American power to the bitter end.

Rich , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:36 pm GMT
The Iranians could not defeat the ragtag forces of Saddam Hussein, but they can defeat the United States? Preposterous. The Iranians will do nothing. Their dead general was a member of the military and a legitimate target. If they are foolish enough to attack the US, or its interests, they will suffer enormous losses. I understand that reality can sometimes conflict with a person's wishes, but the reality here is that as long as the US doesn't try to occupy Iran, they can cripple their military and destroy their infrastructure. Iran will do nothing,.
JimDandy , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:47 pm GMT
80%, eh?
Anonymous [607] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:51 pm GMT
@Rich I understand that reality can sometimes conflict with a person's wishes

Are you really sure about that? LOL!!

A123 , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:52 pm GMT

I have written so often about this topic that I won't go into all the possible scenarios here. All I will say is the following:

-- For the US, "winning" means achieving regime change or, failing that, destroying the Iranian economy.
-- For Iran, "winning" simply means to survive the US onslaught.

This is a HUGE asymmetry which basically means that the US cannot win and Iran can only win.

Apparently the author has forgotten what happened a couple months ago. The economic situation is so bad in Iran, people are rioting against the corrupt Ayatollah. (1). Thousands arrested and over a hundred dead.

All the U.S. has to do to win is hold the line. The situation is indeed assymetrical:

-- By refusing to put boots on the ground in Iran, there are few options open to Iran that will hurt the U.S.
-- The U.S. can freely strike against government elites like Soleimani if the Ayatollah tries to escalate.

Attacking the embassy was clearly Khameni's desperate effort to shore up personal weakness at home. Not only did he fail to keep the embassy, he also lost a key terrorist. The weak leader just became much weaker.

How long will the IRGC remain willing to die for a sociopathic Ayatollah?

One has to believe at some point, elements of the IRGC will dispatch Khameni to save their own lives. Iran under military rule is unlikely to become friendly with the U.S. However, for their own personal goals they will bring troops home and suspend funding to groups like al'Hezbollah and al'Hamas. These steps would do much to improve regional stability.

PEACE
_______

(1) https://iranian.com/2019/11/27/iran-arrests-7000-fuel-protesters-in-one-week/

Ilya G Poimandres , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:53 pm GMT
@Rich The Iranians were not trying to defeat the Iraqis, nor will they the US. They aim to survive the violent onslaught of aggressors, and damage them enough so they won't think to try again.

Soleimani was a legitimate target if Iran and the US were in a state of declared war. They are not.

Here, I know this is UK law, but it strikes the right tone: this action was pure terrorism.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1

Eighthman , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:55 pm GMT
@Rich ragtag forces in Afghanistan ( even more rag tag than Iraq) have defeated the US.

The US must bomb and kill – apart from actually encountering another irregular war that they keep losing.

I can think of some Iranian responses. Hostage taking by allied but deniable groups of US personnel. Build out intercontinental missiles in quantity and shield them. Buy Russian weapons like S-400 in a few months.

TaintedCanker , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:56 pm GMT
There's a lot of meaningful content in this article. The only problem is that it is one-sided with more of a dislike of Israel and USA individually than Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Yemen, UAE, Qatar combined.

Where Saker would lead us is to the same inaction of Ben Rhodes.

The problem is that Ben Rhodes would want to collaborate with Suleimani more than Republicans and conservatives or allies such as Israel, UK, Poland.

This leaves the Obama galaxy of superstar stateswomen and statesmen with an unrealistic vision of the world.

This turns into Gaddafi being killed because he is easy to kill, triggering a vacuum and pulling in ISIS and Iran, as well as turning loose 1M people to run try to sneak into Europe.

This same myopic worldview leads to pushing Russia to the breaking point by working with similar minded EU leaders to "flip" Ukraine. That turned out badly and now Obama's statesmen want to hide it.

Don't forget that Kerry is married into Iranian diplomats at the top level.

Paul holland , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:57 pm GMT
Best idea would be to murder a Trump Yahoo like Sheldon Aidelson or Alan Douchewitz.

Would humiliate trump personally but he could not react

bruce county , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:57 pm GMT
@Rich Wishful thinking
Thre are many other scenarios and players to consider. America will not be allowed to arbitrarily mass forces and engage their enemy at free will.
Ignatius , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:58 pm GMT
My take is that the timing of death of General Soleimani and the fact that President Trump is pending impeachment in the US Senate is not a mere coincidence. Part of me thinks that TPTB set Trump up to be impeached and gave him an ultimatum to facilitate a military conflict with Iran or lose his presidency by way of impeachment.

What seems more bogus, the pretense for impeachment or the pretense for war with Iran?

Tulip , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:01 pm GMT
There will be a war with Iran if Trump wants a war with Iran.

But its not clear that Trump wants a full-on war. He could have had one by now if he wanted it. He is more of a business man than a warlord at heart, and lacks the insecurity of a W. He doesn't need to pose in uniform on an aircraft carrier to feel virile, he can just bang Melania.

On the other hand, he won't allow himself to look weak, and he will retaliate. In addition, there is lots of evidence in the public record that Trump has a long-standing antipathy to Iran and its government. And Trump has many "friends" that would be thrilled by an Iran expedition.

Iran would be crazy to provoke Trump in a way that would likely lead to war. Iraq showed the U.S. can take down a government and leave the country wrecked. Sure, the U.S. won't "win" in Iraq, but that doesn't mean Saddam won or the Iraqi people. Iran would be messier, but I lack the Saker's "optimism". The Iranian government will want to survive, not gamble. [Ho Chi Mihn didn't actively seek an American invasion.] The question is whether Iran can de-escalate while saving face (and while other forces, who would love to see the U.S. invade Iran, do everything to escalate affairs).

Leaving aside "winning the war", it would look great on T.V. heading into the 2020 election even if it ends in disaster, and permit cheap attacks on the Democrats in the climate of jingoism sure to follow the first bombs. If Trump is any politician worth his salt, he is more interested in winning the next election than in America winning some long-term ME war.

Not Raul , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:06 pm GMT
Let's say the Saudis attack the USA again like they did on 9-11, Iran gets blamed (of course), and Trump responds by nuking Iran, killing half of the population within a few hours, and 95% within a year.

How exactly does Iran "win" after that?

JamesinNM , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:07 pm GMT
You must understand, Israel would surreptitiously nuke the U.S. if they believed it was needed to adequately control the U.S.
JamesinNM , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:10 pm GMT
@Harbinger Zionism, not Judaism. Two entirely separate things. Compare Romans 2:28-29 versus Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. Research the reader survey "Defense of True Israel" to identify today's true Israel.
journey80 , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:13 pm GMT
It doesn't matter whether Iran decides to retaliate – Israel will retaliate for them. Netanyahu will have his president-for-life, get-out-of-jail war. This could have been an Israeli strike that Trump was forced, or manipulated, into taking credit for. Nothing would be surprising, so long as that shabby little grifter controls U.S. foreign policy.
nokangaroos , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:19 pm GMT
If Russia and China had any itch to go in, they would have done so in Afghanistan at next to no cost to themselves (of course this only emboldened the Empire of Evil).
And with the exception of Mohammed Reza Shah (installed by coup in 1941 because his daddy, an old-school Kurdish brigand, was way too reasonable – something that is conveniently forgotten) Iran has always taken pains to hold both the Anglos and the Russians at arm´s length.

That much at least is going to change.

Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:20 pm GMT
Not only was the joint Israeli and ZUS attack on the USS Liberty a false flag, but even worse than that was the false flag joint Israeli and ZUS attack on the WTC on 911 , and since they have gotten away with these false flags, no doubt, they will do another to get the excuse to finish off Iran.

The only nation standing in the way of the attack on Iran is Russia, and Russia is not going to let Iran be destroyed as Russia threw down the gauntlet in Syria and Russia's top generals ie Gerasimov and Shoygu know that Russia is next and will not stand by and let Iran go down, even if Putin is reluctant to save Iran, which I believe Putin will also know Russia is next on the list.

Israel and the ZUS want a nuclear war with Russia and I believe they will cause a false flag to have it and they believe they can ride out a nuclear exchange in their DUMBS ie deep underground military bases which they have throughout the ZUS and ZEurope and Israel.

Israel and the ZUS are not content with destroying the middle east, they now want to destroy the world.

SeekerofthePresence , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:22 pm GMT
In a land of bravado
You can't get any dumber;
To history and morals
Mind and heart any number.
annamaria , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:28 pm GMT
@Rich "Their dead general was a member of the military and a legitimate target."

-- Let's name all Israeli generals, one by one, and call them legitimate targets.

Your puny theocratic state of Israel has been the cause of the ongoing mass slaughter in the Middle East. Each of Israeli citizens took a bath full of blood of innocent civilians of all ages, figuratively speaking.

Iran has not attacked any country. Israel has. It was the perfidious AIPAC of Israel-firsters that has been working non-stop on promoting the wars of aggression in the name of Eretz Israel. Iraq, Syria, Libya have been destroyed in accordance with Oded Yinon subhuman plan. Iran is the next.

The hapless Europeans and Americans are finally learning about the viciousness of Jewish sadists. Instead of "almost truthful" holobiz stories forged by Eli Wiesel and Anne Frank' dad, the schools should have been teaching the biographies of Jewish mega-criminals such as Lazar Kaganovich (Stalin's right hand and organizer of Holodomor in Ukraine), Naftali Frenkel (an inventor of "industrialized" death in the GULAG), and the despicable mass-murderess Rozalia Zalkind.

The State of Israel has been founded by self-proclaimed terrorists and remains the nest of terrorists. Even the zionized Wikipedia admits that the Jewish State sponsors terrorism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

In case you do not know what Baby Yar means, here a picture for you: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/rights-groups-demand-israel-stop-arming-neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-1.6248727
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/babi-yar

Ilya G Poimandres , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:31 pm GMT
@A123

The economic situation is so bad in Iran, people are rioting against the corrupt Ayatollah.

The rapists strangle their victim and blame them for their lack of oxygen.

Attacking the embassy was clearly Khameni's desperate effort to shore up personal weakness at home. Not only did he fail to keep the embassy, he also lost a key terrorist. The weak leader just became much weaker.

All I can say is.. Wimp Lo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d696t3yALAY

Valley Forge Warrior , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:39 pm GMT
The Iranians won't do jack. If they try anything, Trump will exterminate the Iranians.
Harbinger , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:39 pm GMT
@JamesinNM Zionism is Judaism is communism.

Judaism is a cult, not a religion. It's the self worship of Jews, hatred of non Jews (racism) and supremacist beliefs over all other peoples on this earth. In effect, Judaism is the Jewish KKK/Black Panthers. It's perfectly ok to go around saying "we're god's chosen" (blatant supremacism and racism) and yet they go crazy when some white person puts up a poster saying "it's ok to be white" ? The former is ignored and worse, accepted by many idiots while the latter is vehemently attacked. Think about that for a moment?

Don't let the red herrings of "It's not Judaism, it's Zionism" or "it's not the real Jews, but the fake Ashkenazis" crap lead you astray from the situation. The problem IS what it always has been and always will be until people wake up and do something about it. That problem is Judaism. It's never changed.

Alfred , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:44 pm GMT
If the Americans leave Syria and Iraq, that will be the ultimate revenge for Iran without having fired a single shot

Correct.

And that is precisely the real objective of Trump. Trump is greatly underestimated. He gives the Zionists everything they want – which results in outcomes that are very much against their interests.

Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:47 pm GMT
Jan 3, 2020 Iran has the 'right to retaliate' over US 'act of war'

Tehran University's Mohammed Marandi says the US' "murder" of a senior Iranian military commander is "definitely an act of war".

https://www.youtube.com/embed/_GxjPvShWsY?feature=oembed

Jul 4, 2019 Iran-Iraq-Syria rail link revived.

As imperial forces are defeated in the region but economic war continues, economic integration between Iran, Iraq and Syria becomes even more necessary, for a decent future.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/nQIIXQ7V2Dc?feature=oembed

Sep 11, 2011 General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years

"This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"

https://www.youtube.com/embed/9RC1Mepk_Sw?feature=oembed

niteranger , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:53 pm GMT
@Nicolás Palacios Navarro You missed the boat .! This is about Israel and its control of Trump. Israel wants eternal war..they care not how many are killed because it will be Americans not Jews. The scenarios presented here are limited and simplistic. The real scenarios present much greater challenges for the US Intelligence Agencies. These include false flags by Israel and the Jewish controlled Congress for excuses to bomb Iran. But even a greater risk would be splinter Muslim groups around the world and especially in the US that will retaliate against Americans. The estimate of at least 20% of Muslims in the US are terrorists waiting to happen may come to fruition. Trump the idiot has just thrown a cigar into the punch bowl. Michael Scheuer former CIA put it this way:

"The crux of my argument is simply that America is in a war with militant Islamists that it cannot avoid; one that it cannot talk or appease its way out of; one in which our irreconcilable Islamist foes will have to be killed, an act which unavoidably will lead to innocent deaths; and one that is motivated in large measure by the impact of U.S. foreign policies in the Islamic world, one of which is unqualified U.S. support for Israel."

In his second book, Imperial Hubris, a New York Times bestseller, Scheuer writes that the Islamist threat to the United States is rooted in "how easy it is for Muslims to see, hear, experience, and hate the six U.S. policies bin Laden repeatedly refers to as anti-Muslim:

U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments.
U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis' thrall.
U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants

The US will experience the wrath of these people over and over again because we keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Trump is nothing more than figure head president under complete control of Israel. Civilization is doomed if Israel continues complete control of most the US government and most of the world. The American citizenry are nothing more than blind little animals waiting to be slaughter by Israel.

Igor Bundy , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:56 pm GMT
The gerbils of feeble minds are out in force to show their arrogance and illiteracy t seems. Throughout time, Iran has emboldened the oppressed to fight the imperialists. Just like the support they show the people of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and to an extent Yemen.. They wont destroy all that they have built unless the US uses some excuse to attack inside iran at which point all bets are off and so are all places in the ME with US military.. This blatant act of terrorism is the worst a civilised nation can do and the ultimate hypocrisy of calling itself run by the rule of law.. Almost all rules and laws were violated and so is the rules of war itself which is mostly non existent but even in war there are some things you do not do like taking out the leadership because the men will then have no choice but to keep fighting without anyone to order them to stand down.. Only imbeciles will do unthinkable things like this and such blatant violations of international laws in front of the entire world and then take credit for it..
Truth3 , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:59 pm GMT
@Rich

Their dead general was a member of the military and a legitimate target.

Spoken like a true hasbarite.

anonymous [178] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:59 pm GMT

Conclusion: we wait for Iran's next move

In this statement the most potent word is "wait."

Iran doing nothing = psychological torment.

Badly forged Warrior wrote:
The Iranians won't do jack. If they try anything, Trump will exterminate the Iranians.

maybe not on your timeline, forge, but someday . . .

Trump should maybe take Barron's college fund out of long-term investments.

anon [399] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:00 pm GMT
@Rich It's not the duty of Iran to rescue American from the hog nosed Zionist and from rotting cadaver ( rotting carcass) of the boar faced Adelshon .

That's American have to get done

nickels , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:01 pm GMT
Its pretty clear that the dem's impeachment scam was a collaboration with the neocons to corner Trump into having to obey McConnell, Graham and the rest of the criminals.
A few months back the great Orange King was going to pull out of Syria, right?
It is almost patently obvious Trump was handed the option of starting war with Iran or having the senate slowly turn against him (through a well orchestrated media campaign, of course), ending up with him in prison or worse.
Can't have that. Donny boy serves only Donny boy, and the country's arse isn't worth choosing over his own.
Anon [399] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:02 pm GMT
@Harbinger NPR now : Israel has been pushing America to confront Iran . But Israel doesn't want to be seen as the power behind the American aggression against Iran .
Alfred , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:07 pm GMT
there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one in direct retaliation for the deliberate shooting down by the USN of IranAir 655 Airbus over the Persian Gulf

This was obviously the case. All the accusations against Libya were patently false. The Scottish court case was a scam from A to Z. All the "evidence" against Libya could have been concocted by a 12 year old. "Finding" a bit of clockwork in a field and claiming that someone bought a certain "suitcase" in Malta is a piece of cake.

Despite the destruction of Libya and access to all their files and bureaucrats, no effort was ever made to search their records and to substantiate the accusations against Libya. Lockerbie and Pan Am 103 simply disappeared from the media.

If Libya had been behind the explosion of Pan Am 103, they would have relished producing the evidence and a lot of Libyans would have been accused and put on trial. It would have helped their accusations that "Libya was a rogue state"

The only facts that everyone agrees on is that the Americans shot down an Iranian airliner on 3 July 1988 with 290 people on board. And that a US airliner with 259 people was blown up on 21 December 1988. Some coincidence!

Since PA103, no Iranian civilian aircraft of any sort has been attacked or threatened by the USA or any other country. I guess that is a strong hint as to what intelligence services believe the true story to be.

TG , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:09 pm GMT
The nerve of Donald Trump! I mean, who does he think he is, Hillary Clinton?
Anonymous [422] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:10 pm GMT
@Valley Forge Warrior "Valley Forge Warrior"

Sounds like one of the Christ-killer handles you see over at Hasbara Central (aka, Free Republic).

FReepers with handles like "ProudMarineMomEagleUSALibertyLoverArmyVetMAGAGalAirborneTexasFreedom" posting articles on inside baseball of Knesset politics.

Chet Roman , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:16 pm GMT
It's time for Iran to get insurance in the form of multiple nuclear warheads. I doubt Russia or China will sell them but Pakistan, a fellow Muslim country, or N. Korea might. All they need is a few nukes that would be include in a barrage of hundreds of missiles aimed at Tel Aviv. No Iron Dome (which is useless anyway) would stop the attack. Israel would never allow (since we know they control Congress and the President) an attack on Iran if there was even the slightest possibility of a nuke on Israel. Let's face it, the Israelis are only "brave" when they slaughter defenseless Palestinian women and children. They were driven out of Lebanon by a rag tag civilian militia.

Forget the Fatwa, get nukes!

Passer by , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:18 pm GMT
You are naive and poorly educated murican from declining Amerikanistan who lives in the past. The Unipolar era is over. The Iranians have the capacity to destroy all US bases in 2000km radius (in the Middle East) with ballistic missile salvos, it and its shia allied groups in the region have plenty of attack drones and long range cruise missiles too (and US land anti-air capability is poor), all US soldiers in Iraq will be killed by shia millitias, drones and long range missiles (unless the US would try to invade Iraq again and restart the occupation with 300 000 soldiers in Iraq, for which it no longer has the money, too much debt and shaky economy), Russia can supply the country with high tech anti-air systems, Iran can supply manpads and long range missiles to the Taliban which will lead to siege of US bases in Afghanistan and bombardment/capture of americans there, (taliban are already winning there without any help). Iran can also destroy most oil and gas infrastructure in the Middle East.

Estimation:
all US bases in the Middle East will be leveled.
US bases will be besieged in Afghanistan and Taliban will fully take over that country.
The biggest US embassy in the world – in Iraq, will be captured, together with the US diplomats in it.
Shia Millitia Proxies will attack and capture/destroy many US embassies in the region.
Oil price will reach 150 – 200 $ leading to global economic crisis.
Israel will be attacked by Hizbulla and many israeli cities will be damaged, keeping it busy.
No european country will support such attack and this will lead to the EU marginalising NATO and replacing it with its own independent european military pact, moving away from the US.
Whole world will condemn the US and will start moving away from dependency on that country, as no one wants such a war in the Gulf.
30 000 americans (almost all in the middle east) killed and all of their objects in the Middle East destroyed.
US companies infrastructure in the Middle East and in Iraq destroyed.
Big uprising against the US in Iraq.
US economy enters recession.
US is crippled by war debt.

For that large price to pay, the only US option will be US long range attacks via bombers, carriers and subs, who will not be very effective vs russian anti-air systems. It will take a long time for Iran to be destroyed if they have modern russian anti-air. Meanwhile the global economy will enter recession until the war is over. There will be massive anti-US protests all over the world blaming it for the resulting global economic crisis and recession.

In the long run, the US will be able to destroy most of Iran by conventional means, but the US itself will be crippled by debt and will lose its superpower status. In other words, it will be the Suez Moment for the US.

Ultimately though, there will be no large scale war because the US does not have the money for it. It is crippled by debt. Picture underestimates US debt by 10 % and already estimates hyperinflation by 2050 (10 % and growing annual budget deficits, which is a disaster).

Then there is the possibility for the US to use nuclear weapons to destroy Iran but then the US will be declared a rogue state by the world and every other state will get nukes too and NPT regime will be dead, leading to the end of US influence and capacity to wage war in the world.

Z-man , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:19 pm GMT
@Paul holland That's a good suggestion but I still think they should go after Pompeo. If you really want to keep it 'tit for tat' with even less retaliation then poor Gen. Milley should be splashed. (Evil grin)
Anon [209] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:25 pm GMT

For example, there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one

Absolutely ridiculous. It was not a Libyan action. And it was not an Iranian one.

Z-man , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:27 pm GMT
@Harbinger Yes and the Jews follow the TALMUD not the Bible. The Talmud is a Jew Supremist manual.
Z-man , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:28 pm GMT
@Alfred From your keyboard to God's ears.
NTG , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:31 pm GMT
@bruce county Will not be allowed? then look what they did in this very moment. They already mass their forces in iraq and surounding bases. Their are considerable more Galaxy C17 traffic in Ramstein/Germany and the whole C17 (as far as you can identify them)look like a swarm of bees on the way to the middle east.
the grand wazoo , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:31 pm GMT
I have one wish for 2020, and it is this: That everyone stop referring to this group of bastards claiming to great American patriots and thinkers (both a flagrant lie) as 'neocons', and call them what they are; 99% are dual citizen Israeli firsters. Fostering the acronym neocon allows them to remain hidden behind a mask of their own design, and is a great disservice and a threat to every American. These traitors with their Israel first attitude, have but one job, and it is to dream up fake threats to America's security, (i.e. Iraq's WMD's), in order to insure America's defense budget remains huge, and US soldiers all over the ME making Israel feel safe and secure; not so much America. truth is they care nothing of America and have perfected the art of subterfuge, as evidenced by this quote by self described paleo-neoconservative Norman Podhertz in his work Breaking Ranks:

"An Israeli within the Jewish community, and an American on the public goy stage".

anon [183] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:33 pm GMT
Netanyahu, aka Benzion Mileikowsky is holed up in that land of his idle, "Hitler's Argentinian Patagonia"?

or,

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("I never!")

Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
("You're lying!")

Swiftly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

Songwriters: Adam Patrick Devlin / Edward Daniel Chester / Eric Idle / Graham Chapman / John Cleese / Mark James Morriss / Michael Palin / Neil Innes / Scott Edward Morriss / Terry Gilliam
Brave Sir Robin lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC

Artist: Monty Python
Album: The Album of the Soundtrack of the Trailer of the Film of Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Released: 1975

sally , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:36 pm GMT
@Rich I think the Iranians have already won on this round ..Iran stepped back and gave notice that when you are up against a guy bigger than you are, you wait until something happens to even the odds.

The domestic deplorable don't understand bullet in the brain diplomacy.. What is in Iraq or Iran that Americans want <=nothing. absolutely nothing that I can tell. so for whom is all of this?

UninformedButCurious , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:36 pm GMT
"a president who does not understand that he is a disposable tool in the hands of the Neocons."

Can that possibly be true? I hope a lot of people who can support an opinion about that will reply.

John Chuckman , says: Website Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:36 pm GMT
Hard to know what Trump's thinking here is. War before an election does not seem a good idea, especially if you are a candidate who has failed so far to achieve anything of substance around past promises to reduce America's involvement in Mideast wars.

Remember that a crucial slice of the votes that put the man into office were not from his prime political base, the "pick-up truck and Jesus" set, but from those concerned with peace and better relations with Russia.

But prodding Iran to attack could allow Trump to play commander-in-chief defending the country. And Americans just instinctively support even the worst possible presidents at war. You might call it the George Bush Effect. The frightened puppy grabbing the nearest pantleg after a loud noise.

Of course, now when it comes to campaign contributions from American Oligarchs whose chief political concern is what Israel wants, Trump's coffers will be overflowing.

I suspect Iran will take its time and carefully plan a response, and that response may not be clear and unambiguous, and it might be multi-faceted and done over time.

The men running Iran are careful men, none of them impetuous. Chess players. The United States has more than forty years of bellowing, open hostility towards the country, and we have not seen Iran's leaders act foolishly in all that time despite many provocations.

I do not believe Iran will be driven to war – that would be playing the Israeli-American game with Israeli-American rules.

Clandestine and hybrid efforts, that is what Iran is best at. They have serious capabilities these days, and the United States, with all its bases abroad, has great vulnerabilities.

Of course, there's also the option of Iran's just leaving the nuclear agreement (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) that Trump idiotically tore-up and proceeding quietly with weapons development. Iran, despite Israel's dishonest claims, never has pursued weapons development, only efficient use of nuclear power and legitimate scientific research. Perhaps it is time to reconsider that policy

Iran has substantial deposits of uranium, and the enriched-uranium bomb is simpler to build than the plutonium bomb. Maybe there is some possibility for covert assistance from North Korea, another country treated like crap by Trump's Washington Braintrust?

Rurik , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:39 pm GMT

4.Finally, should the Iranians decide not to retaliate, then we can be absolutely sure that Uncle Shmuel will see that as a proof of his putative "invincibility" and take that as a license to engage in even more provocative actions.

For what it's worth, I vote for 4.

Gandhi and MLK are household names because they used non-violent protest to bring attention to widespread injustice.

As long as Iran responds in a non-violent way, they retain the moral high ground. The world is watching, if Iran puts out a statement to the fact that the US is using assassinations to provoke Iran into an open (obviously one-sided) war, who on the planet won't sympathize with Iran?

We all know the ZUS is a murderous, war criminal rogue regime under occupation by Zionists. Duh.

We all know the ((neocons)) and Zionists have demanded the destruction of Iran for what, decades now. We all know of Bibi's unhinged frothing. It's more than obvious to the entire world.

What we don't need is bravado or chest thumping on the part of Iran. That is exactly what the fiend is hoping for. Praying for. It's hands rubbing together and hissing 'they can't ignore this one, we slaughtered their beloved general'.

If this were all being contained by the world's media and diplomatic channels, then it might be different.

But EVERYBODY knows the score. Everybody knows who is the aggressor and who is the victim.

Iran should assume the posture of a victim, and allow all the world's people to watch in disgust as it's menaced by the world's super-power coward, who NEVER picks on anyone it's own size, but always attacks nations far weaker than it is.

What an embarrassment to be an American today, in slavish obeisance to the world's most revolting den of snakes.

God bless and save the people of Iran.

It is with profound shame that I lament my nations depraved servility to a criminal regime.

Please, don't escalate the conflict. That is EXACTLY what ((they)) want you to do.

NTG , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:41 pm GMT
Funny how even you seems to forget that Trump KNOWN that he is a "tool" and that he have to play like one. But every play he did on behalf of the Neocons did he in such a worst way that he everytime reaches the excat opposite of what the neocons wanted to reach. North Stream 2 anyone? It's done, up runnig by now.
2% spending? how have done this yet?
buy exclusiv or also by US MIC company's? Hmm the turks buy now Russian AA.
India is also in shambles about the militray topic.

NOTHING, what the neocons want from him and he allegedly did seems to work really and not because he is a moron this is ON PURPOSE.
I strongly believe that he known what he does and that he does this exactly like he or the ones behind him wanted. Trmup isn't a neocon. He is a nationalist and plays a very dangerous doubbleplay with the Deep State and their neocons/Zionists.

NTG , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:44 pm GMT
@Passer by No war because of debt? what? as if the US gov has ever cared about debt.
War is the profitables solution to debt look in history.
the grand wazoo , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:53 pm GMT
I still think that there is a roughly 80% chance of full scale war in the Middle-East and, again, will leave 20% of "unexpected events"

I believe this estimate is rather correct. Personally, I believe the odds are 100% in favor of WAR. It has taken the Israelis 35 years, since the Iraq Iran war, to get America this close. They will not allow something as trivial as peace to interfer.

lysias , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:55 pm GMT
@Rurik Cyberattacks on U.S. infrastructure would be nonviolent.
Sean , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:56 pm GMT
Donald Trump is hardly a "disposable President" for Israel. The sky's the limit for Israel while Trump is in power and they will never get anyone quite like him again. The Neocons won't go against Israel.

The death of Soleimani was not long in coming after his masterminding of the successful attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities, and him making the fatal error of ordering demonstrators in Baghdad to be shot. I think the combination of threatening Saudi Arabia at its weakest point and alienating the Shiite community in Iraq is why the US decided now was the perfect time to target Soleimani.

Kiza , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:58 pm GMT
@Not Raul Hmmm, nuke Iran . I wonder how US would feel if Russia justifiably nuked the Mexican drug cartels in Tijuana. Probably take it just as a friendly and helpful gesture in the war on drugs, right? Or Russia nukes those pesky Quebec secessionists not far from DC?

Obviously, there is no place on the planet with more cretins per head of population than US, lead by the Cretin in Chief. All itching to use those nukes just sitting there, collecting dust since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why did cretins spend all that money on them when they cannot use them?

One totally unrelated question. ISIS has chopped off a large number of non-Sunni Muslim heads and a few heads of Westerners. Does anyone know even one example where an Israeli's head or head of a Western Jew has been chopped off?

USrael is like a tradesman who declares war on a screwdriver or hammer in his toolbox.

Lang Doniger , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:00 pm GMT
The purpose of the drone strike false flag was to coronate a new, massive trauma based mind control effort by the US Government aimed at her own domestic slaves. The CIA opinion makers are out in full force: Sjursen, Engelhardt, Bacevich, Hedges, Cole, NYT, WaPo, AI – you name it, all delivering the message of peace because they were trained for war. Quickly form all the public opinions to make sure the people are divided.

The voting class has given us 100% of the war, 100% of the inequality, 100% of the misery that the poor suffer daily. Accordingly, the CIA has to assassinate wrong thinking in the voting class before it threatens the status quo of war, inequality and suffering.

The only thing missing is a Pat Tillman character – a patriotic zombie athlete, tatted and geared up to kick ass for the right reasons as a hero until the sham that everyone knew all along – except for poor Pat – reveals itself.

Thim , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:03 pm GMT
@the grand wazoo Neocohens then.
the grand wazoo , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:05 pm GMT
@Ignatius I read this same theme at the VT site. Either Robert David Steel's piece or in a comment. Rather far fetched idea, but not so far out that the dual citizen cretins in DC wouldn't use.
Monty Ahwazi , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:06 pm GMT
Thanks Saker!
The officials in Tehran have been and will continue to be calm, calculating, rational and making decisions collectively! The Two Fat Guys and skinny dip" have been defeated by Iran in their Cold War with Iran for 4 decades! Iranians' mail goal is to force the US to run away from the ME region w/o confronting it! They would like to achieve their goal as the Vietnamese did in 1973 if anyone remembers that! So far they have been successful and their actions in the future will show their intentions more clearly!
With all due respect the Chinese and Russians would love to see the US humiliated so she's forced to leave and they don't mind using Iran as a front to achieve their goal without confronting the US!
anon [260] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:07 pm GMT
@Harbinger

I'm just waiting for the usual suspects to come on here denying it had anything to do with Israel and Judaism.

It's hard to make that claim when every chosenite from Benjamin Shapiro to Israeli citizen and fake "national conservative" Yoram Hazony is celebrating on Twitter.

Example:

To all the jerks saying Trump did this "for Israel":

1. No American should die for Israel.

2. If you can't feel shame when your country is shamed and want to act when your own people are killed, your problem isn't Israel. Your problem is you.

-- Yoram Hazony (@yhazony) January 3, 2020

Do these scum ever not lie? No American was killed by Iranians or Iranian-backed proxies before this incident, not for at least a decade. And Trump totally did this for Israel. His biggest donors have been demanding he do this for years and suddenly he does it. It's not hard to see the connection, especially amid all the Jews celebrating on Twitter today.

Further, he goes on to beat his chest as a fake patriotic American (while being an Israeli citizen); it's clear he's just celebrating an attack on his country's enemy, but wants you to think it has something to do with America.

You can be darned sure no in the world thinks seizing an American embassy is a genius tactical move right now. Not in Iran -- and not anywhere else.

-- Yoram Hazony (@yhazony) January 3, 2020

You can be damned sure no on in the world thinks this empire is anything but lawless and dangerous right now -- headed by an irrational imbecile beholden to the interests of a racist apartheid state. Not in Europe -- and not anywhere else.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/01/03/donald-trumps-neocons-laud-assassination-of-qassem-soleimani-in-iraq/

Franklin Ryckaert , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:07 pm GMT
@Not Raul All your premises are wrong.
Franklin Ryckaert , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:11 pm GMT
@journey80 Israel has no president-for-life system.
eah , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:15 pm GMT
Such brazen bullshit: "decisive defensive action", "aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans"

IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- Statement by the Department of Defense -- JAN. 2, 2020

At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.

This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.

Rich , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:15 pm GMT
@Rurik Gandhi drank his own urine and slept with prepubescent girls, MLK was a whoremonger and sodomite, you can have them both. Iran won't escalate because they tried, and lost a general. If they try anything else, they'll pay too steep a price.
Harold Smith , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:17 pm GMT
@nickels

"Its pretty clear that the dem's impeachment scam was a collaboration with the neocons to corner Trump into having to obey McConnell, Graham and the rest of the criminals."

No it's not. It's pretty clear that orange clown is enthusiastic about mass-murdering people and trying to start wars for his jewish-supremacist handlers.

"A few months back the great Orange King was going to pull out of Syria, right?"

No he wasn't; he was just posturing, as usual.

"It is almost patently obvious Trump was handed the option of starting war with Iran or having the senate slowly turn against him (through a well orchestrated media campaign, of course), ending up with him in prison or worse."

Or so you barely assert. But if that's the case why didn't "they" force Obama to start a war with Iran? For that matter why did "they" allow Obama to enter into the JCPOA agreement with Iran in the first place?

The more likely explanation is that the impeachment scam was an effort to determine whether or not orange clown had enough support to be re-elected. Perhaps our rulers wanted to see if the peasants would rally around their embattled MAGA "hero" if they could present him as the hapless victim of the even-more-evil "democrats." (And if so, his re-election "campaign strategy" could then be crafted around his apparent "victimhood" – since he has nothing else to campaign on).

If this is the case, then the experiment may now have come to an end, with the result that the favorite son-of-perdition would likely not be re-elected; thus he has one year to start the war on Iran, and he is wasting no time getting on with it.

Nicolás Palacios Navarro , says: Website Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:19 pm GMT
@Chet Roman

Pakistan, a fellow Muslim country, or N. Korea might

Very unlikely that this could occur. Pakistan itself is wary of incurring further unwanted attention from the US, which regularly violates its sovereignty anyway. If they indeed decided to pursue this route, the Ziofascists in Washington would simply and very happily open up a new front against Islamabad. (Although doing so would stand a better -- worse? -- chance of provoking some kind of Chinese reaction than the current US antagonizing of Tehran.)

The DPRK's stance against Washington is purely defensive and they clearly have no wish to engage in any action that could trigger the end of the Kim regime. China would also likely not back it up in such a scenario.

Iran is clearly the victim here, but has been cornered into an unenviable position from which it has no favorable options. Those hoping that Russia and China will somehow step in to prevent war will find themselves disappointed. The most likely best scenario is that this new war will seal the eventual financial bankruptcy of the US. However, the results of that would take years to unfold. But this new war will undoubtedly be a costly one and, in the not so long run, fiscally untenable.

anon [179] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:20 pm GMT
@Valley Forge Warrior

The Iranians won't do jack. If they try anything, Trump will exterminate the Iranians.

Lol. "Valley Forge Warrior". What an obvious Hasbara troll. He probably has only a vague knowledge of American history, so he picked something he stereotypically thinks an American patriot would call himself. Along with A123, these hacks have been clogging up the comments of every article on the subject trying to gin up the goyim for war on Iran. What "ally" does that kind of thing?

Passer by , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:21 pm GMT
@NTG When? When the rest of the world was destroyed and US was the only one standing, representing half the world's economy and industrial capacity? In current conditions this leads to hyperinflation and the rest of the world, which is growing faster than the US (now down to 15 % of the world economy in PPP) and is already quite self-sufficient from US industry abandoning the dollar. No one would take something that is printed in heavy amounts to liquidate 30 + trillions in debt. The end of dollar main reserve currency status, which leads to feedback loop and even greater hyperinflation in the US.
anonymous [103] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:25 pm GMT
Forcing the US out of the area seems to be a likely response. Perhaps they'll be able to gin up some popular riots and demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Undermining the Saudi regime might be a real blow to the US; who really knows how stable it actually is? As opportunities present themselves the Iranians will avail themselves of them, avoiding direct confrontations and clashes. Remember, they live there so can drag this out over time.
Johnny Walker Read , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:28 pm GMT
I pick the action behind door number two Monty

No less alarming is that this creates the absolutely perfect conditions for a false flag à la "USS Liberty". Right now, the Israelis have become at least as big a danger for US servicemen and facilities in the entire Middle-East as are the Iranians themselves.

RowBuddy , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:28 pm GMT
@Harbinger The wankers Trump and Netanyahu have been planning this invasion for some time. Actually, given the level and history of U.S. hubris, the Neocons have not quite gotten over the fact that 50 years ago, the Iranian people kicked the murderous Shah (U.S. puppet) out of the country. The U.S. will continue to invade and wage wars against sovereigns who refuse to tow the U.S. line. Please dump Trump in 2020!
eah , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:32 pm GMT
@eah

The US constantly threatens to overthrow Iran's government, invades and occupies its neighboring countries, decimates it with sanctions, launches cyber-attacks on its infrastructure, and now assassinates its national leaders. But the propagandists tell you Iran is the "aggressor"

-- Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 3, 2020

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:32 pm GMT
@Valley Forge Warrior A Q for you and "Rich:" https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-live-trump-discusses-soleimani-killing-mar-lago
comment section:

How can the government on a moment's notice locate and drop a bomb on the head of a veteran military officer and yet not be able to find a measly whore (jizzlane) hiding out in Israel.

Are you familiar with the name of a Mossad agent "Madam" Ghislaine Maxwell? What about her father R. Maxwell, a mega-embezzler, thief and Mossad agent?

The fallen Iranian was an honest and honorable man, unlike the Jewish procuress of underage girls for wealthy pedophiles and the Jewish plunderer of pensions.

While Mirror Group shareholders were wiped out, arguably the biggest losers were the pensioners most pensioners had to accept a 50% cut in the value of their pensions.

No wonder Maxwell (known as "a great fraud") was feted by other prominent Jewish frauds.

Gizmo880 , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:33 pm GMT
It is very doubtful that Iran retaliates in any way that might lead to all out war with the U.S. unless they have assurances of total backing from either Russia or China, which I don't see happening at this time. Neither one of those countries is ready for WW III against the U.S. at the present.

If I were Iran, though, I would use the fact that they sit on some of the largest energy reserves in the world to help me acquire as many nukes as possible. That might truly be the only deterrent to their destruction, as Israel and her surrogate the U.S. are never going to give up in there intention of destroying that country.

Rurik , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:34 pm GMT
@lysias Yes, but it would piss off the sheople, and Iran doesn't need anymore of the American Bovinus demanding more belligerence. (for which they personally won't risk a fingernail).

44 seconds in until 2:55

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Lcu-YzJajN8?feature=oembed

And this was over 40 years ago.

Since then their consolidation over the media and federal government has been consummate. The only cracks in the iron bubble being the formerly free Internet, and they're very fast sealing off those few remaining cracks.

Now you'd have to be near brain-dead not to know that they control our foreign policy in absolute terms, and that Americans have been dying for the greater glory of their enemies in Israel for generations now.

What we need to do is allow the American people to decide if they want to send more of their children to kill and die for their enemies in Israel.

We all know Iran is nothing more than one more country Israel demands we destroy.

Iran simply needs to allow the rest of the world, to rise up in condemnation with all the nations of the planet, including the millions of patriotic Americans that are sick to death of our federal government's slavish fealty to Jewish supremacist shekels.

Don't react to the provocation. Allow all the nations and people of the world to become sympathetic to your cause. Perhaps, though some miracle even the Sunni nations of the world will side with Iran on this one.

We all know who the bully is, and who the victim is. Just look at what the ZUS did to Iraq and Libya and Syria and so many others

It's a global problem for so many, that we can't even count the victims of zio-criminality, from Donbas to Caracas, to Bolivia..

We need a global outrage, and a global demand to reign in the Zionist fiend.

By doing nothing, but speaking out, Iran's message of victimization is it's more powerful, moral weapon.

Iris , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:42 pm GMT
@JamesinNM

You must understand, Israel would surreptitiously nuke the U.S. if they believed it was needed to adequately control the U.S.

Please bear with my correcting you. Isreal has already nuked the USA: on 9/11, the WTC was brought down by underground nuclear detonations.

renfro , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:45 pm GMT
Israel Assassinations from 1950's to 2018
[MORE]
1950s

Date Place Country Target Description Action Killer
July 13, 1956 Gaza Strip Egypt Mustafa Hafez Egyptian Army Lieutenant-Colonel, responsible for recruiting refugees to carry out attacks in Israel. Parcel bomb[12] Israel Defense Forces operation directed by Yehoshafat Harkabi.
July 14, 1956 Amman Jordan Salah Mustafa Egyptian Military attache
1960s
Date Place Country Target Description Action Killer
September 11, 1962 Munich Germany Heinz Krug West German rocket scientist working for Egypt's missile program Abducted from his company offices on Munich's Schillerstrasse, his body was never found. Swiss police later arrested two Mossad agents for threatening the daughter of another scientist and found that they were responsible for the killing. Part of Operation Damocles. Mossad
November 28, 1962 Heluan Egypt 5 Egyptian factory workers Workers employed at Factory 333, an Egyptian rocket factory. Letter bomb sent bearing Hamburg post mark. Another such bomb disfigured and blinded a secretary. Part of Operation Damocles.
February 23, 1965 Montevideo Uruguay Herberts Cukurs Aviator who had been involved in the murders of Latvian Jews during the Holocaust[18] Lured to and killed in Montevideo by agents under the false pretense of starting an aviation business.

1970s

Date Place Country Target Description Action Killer
July 8, 1972 Beirut Lebanon Ghassan Kanafani Palestinian writer and a leading member of the PFLP, who had claimed responsibility for the Lod Airport massacre on behalf of the PFLP.[19] Killed by car bomb. Mossad[20][21][22][19][23][24][25]
July 25, 1972 Attempted killing of Bassam Abu Sharif Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine Information Office. He held a press conference with Ghassan Kanafani during the Dawson's Field hijackings justifying the PFLP's actions. He lost four fingers, and was left deaf in one ear and blind in one eye, after a book sent to him that was implanted with a bomb exploded in his hands.
October 16, 1972 Rome Italy Abdel Wael Zwaiter Libyan embassy employee, cousin of Yassir Arafat,[21] PLO representative, poet and multilingual translator, considered by Israel to be a terrorist for his alleged role in the Black September group and the Munich massacre,[27] though Aaron Klein states that 'uncorroborated and improperly cross-referenced intelligence information tied him to a support group' for Black September.[24] Shot 12 times by two Mossad gunmen as he waited for an elevator to his apartment near Piazza Avellino.[19][21]
December 8, 1972 Paris France Mahmoud Hamshari PLO representative in France and coordinator of the Munich Olympic Games massacre.[28] Killed by bomb concealed in his telephone.
January 24, 1973 Nicosia Cyprus Hussein Al Bashir a.k.a. Hussein Abu-Khair/Hussein Abad. Fatah representative in Nicosia, Cyprus and PLO liaison officer with the KGB.[24] Killed by bomb in his hotel room bed.
April 6, 1973 Paris France Basil Al-Kubaissi PFLP member and American University of Beirut Professor of International Law Killed on a street in Paris by two Mossad agents.[21]
April 9, 1973 Beirut Lebanon Kamal Adwan Black September commander and member of the Fatah central committee[29] Killed in his apartment in front of his children during Operation Spring of Youth, either shot 55 times or killed with a grenadeSayeret Matk al led by Ehud Barak
Muhammad Youssef Al-Najjar Black September Operations officer and PLO official Shot dead in his apartment together with his wife during Operation Spring of Youth.[31] Sayeret Matkal together with Mossad
Kamal Nasser Palestinian Christian poet, advocate of non-violence and PLO spokesman Shot dead in his apartment during Operation Spring of Youth. According to Palestinian sources his body was left as if hanging from a cross. A woman neighbour was shot dead when she opened her door during the operation. Sayeret Matkal
April 11, 1973 Athens Greece Zaiad Muchasi Fatah representative to Cyprus Killed in hotel room.[21] Mossad[32][33][34]
June 28, 1973 Paris France Mohammad Boudia Black September operations officer Killed by pressure-activated mine under his car seat.[21]
July 21, 1973 Lillehammer Norway Attempted killing of Ali Hassan Salameh High-ranked leader in the PLO and Black September who was behind the 1972 Munich Olympic Games massacre Shmed Bouchiki, an innocent waiter believed to be Ali Hassan Salameh, killed by gunmen. Known as the Lillehammer affair.
March 27, 1978 East Berlin East Germany Wadie Haddad PFLP commander, who masterminded several plane hijackings in the 1960s and 1970s.[36] He apparently died of cancer in an East Berlin hospital, reportedly untraced by Mossad.[37] Mossad never claimed responsibility. Aaron Klein states that Mossad passed on through a Palestinian contact a gift of chocolates laced with a slow poison, which effectively caused his death several months later.[36]
January 22, 1979 Beirut Lebanon Ali Hassan Salameh High-ranked leader in the PLO and Black September who was behind the 1972 Munich Olympic Games massacre[35] Killed by remote-controlled car bomb,[21] along with four bodyguards and four innocent bystanders.

1980s

Date Place Country Target Description Action Executor
June 13, 1980 Paris France Yehia El-Mashad Egyptian nuclear scientist, lecturer at Alexandria University Killed in his room at the Méridien Hotel in Operation Sphinx.[38][39]:23 Marie-Claude Magal, prostitute, client of El-Meshad, pushed under a car and killed in the Boulevard Saint-Germain. Mossad
September 1981 São Paulo Brazil José Alberto Albano do Amarante An Air Force lieutenant colonel, assassinated by the Israeli intelligence service to prevent Brazil from becoming a nuclear nation.He was contaminated by radioactive material. Samuel Giliad or Guesten Zang, a Mossad agent, an Israeli born in Poland.
August 21, 1983 Athens Greece Mamoun Meraish Senior PLO official Shot in his car from motorcycle. Mossad
June 9, 1986 Khalid Nazzal Secretary of the DFLP (Democratic Front for Liberation of Palestine) Killed in Athens by Mossad agents who entered Greece with fake passports, shot Nazzal while leaving his hotel, and fled the country. Mossad
October 21, 1986 Munther Abu Ghazaleh High-ranked leader in the PLO. Senior member of the National Palestinian Council, the Revolutionary Council of Al Fatah and the Supreme Military Council of the Revolutionary Palestinian Forces. Killed by car bomb Mossad
April 16, 1988 Tunis Tunisia Abu Jihad Second-in-command to Yassir Arafat Shot dead in front of his family in the Tunis Raid by Israeli commandos under the direction of Ehud Barak and Moshe Ya'alon, and condemned as a political assassination by the United States State Department.[9][44] Israel Defense Forces
July 14, 1989 Alexandria Egypt Said S. Bedair Egyptian scientist in electrical, electronic and microwave engineering and a colonel in the Egyptian army Fell to his death from the balcony of his brother's apartment in Camp Chezar, Alexandria, Egypt. His veins were found cut and a gas leak was detected in the apartment. Arabic and Egyptian sources claim that the Mossad assassinated him in a way that appears as a suicide.
1990s

Date Place Country Target Description Action Executor
March 20, 1990 Brussels Belgium Gerald Bull Canadian engineer and designer of the Project Babylon "supergun" for Saddam Husseins government Shot at door to his apartment Attributed to Mossad by several sources,[45] and widely believed to be a Mossad operation by intelligence experts,[46] Gordon Thomas states it was the work of Mossad's director Nahum Admoni.[47] Israel denied involvement at the time.[46] and several other countries had interests in seeing him dead.
February 16, 1992 Nabatieh Governorate Lebanon Abbas al-Musawi Secretary-General of Hezbollah After 3 IDF soldiers were killed by Palestinian militants of the PIJ during a training exercise at Gal'ed in Israel, Israel retaliated by killing Musawi in his car, together with his wife Sihan and 5-year-old child Hussein, with seven missiles launched from two Apache Israeli helicopters.[21] Hezbollah retaliated by the attacking Israel's embassy in Argentina.[48] Israel Defense Forces[49]
June 8, 1992 Paris France Atef Bseiso Palestinian official involved in Munich Massacre Shot several times in the head at point-blank range by 2 gunmen, in his hotel (Aaron Klein's "Striking Back") Mossad, with French complicity, according to the PLO, but French security sources suggested the hand of Abu Nidal.[50][51]
October 26, 1995 Sliema Malta Fathi Shaqaqi Head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad Shot and killed in front of Diplomat Hotel.[21] Mossad.[47]
January 6, 1996 Beit Lahia Gaza Strip Yahya Ayyash "The Engineer", Hamas bomb maker Head blown off by cell phone bomb in Osama Hamad's apartment, responding to a call from his father. Osama's father, Kamal Hamad, was a known collaborator with Israel, and it was bruited in Israel that he had betrayed his son's friend for $1 million, a fake passport and a U.S. visa. Covert Israeli operation[53]
September 25, 1997 Amman Jordan Khaled Mashaal (failed attempt) Hamas political leader Attempted poisoning. Israel provided antidote, after pressure by Clinton. Canada withdrew Ambassador. Two Mossad agents with Canadian passports arrested
2000s
2000, September 29-2001, April 25. According to Palestinian sources, the IDF assassinated 13 political activists in Area A under full Palestinian Authority, with 9 civilian casualties.[54]
2003 (August) The Israeli government authorized the killing of Hamas's entire political leadership in Gaza, 'without further notice,' in a method called 'the hunting season' in order to strengthen the position of moderates and Mahmoud Abbas.
2005 In February Israel announced a suspension of targeted killings, while reserving the right to kill allegedly 'ticking bombs'.[55]
Date Place Location Target Description Action Executor
November 9, 2000 Beit Sahur West Bank Hussein Mohammed Abayat (37); Abayat was a senior official of the Fatah faction Tanzim. Killed while driving his Mitsubishi by a Hellfire anti-tank missile fired from an Israeli Apache helicopter. Rahma She'ibat, (50); 'Aziza Dannoun Jobran (52), two local women, were killed by a second missile, and Nazhmi She'ibat and his wife were also injured. Accused of shooting at the Gilo settlement.[5][54][56] Israel Defense Forces[57]
November 22, 2000 Morag Gaza Strip Jamal Abdel Raziq (39), and Awni Dhuheir (38).[58] Senior official of the Fatah faction Tanzim Killed on the Rafah-Khan Yunis western road near the junction leading to Morag settlement while in a Honda Civic with the driver, Awni Dhuheir when their car was machine-gunned from two tanks at close range. The first version, they were about to attack Morag; the second version, Raziq was targeted after firing at IDF soldiers. His uncle was later sentenced to death for collaborating in his nephew's death by furnishing Israel with details.[54] Two bystanders in a taxi behind them also killed (Sami Abu Laban, 29, baker, and Na'el Shehdeh El-Leddawi, 25, student).[58][59]
November 23, 2000 Nablus West Bank Ibrahim 'Abd al-Karim Bani 'Odeh (34) Unknown. Had been jailed for 3 years by the PNA until two weeks before his death. Killed while driving a Subaru near Al-Salam mosque. Israeli version, he died from his own rudimentary bomb. Palestinian version: his cousin 'Allan Bani 'Oudeh confessed to collaborating with Israel in an assassination, and was convicted and shot in Jan 2001.[54] ?[57]
December 11, 2000 Nablus West Bank Anwar Mahmoud Hamran (28) A PIJ bombing suspect. Jailed for 2 years by PNA and released 6 weeks before his death. Targeted on a campus of Al-Quds Open University while waiting for a taxi-cab. Shot 19 times by a sniper at 500 yards. IDF version shot by soldiers in self-defence. Palestinian version, he died with books in his hand.Israel Defense Forces
December 12, 2000 al-Khader West Bank Yusef Ahmad Mahmoud Abu Sawi (28) Unknown Targeted and shot by a sniper at 200 metres, 17 bullets.[57]
December 13, 2000 Hebron West Bank 'Abbas 'Othman El-'Oweiwi(25) Hamas activist Targeted and shot 3 times in head and chest by a sniper while standing in front of his store in Wadi Al-Tuffah Street.[54][57]
December 14, 2000 Burin West Bank Saed Ibrahim Taha al-Kharuf (35) Targeted and shot dead.
rowspan=2|Israel Defense Forces.[57]

December 14, 2000 Junction of Salah el-Din near Deir al-Balah Gaza Strip Hani Hussein Abu Bakra Israeli version. Hamas activist shot as he tried to fire from a pistol. Driver of a Hyundai taxi van. Palestinian version: shot while reaching for his identity card which he was asked to produce when stopped. 4 of seven passengers wounded, one of whom, 'Abdullah 'Eissa Gannan, 40, died 10 days later.[54]
December 17, 2000 Qalandiyya West Bank Samih Malabi Tanzim officer.[60] Mobile phone bomb.
December 31, 2000 Tulkarem West Bank Thabat Ahmad Thabat Classed by Israel as head of Tanzim cell.[54] Dentist, lecturer on public health at Al Quds University, and Fatah Secretary-General on the West Bank.[60] Israeli Special Forces sniper shot him as he drove his car from his home in Ramin, classified as an apparent political assassination.[56] Israel Defense Forces
February 13, 2001 Gaza City[54] Gaza Strip Mas'oud Hussein 'Ayyad (50) Lieutenant-colonel in Force 17, an aide of Yasser Arafat held responsible for a failed mortar attack on a Jewish settlement in Gaza. The IDF also alleged, without providing evidence, that he intended to form a Hezbollah cell in the Gaza Strip.[5][56][61] Killed while driving a Hyundai in Jabalia Camp by a Cobra gunship launching 3rockets.[62] Israeli Air Force
February 19, 2001 Nablus West Bank Mahmoud Suleiman El-Madani (25) Hamas activist Shot by two men in plainclothes as he left a mosque. As they fled, according to the Palestinian version, covering fire was provided by an Israeli unit on Mount Gerizim.[54]
April 2, 2001 Al-Barazil neighborhood of Rafah Gaza Strip Mohammed 'Attwa 'Abdel-'Aal (26) PIJ Combat helicopters fired three rockets at his Peugeot Thunder, also hitting the taxi behind, whose occupants survived. Israeli Air Force[54]
April 5, 2001 Jenin West Bank Iyad Mohammed Hardan (26) Head of the PIJ in Jenin. IDF version. He was involved in the 1997 Mahane Yehuda Market Bombings Blown up in a public phone booth, when, reportedly, an Israeli helicopter was flying overhead.Baruch Kimmerling classifies it as an apparent political execution to provoke Palestinians.[60]
April 25, 2001 Rafah West Bank Ramadan Ismail 'Azzam (33); Samir Sabri Zo'rob (34); Sa'di Mohammed El-Dabbas (32); Yasser Hamdan El-Dabbas (18) Popular Resistance Committees members Blown up while examining a triangular object with flashing lights that had been reported as lying near the border earlier that day. Palestinians say the object exploded as an Israeli helicopter passed overhead.[54]
May 5, 2001 Bethlehem West Bank Ahmad Khalil 'Eissa Assad (38) PIJ activist Hit while leaving his house for work, reportedly from shots (15) fired from the Israeli military outpost at Tel Abu Zaid, 250 metres away. His niece, Ala, was also injured. Israel said the victim intended carrying out armed operations in the future inside Israel. Israel Defense Forces[63]
May 12, 2001 Jenin West Bank Mutassam Mohammed al-Sabagh (28) Fatah activist In a car with two Palestinian intelligence officers, who managed to escape on sighting an Apache helicopter, which struck it with three missiles. The two officers were also wounded. A fourth missile struck a Palestinian police car killing Sergeant Aalam al-Raziq al-Jaloudi and injuring Lieutenant Tariq Mohammed Amin al-Haj. Two bystanders also wounded. Israeli Army accused the three of plotting attacks on nearby settlers.[63] Israeli Air Force[63]
June 24, 2001 Nablus West Bank Osama Fatih al-Jawabra (Jawabiri) (29) al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade militant. His name was on an Israeli wanted list submitted to PNA. Bomb exploded as he picked up a phone in a public telephone booth. Two brothers, Malik Shabaro (2), and Amar Shabaro (4) injured. Alleged by PNA to be IDF,.[64] but denied by the Israeli government.[63]
July 17, 2001 Bethlehem West Bank Omar Ahmed Sa'adeh (45) Hamas leader Killed by two wire-guided missiles fired by two Israeli helicopter gunships at his garden hut, also killing Taha Aal-Arrouj (37). His brother Izhaq Ahmed Sa'adeh (51), a peace activist, and his cousin Hamad Saleh Sa'adeh (29), were killed by a further missile as they rushed towards the rubble. A dozen people nearby were wounded. Israel maintained that it was a preventive attack on a planner of a terrorist attack at the Maccabiah Games.[63][65] Israeli Air Force
July 23, 2001 'Anin, west of Jenin West Bank Mustafa Yusuf Hussein Yassin (26) ? Released from an Israeli prison earlier that day. According to his wife, he opened the door on hearing noises outside their home and was shot at point-blank range in front of his family. Israeli sources say he was planning to bomb Israeli targets. Israel Defense Forces[63]
July 25, 2001 Nablus West Bank Salah Nour al-Din Khalil Darwouza (38) Hamas Car hit while driving in Nablus. He evaded two missiles from an Apache helicopter, but the car was hit by a further 4. Israel claimed he planned bombing attacks on French Hill, and Netanya. Israeli Air Force[63]
July 31, 2001 Nablus West Bank Jamal Mansour (41); Jamal Salim Damouni (42) High-ranking official of Hamas' West Bank political wing Killed when office struck by helicopter-launched missiles[66] as Mansour was giving an interview to journalists in the Palestinian Centre for Studies and Media. 4 others killed in the room: Mohammed al-Bishawi (28); Othman Qathnani (25); Omar Mansour (28); Fahim Dawabsha, (32). Two children, aged 5 and 8, outside were also killed, and three more adults injured by shrapnel.[63] Eyal Weizman states its purpose was to derail peace talks. Israel Defense Forces[5]
August 5, 2001 Tulkarm West Bank Amer Mansour Habiri/Aamer Mansour al-Hudairy (22) Hamas Missiles fired at the car.
August 20, 2001 Hebron West Bank Imad Abu Sneneh Leader of Tanzim Shot and killed.[67] Israeli undercover team
August 27, 2001 Ramallah West Bank Abu Ali Mustafa (63) Head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and senior executive leader of the PLO. Killed by laser-guided missiles fired from Apache helicopters while talking on the phone in his office.Baruch Kimmerling classifies it as an apparent political execution to provoke Palestinians.[60] Other sources say Shin Bet convinced the Israeli Cabinet he was connected to terrorism.[68] Israeli Air Force
September 6, 2001 Tulkarm West Bank 'Omar Mahmoud Dib Subuh (22); Mustafa 'Ahed Hassan 'Anbas (19). Unknown Targeted and killed by a helicopter missile in an attempt to assassinate 4 Palestinians, of whom 2 died. Israel Defense Forces[57]
October 14, 2001 Qalqiliya West Bank 'Abd a-Rahman Sa'id Hamed (33) Unknown Targeted by a sniper and shot at the entrance to his house.
October 15, 2001 Nablus West Bank Ahmad Hassan Marshud (29) Unknown Targeted killing by explosion. ?[57]
October 18, 2001 Beit Sahur West Bank Jamal 'Abdallah 'Abayiat (35); 'Issa 'Atef Khatib 'Abayiat (28); 'Atef Ahmad 'Abayiat (25). Unknown The three, all relatives were killed while driving a Jeep. Israel Defense Forces[57]
October 22, 2001 Nablus West Bank Ayman Halawah (26). Unknown Killed while riding in a car. ?[57]
31 October 2001 Hebron West Bank Jamil Jadallah al-Qawasmeh (25). Unknown Killed by a helicopter missile which struck his house. Israeli Air Force[57]
2 November 2001 Tulkarm West Bank Fahmi Abu 'Easheh (28); Yasser 'Asira (25) Unknown Killed by gunfire whole driving in a car. Israel Defense Forces[57]
23 November 2001 Far'a West Bank Mahmoud a-Shuli (Abu Hanud) (33); Maamun 'Awaisa (22); Ayman 'Awaisa (33). Unknown all three killed while riding in a taxi by a helicopter missile.
December 10, 2001 Hebron West Bank Burhan al-Haymuni (3); Shadi Ahmad 'Arfah (13) None Two brothers killed in a vehicle hit by a helicopter missile during a targeted killing of a person in a nearby car.
January 14, 2002 Tulkarem West Bank Raed (Muhammad Ra'if ) Karmi (28) Head of the Tanzim in Tulkarem He had planned the murders of two Israelis in Tulkarem and was behind a failed assassination attempt on the life of an Israeli Air Force colonel. After surviving an attempt to kill him by helicopter on September 6, 2001, he was persuaded by Arafat to desist from violence but killed twenty three days after a ceasefire[69] was in place because the Shin Bet was convinced they would never have the same operational opportunity to take him out. Killed from a bomb planted in a cemetery wall, set off by a UAV circling above when he passed by it on a visit to his mistress, to create the impression he had blown himself up accidentally.[70][71] Baruch Kimmerling classifies it as an apparent political execution to provoke Palestinians.[60] Eyal Weizman states its purpose was to derail peace talks.
January 22, 2002 Nablus West Bank Yusif Suragji West Bank head of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. Three other Hamas members also killed. Palestinian Authority claims it was an assassination.[72] Killed in a raid on an alleged explosives factory.[72] Israeli Defence Forces
January 24, 2002 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Adli Hamadan (Bakr Hamdan) Senior Hamas member missile attack on car.[72] Israeli Air Force
February 4, 2002 Rafah Gaza Strip Ayman Bihdari DFLP member wanted for 25 August 2001 raid in which three Israeli soldiers were killed. missile attack on car. Four other DFLP members killed.[72]
February 16, 2002 Jenin West Bank Nazih Mahmoud Abu a-Saba' Second ranking Hamas officer in Jenin.[73] Killed by a bomb planted in his car, in a targeted killing.[74] Israel Defense Forces
March 5, 2002 al-Birah West Bank Mohammad(Diriyah Munir) Abu Halawa (23); Fawzi Murar (32); 'Omar Hussein Nimer Qadan (27). Wanted AMB member. Missile fired at car from helicopter, Murar and Qadan according to B'tselem were not combatants at the time.[57][75] Israeli Air Force
March 6, 2002 Gaza City Gaza Strip Abdel Rahman Ghadal Hamas member Missile attack on his home.[21]
March 9, 2002 Ramallah West Bank Samer Wajih Yunes 'Awis (29) Not a participant in hostilities at the time, according to B'tselem.[57] Killed by missile fired from a helicopter, which struck a car he was travelling in. Israel Defense Forces
March 14, 2002 Anabta West Bank Mutasen Hamad (Mu'atasem Mahmoud 'Abdallah Hammad) (28); 'Atef Subhi Balbisi (Balbiti) (25). Hamad was an Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade member and bomb maker. 3 missiles fired from an Israeli attack helicopter at Hamad's car, near a chicken farm. A Palestinian source say a bystander, a chicken farmer (Maher Balbiti) was also killed. An Israeli sources identify him as a terrorist.[21][76][77] Israeli Air Force
April 5, 2002 Tubas West Bank Qeis 'Adwan (25); Saed 'Awwad (25); Majdi Balasmeh (26); Ashraf Daraghmeh (29); Muhammad Kmeil (28); Munqez Sawafta (29) Qeis 'adwan was a Hamas activist and bomb maker to whom several suicide bomb attacks were attributed. Targeted in a combined drone, tank and special forces siege during Operation Defensive Shield. Given hospitality in his house by Munqez Sawafta. After hours of gunfire, and a refusal to surrender, a D-9 armored bulldozer crushed part of the house and the remaining 3 were shot.[57][78] Israel Defense Forces
April 22, 2002 Hebron West Bank Marwan Zaloum (59) and Samir Abu Rajoub. Tanzim Hebron leader and Force 17 member Killed by a helicopter missile while driving a car. Zaloum was on an Israeli wanted list, and thought responsible for shootings, including that Shalhevet Pass. Israeli helicopter strike.[21][57][79] Israeli Air Force
May 22, 2002 Balata refugee camp, Nablus West Bank Iyad Hamdan (22); 'Imad Khatib (25); Mahmoud 'Abdallah Sa'id Titi (30); Bashir Yaish (30) Unknown, the first three were targeted. All four killed by a shell shot from an Israeli tank. Yaish was not involved in hostilities at the time. Israel Defense Forces[57]
June 24, 2002 Rafah Gaza Strip Yasir Raziq, 'Amr Kufa. Izzeddln al-Qassam Brigades leaders. Missiles fired at two taxis, killing two other passengers (reportedly also Hamas activists),[80] the two drivers and injuring 13 bystanders.[21][81] Israeli Air Force
June 30, 2002 Nablus West Bank Muhaned Taher, Imad Draoza. Muhaned Taher, nom de guerre "Engineer 4", was a master Hamas bomber claimed by Israel to be responsible for both the Patt Junction Bus Bombing and the Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing. Died with a deputy in a shoot-out with Israeli raiding commandos.[21][80] Israel Defense Forces
June 17, 2002 al-Khader West Bank Walid Sbieh| ? Shot by an Israeli sniper in a targeted killing while in his car.[57]
July 4, 2002 Gaza City Gaza Strip Jihad Amerin/(Aqid) Jihad Amrain Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades Colonel. Killed in a car bomb.[21][82] Israel Security Forces.[83]
July 23, 2002 Gaza City Gaza Strip Salah Shahade (Shehadeh) Leader of Hamas Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Killed by 2,205-pound explosive dropped by an F-16. The attack also killed fourteen other Palestinians including his wife and nine children. Yesh Gvul and Gush Shalom tried to have Dan Halutz indicted, but the case was dropped.[21][84][85][86] Killed on the eve of an announced unilateral cease-fire by Tanzim and Eyal Weizman states its purpose was to derail peace talks. Israeli Air Force. 27 reserve pilots undersigned a pilots' letter refusing to serve in IAF sorties over the West Bank and Gaza in protest.
August 6, 2002 Jaba, Jenin West Bank Ali Ajuri, Murad Marshud Classified as people not known to be involved in the fighting (B'tselem). Ajuri (21) was killed by an air-to-surface missile, during an attempt to arrest him. Murad Marshud (19) killed as bystander.[74]
August 14, 2002 Tubas West Bank Nassa Jarrar Senior member of Hamas's militant wing. Died crushed by rubble when an IDF bulldozer demolished his house. The IDF admitted it compelled at gunpoint Nidal Abu M'khisan (19) to act as a human shield and get the victim out of his house. Jarrar shot the youth, believing he was an IDF soldier. The victim was wheelchair bound. Israel suspected him of preparing a bomb an Israeli high-rise building.[87][88] Israel Defense Forces
August 31 Tubas West Bank Bahira Daraghmeh (6); Ousamah Daraghmeh (12); Raafat Daraghmeh (29); Yazid 'Abd al-Razaq Daraghmeh (17); Sari Mahmoud Subuh (17). Five victims who did not participate in hostilities when killed during a targeted killing, from a helicopter fired missile.[57] An eyewitness account was later provided by 'Aref Daraghmeh. "The helicopter fired a third missile towards a silver Mitsubishi, which had four people in it. The missile hit the trunk, and the car spun around its axle. I saw a man escaping the car and running away. He ran about 25 meters and then fell to the ground and died. The three other passengers remained inside. I saw an arm and an upper part of a skull flying out of the car. The car went up in flames, and I could see three bodies burning inside it. Three minutes later, after the Israeli helicopters left, I went out to the street and began to shout. I saw people lying on the ground. Among them was six-year-old Bahira . . She was dead . . I also saw Bahira's cousin, Osama . . I saw Osama's mother running towards Bahira, picking her up and heading towards the a-Shifa clinic, which is about 500 meters away."
October 13, 2002 Beit Jala West Bank Muhammad Ishteiwi 'Abayat (28) ? Killed in an explosion in a telephone booth, in a targeted killing.[57]
October 29, 2002 Tubas West Bank Assim Sawafta Age 19 Hamas Izzedine al Qassam military leader. Killed by an undercover army unit, after failing to surrender.[21][89] Israel Defense Forces
November 4, 2002 Nablus West Bank Hamed 'Omar a-Sader (36); Firas Abu Ghazala (27). Unknown Killed by a car-bomb. According to B'tselem, Firas Abu Ghazala was not engaged in hostilities at the time.[57]
November 26, 2002 Jenin West Bank Alah Sabbagh (26); Imad Nasrti/'Imad Nasharteh (22); Sabbagh reportedly an Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade member, Nasrti Hamas local leader. Killed in an Israeli airstrike on a house in the Jenin refugee camp by two missiles fired into a room.[21][90] Israeli Air Force
December 23, 2002 wadi Burqin near Jenin West Bank Shumann Hassan Subuh (29) and Mustafa Kash (26/30) Subah was a Hamas commander and bomb maker. Ambushed by IDF unit as Kash drove a tractor between Burqin and Al-Yamun.[21][57][91] Israel Defense Forces
January 30, 2003 Burqin West Bank Faiz al-Jabber (32) ? Targeted when Israeli forces opened fire at a Fatah group. He fled, was wounded, then shot dead at close range.[57] Israeli Border Police
March 8, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ibrahim al-Makadmeh Gaza Dentist. Second-in-Command of Hamas's Military Wing.[21] Hamas political leader. He and three of his aides killed by helicopter-fired missiles.[92] Israeli Air Force
March 18, 2003 Baqat al-Hatab West Bank Nasser Asida Hamas commander Shot while hiding in a cave, On Israel's most wanted list as alleged mastermind of attacks on Israeli settlements in the West Bank.[93] Israel Defense Forces's Kfir Brigade[94]
March 25, 2003 Bethlehem West Bank Mwafaq 'Abd a-Razaq Shhadeh Badawneh (40); 'Alaa Iyad (24); Nader Salameh Jawarish (25); Christine George S'adeh (11) ? Israeli Defence Forces version, agents were ambushed and shot dead 2 Palestinian gunmen, and a girl in a car that blundered into the battle, and was believed to be part of the ambush. The girl's parents and sister were wounded.[95] B'tselem reports that three of the 4 did not participate in hostilities at the time, but were killed during the targeted assassination by an undercover team of Nader Gawarish and Nader Salameh Jawarish[57]
April 8, 2003 Zeitoun, Gaza City Gaza Strip Said al-Arabid Hamas Israeli Air Force strike on his car followed by helicopter missiles. Seven Palestinians, ranging from 6 to 75, were killed, 47 wounded, 8 critically.[21] Israeli Air Force[96]
April 9, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Mahmoud Zatma Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine Senior Commander, Bomb Maker[21] Apache helicopter hit the car he was driving in Gaza City, 10 bystanders injured.[97]
April 12, 2003 Tulkarm West Bank Jasser Hussein Ahmad 'Alumi (23) ? Killed by gunfire. Object of a targeted killing.[57] Israel Defense Forces
April 10, 2003 Tulkarm West Bank Yasser Alemi Fatah, Tanzim Shot and killed as a fugitive in Tulkarm. Israel Border Police[21]
April 29, 2003 Gaza Strip Nidal Salameh PFLP Killed when 4 helicopter missiles struck his car[21] Israeli Air Force
May 8, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Iyad el-Bek (30) Aide of Salah Shehade, Hamas activist.[21][98] Killed by three helicopter missiles fired at a car.
June 11, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Tito Massoud (35) and Soffil Abu Nahez (29) Massoud was a senior member of Hamas's military wing.[21] Retaliatory strike one hour after the Davidka Square bus bombing. 4 bystanders also killed[99]
June 12, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Jihad Srour and Yasser Taha Hamas members[21] Killed by between 4 and 6 helicopter missiles while their car was caught in a traffic jam, near a cemetery where victims of the June 11 strike the day before were being buried. Collateral damage consisted of 6 other victims including Taha's wife and child. 25 others were injured by the blasts.[100]
June 12, 2003 Jenin West Bank Fadi Taisir Jaradat (21); Saleh Suliman Jaradat (31) Saleh Suliman Jaradat was an Islamic Jihad activist Both killed at the entrance of their home, the latter being the target. Fadi Jaradat did not participate in hostilities at the time, according to B'tselem.[57] Israel Defense Forces[57]
June 21, 2003 Hebron West Bank 'Abdallah 'Abd al-Qader Husseini al-Qawasmeh (41) Wanted by IDF Shot dead after getting out of a taxi before a mosque. Three vans approached, with a dozen Israelis disguised as Palestinian labourers, and he was shot in the leg, perhaps while fleeing to a nearby field, and then finished off.[101][102]
August 21, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ismail Abu Shanab (48) Engineer and high-ranking Hamas military commander.[103] High-ranking Hamas official[104] Missile strike, ending a cease-fire.[105][106] Israeli Air Force[21]
August 24, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Walid el Hams, Ahmed Rashdi Eshtwi (24), Ahmed Abu Halala, Muhammad Abu Lubda Hamas members. Eshtwi was said by the IDF to be a Hamas liaison officer with West Bank cells.[107] Twin helicopter missile strike as the five were sitting in a vacant lot near a Force 17 base. Several bystanders were injured, and a further Hamas member critically wounded.[108]
August 26, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Khaled Massoud brother of Tito Massoud, killed 3 months earlier. Hamas Qassam rocket designer, alleged to be involved in mortar strikes. Attempted assassination of Massoud, who was with two other Hamas activists, Wa'al Akilan and Massoud Abu Sahila, in a car. Alerted to the threat, the three men managed to escape from their car as 3 missiles struck it and killed a passing 65-year-old Jabaliya donkey driver Hassan Hemlawi, who was driving his cart. Two bystanders were also wounded, including four children.[107][109]
August 28, 2003 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Hamdi Khalaq Izzedine al Qassam 3 missiles struck hit a donkey cart Khalaq was driving. Three Gazans nearby were wounded. The IDF said he was on his way to a mortar attack on an Israeli settlement in the Gaza Strip.[110] Israel Defense Forces[21]
August 30, 2003 On a road linking the Nusseirat and Bureij refugee camps Gaza Strip Abdullah Akel (37) and Farid Mayet (40) Hamas senior operatives, said to have fired mortar shells and Qassam rocks. Killed when 4 helicopter missiles struck their pickup truck. Seven others Palestinians were wounded by the fire.. IDF soldiers machine-gunned an 8-year-old girl Aya Fayad the same day in the Khan Yunis refugee camp, while, according to IDF reports, shooting at road-bomb militants detonating bombs on a patrol route.[111] 'Israeli strike kills two militants,'[112] Israeli Air Force[21]
September 1, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Khader Houssre (36) Hamas member Killed when 4 helicopter missiles struck a car with 3 Hamas members, in a crowded side street. The second was critically wounded, while the other managed to flee. 25 bystanders were injured in the strike.[113]
October 28, 2003 Tulharm Refugee Camp West Bank Ibrahim 'Aref Ibrahim a-N'anish Wanted by IDF Shot dead, unarmed, as he drove his car to the entrance of the refugee camp.[57] Israel Defense Forces
December 25, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Mustafa Sabah Senior Hamas bomb maker, thought behind explosions that blew up 3 Merkava tanks inside the Gaza Strip.[114] Killed when 3 helicopter missiles destroyed a Palestinian Authority compound where Sabah worked as a part-time guard.[114] Israeli Air Force[21]
December 25, 2003 Gaza Strip Gaza Strip Mekled Hameid PIJ military commander. Helicopter gunship attack on car, killing its occupants, including two PIJ members. Two bystanders were also reported killed and some 25 bystanders injured.[115]
February 2, 2004 Nablus West Bank Hashem Da'ud Ishteiwi Abu Hamdan (2); Muhammad Hasanein Mustafa Abu Hamdan (24); Nader Mahmoud 'Abd al-Hafiz Abu Leil (24); Na'el Ziad Husseini Hasanein (22). All four wanted by the IDF Killed in a car struck by a missile fired from a helicopter. Israel Defense Forces[57]
February 7, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Aziz Mahmoud Shami Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine local field commander, claimed to be behind a 1995 double suicide bombing in Netanya. Missile strike incinerated his car while he drove down a crowded street, and a passing 12-year-old boy was killed, and 10 others wounded.[116] [21]
February 28, 2004 Jabaliya refugee camp Gaza Strip Amin Dahduh, Mahmoud Juda, Aiyman Dahduh. PIJ military commander Missiles hit his car as it travelled from Gaza city to the refugee camp. Two passengers are also killed and eleven bystanders wounded.[117][118] Israeli helicopters.
March 3, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Tarad Jamal, Ibrahim Dayri and Ammar Hassan.[5] Senior Hamas members Missiles from helicopter fired at their car as it drove down a coastal road.[119] Helicopter strike.[21]
March 16, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Nidal Salfiti and Shadi Muhana Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine Israeli missile strike.[21]
March 22, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ahmed Yassin Co-founder and leader of Hamas The purpose of the operation was to strengthen the position of Mahmoud Abbas. As Yassin left a mosque at dawn, he, 2 bodyguards, and 7 bystanders killed by Israeli Air Force AH-64 Apache-fired Hellfire missiles. 17 bystanders were wounded.[120][121] Israeli Air Force[21]
April 17, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi Co-founder and leader of Hamas, and successor of Ahmed Yassin as leader of Hamas after his death The purpose of the operation was to strengthen the position of Mahmoud Abbas. al-Rantissi was killed by helicopter-fired missiles, along with his son and bodyguard. Several bystanders were injured.[122]
April 22, 2004 Talluza West Bank Yasser Ahmed Abu Laimun (32) Lecturer in hospital management at the Arab-American University in Jenin, mistaken for Imad Mohammed Janajra. IDF initially reported he was a Hamas member.[123] Initially reported shot after shooting, and then running away from an Israeli attack dog, trained to seize wanted individuals. His widow testified that he was shot, while in his garden, from a distance of 200 yards by gunfire from Israeli soldiers behind an oak tree. The IDF apologized.[124][125][126] Israel Defense Forces
May 5, 2004 Talluza West Bank Imad Mohammed Janajra (31)[21] Hamas leader Ambushed in an olive grove, after an earlier attempt, mistaking Abu Laimun for him. Said by IDF to be armed and approaching them.[126] Golani Brigade's elite Egoz unit.
May 30, 2004 Zeitoun Gaza Strip Wael Nassar[21] Hamas mastermind behind the mine that blew up an Israeli troop carrier raiding Gaza City, on May 11, killing 6 soldier. He was killed on his motorcycle, together with his aide, by a missile strike which also wounded 7 civilians, including a woman and two children. A second following missile killed another Hamas member nearby.[127] Helicopter strike
June 14, 2004 Nablus West Bank Khalil Mahmoud Zuhdi Marshud (24)[21][128]'Awad Hassan Ahmad Abu Zeid (24). Head of Al-Aqsa Brigades in Nablus Earlier targeted in a Nablus missile attack on a car on May 3, killing 3 Al Aqsa Brigade members. He was in a different vehicle. Killed when a missile hit a car outside the Balata refugee camp, also killing PIJ members Awad Abu Zeid e Mohammed Al Assi (Israeli version). Abu Zeid did not engage in hostilities when killed (B'tselem report).[57] Israeli Army radio said the decision to kill him followed on several failures to arrest him. The same day, an attempt to kill Zakaria Zubeidi, head of the Jenin al Aqsa Brigades, failed.[128][129] Israel Defense Forces
June 26, 2004 Nablus West Bank Nayef Abu Sharkh (40) Jafer el-Massari Fadi Bagit Sheikh Ibrahim and the others. Respectively Tanzim Hamas Nablus officer; Islamic Jihad officer.[21] Killed by IDF paratroopers together with six other men found huddled in a secret tunnel beneath a house in the old city of Nablus, after trailing a fugitive into the house.[130] Israeli paratroopers.
July 22, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Hazem Rahim[21] Islamic Jihad in Palestine member Helicopter gunship missile strike on a car, killing Rahim and his deputy, Rauf Abu Asi. According to Israeli sources, Rahim had been seen on video two months earlier brandishing body parts of ambushed Israeli soldiers.[131][132] Israel Defense Forces
July 29, 2004 Near Rafah refugee camp Gaza Strip Amr Abu Suta, Zaki Abu Rakha[21] Abu al-Rish Brigades leader. In a car, together with bodyguard, incinerated by Israeli helicopter fire. Accused of involvement in the shooting of an IDF officer, and a 1992 killing in a Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip.[133]
August 17, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Five dead. Four Unidentified?[21] The target was a Hamas Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades leader, Ahmed al-Jabari. The five, included al-Jabari's 14-year-old son, his brother, his nephew and son-in-law, were killed in a drone missile strike on al-Jabari's home. About a dozen other Palestinians wounded. al-Jabari survived the attempt.[134][135] Israeli Air Force
September 13, 2004 Jenin West Bank Mahmoud Ass'ad Rajab Abu Khalifah (25),[21] Amjad Husseini 'Aref Abu Hassan, Yamen Feisal 'Abd al-Wahab Ayub Al-Aqsa Brigades leader, deputy to Zakariya Zubeidi. Killed together with two aides (Israeli version) when a helicopter missile struck his car in the city centre.[136] Amjad Hassan and Yamen Feisal 'Abd al-Wahab Ayub were not, according to B'tselem, involved in the fighting.[57]
September 20, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Khaled Abu Shamiyeh (30) Hamas rocketry mechanic.[21][137] Car hit by missile Israel Defense Forces
September 21, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Nabil al-Saedi (34), Rabah Zaqout[21] Hamas mid-ranking operatives. Killed when their Jeep was struck by a missile. 8 bystanders including 2 children were wounded.[138]
September 27, 2004 Damascus Syria Izz Eldine Subhi Sheik Khalil (42)[21] Hamas senior official. A Gazan deported by Israel in 1992. Blown up by a bomb hidden in his SUV when he answered a call on his mobile phone, triggering the explosion. Israel did not claim responsibility but Ariel Sharon's spokesman Raanin Gissin said:'Our longstanding policy has been that no terrorist will have any sanctuary and any immunity,' and Moshe Ya'alon commented that action should be adopted against "terror headquarters in Damascus" in the wake of the recent Beersheba bus bombings.[139]
September 27, 2004 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Ali al-Shaeir (26)[21] Popular Resistance Committee member Killed while an Israeli helicopter gunship fired several missiles at a car in Abbassam, believed to hold their target, Muhammad Abu Nasira. The latter, with two others of the group sustained injuries, and al-Shair died.[140] Israeli helicopter strike
October 6, 2004 al-Shati refugee camp Gaza Strip Bashir Khalil al-Dabash, (38/42) and Zarif Yousef al-'Are'ir (30)[21] Head of Islamic Jihad's military wing, al-Quds Brigades. Both killed by helicopter missile fired at their Subaru in 'Izziddin al-Qassam Street in downtown Gaza. Three passers-by were wounded. One of three operations in Operation Days of Penitence that killed 5 other Palestinian militants.[141][142] Israeli Air Force[21]
October 21, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Adnan al-Ghoul Imad al-Baas 2nd in command of Hamas, and Qassem rocket expert. Killed together with his aide Imad Abbas when their car was destroyed by a missile from an Apache helicopter. Four bystanders were wounded. .[5]
July 15, 2005 East of Salfit West Bank Samer Abdulhadi Dawhqa, Mohammad Ahmed Salameh Mar'i (20), Mohammad Yusef 'Abd al-Fatah A'yash (22) Alleged to be 'ticking bombs'.[55] Killed in an olive grove, or, according to B'tselem, in a cave where two were hiding. The first two died immediately in a missile and gunfire strike by Apache helicopters. The third was taken to Ramallah in critical condition, but then seized by Israeli forces and taken off in a military ambulance. He died later, and neither he nor Mar'i, according to B'tselem, were involved in the fighting.[57][143] Israel Defense Forces
July 16, 2005 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Saeed Seam (Sayid Isa Jabar Tziam) (31). Hamas commander of Izzedine al Qassam. Allegedly involved in killing two settlers in 2002 and shooting at an Israeli army outpost in 2004.[21] Shot dead by Israeli sniper in a targeted killing as he stood outside his Gaza home, as he was going to water his garden, in Khan Yunis.[144][145]
July 16, 2005 Gaza City .[146] Gaza Strip 'Four Unidentified' (JVL)=Adel Mohammad Haniyya (29); A'asem Marwan Abu Ras (23); Saber Abu Aasi ( 24); Amjad Anwar Arafat,[147] one reportedly a nephew of Ismail Haniya.[21][148] Hamas operatives. Apache helicopter struck a van carrying the men and numerous Qassam rockets in Gaza city. Five civilians, including a child, were wounded in the attack.[144][149][150] Israeli Air Force[21][21][151][21][152][21][153][154][21][155][156][21][157]
September 25, 2005 Gaza City Gaza Strip Sheikh Mohammed Khalil (32) PIJ Alleged to have been involved in Hatuel family's murder near the Gush Qatif settlement bloc. Killed when his Mercedes was struck by 5 missiles launched from an Israeli aircraft.[158]
October 27, 2005 Jabalia Camp Gaza Strip Shadi Mehana/Shadi Muhana (25) PIJ Airstrike hitting car with four Palestinian militants north of Gaza City. Three civilians were also killed, including a 15-year-old boy (Rami Asef) and a 60-year-old man. One source stated 14 other Palestinians were wounded.[159][160]
November 1, 2005 Gaza City Gaza Strip Hassan Madhoun (33); Fawzi Abu Kara[161] Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades Allegedly planning an operation to strike the Eretz Crossing. Killed when his car was hit by an Israeli Apache helicopter missile. According to documents in the Palestine Papers Israel's Shaul Mofaz had proposed to the PA that Fatah execute him.[162]
December 7, 2005 Rafah Gaza Strip Mahmoud Arkan (29). Popular Resistance Committees field operative Airborne missile strike on a moving car in a residential area. 10 bystanders, including three children, were injured.[163][164]
December 8, 2005 Gaza Strip Iyad Nagar Ziyad Qaddas Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades Missile striking a house. A third militant, and several Palestinians nearby, including a young girl, suffered injuries.[165]
December 14, 2005 Gaza City Gaza Strip Four Unidentified Popular Resistance Committees Missile strike on a white sedan near the Karni crossing. Israeli sources say the car was packed with explosives. Three PRC members killed, a fourth is thought to have been an al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades member. One occupant survived, and two bystanders were injured.[166][167]
January 2, 2006 East of Jabaliya Gaza Strip Sayid Abu-Gadian (45); Akram Gadasas (43), third unknown. PIJ All three hit by IAF rocket while in a car close to a no-go zone declared by Israel in the northern Gaza Strip. Collateral damage, two bystanders were wounded.
February 5, 2006 Zeitoun Gaza Strip Adnan Bustan; Jihad al-Sawafiri Islamic Jihad in Palestine. Believed to have director of their engineering and manufacturing unit. Killed when 2 cars fired on by an IAF missile, the second en route to a retaliatory attack for an earlier Israeli helicopter strike that killed three people.
February 6, 2006 North of Jabalia Camp Gaza Strip[168] Hassan 'Asfour (25); Rami Hanouna (27)[169] al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade| Hit and killed when their car was struck by three missiles from an Israeli drone. Three bystanders also wounded.[168]
February 7, 2006 Gaza City Gaza Strip Mohammed Abu Shariya; Suheil Al Baqir Al Aqsa Brigades Their car was demolished by a missile.
March 6, 2006 Gaza City Gaza Strip Munir Mahmed Sukhar (30); Iyad Abu Shalouf Islamic Jihad field operative. Collateral damage, 3-8 passers-by wounded, including 17-year-old Ahmed Sousi, and an 8-year-old boy (Ra'ed al-Batch), both of whom later died.[170]
May 20, 2006 Gaza City Gaza Strip Mohammed Dahdoh PIJ Killed in car, held responsible for firing crude rockets into southern Israel. Palestinian version stated Muhanned Annen, 5; his mother, Amnah, 25; and Hannan Annen, 45, Muhanned's aunt, were collateral victims. Dahdoh was alone in the car (IDF version).
May 25, 2006 Sidon Lebanon Mahmoud al-Majzoub (Abu Hamze), Nidal al-Majzoub Commander of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; the brother was a member also. Critically wounded in car bombing, when he turned on the ignition of his car, parked near the Abu Bakr mosque in Sidon,. He died the next day. Islamic Jihad blamed Israel, though Israel denied it.[171] An Israeli government spokesman denied knowledge of any Israeli involvement. (alleged)
June 5, 2006 Jabalia Camp Gaza Strip[172] Majdi Hamad (25); Imad Assaliya (27) Popular Resistance Committees Missile struck their car, targeting Hamad. Three bystanders were injured. Israeli Air Force[21][173][21][21][174][175]
June 8, 2006 Rafah Gaza Strip Jamal Abu Samhadana and three others Founder of the Popular Resistance Committees militant group, a former Fatah and Tanzim member, and number two on Israel's list of wanted terrorists. Had survived 4 assassination attempts.[176] Eyal Weizman states its purpose was to derail peace talks, as it coincided with a referendum vote on a political initiative by Mahmoud Abbas. Killed by Israeli airstrike on a training camp, along with at least three other PRC members.[177]
June 13, 2006 Gaza City Gaza Strip Hamoud Wadiya; Shawki Sayklia Wadiya was a PIJ rocket expert. Three militants in a van with a Grad rocket were driving down a main street when a missile struck nearby. They fled but were killed by a second missile, as people gathered. The second blast killed 11 Palestinian bystanders, including Ashraf Mughrabi (25) his son, Maher (8), and a relative Hisham (14), 4 ambulance drivers and hospital staff rushing to the incident, and three boys. Thirty-nine people were wounded.[178]
July 4, 2006 Beit Hanoun Gaza Strip Isamail Rateb Al-Masri (30)[179][180] Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Killed by an IAF rocket.[181]
August 9, 2006 Jenin Gaza Strip Osama Attili (24); Mohammed Atik (26) Described by Israel as leaders of PIJ Killed when (2) helicopter(s) fired missiles into their house. PIJ leader Hussam Jaradat, another target escaped the strike, while his deputy Walid Ubeidi abu al-Kassam, was lightly wounded.[182]
October 12, 2006 'Abasan al-Kabirah neighbourhood Gaza Strip Three unidentified='Abd a-Rahman 'Abdallah Muhammad Qdeih (19); Na'el Fawzi Suliman Qdeih (22); Salah Rashad Shehdeh Qdeih (22); Hamas All three, armed, killed by a helicopter missile after one of the three fired at an IDF tank
October 12, 2006 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Three militants of Kadiah family. Hamas Five members of Kadiah family killed, two, Adel Kadiah, 40, and his son, Sohaib, 13, being civilians
October 12, 2006 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ashraf Ferwana Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Ashraf targeted in his home but he survived the drone missile strike which demolished his house. His brother Ayman Ferwana and a girl died, and 10 others injured.[174][183][184]
October 14, 2006 Jabalia Camp Gaza Strip Ahmad Hassan 'Abd al-Fatah Abu al-'Anin (19); Sakher Faiz Muhammad Abu Jabal (19); Rami 'Odeh Salem Abu Rashed (22); Faiz 'Ali Fadel al-'Ur (33); Suliman Hassan Fadel al-'Ur (30); Muhammad Faiz Mustafa Shaqurah (30); Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Five killed while walking armed in the refugee camp, by a helicopter-launched missile.Awad Attatwa (18), not associated with group, also died.[175][185]
October 14, 2006 One Unidentified Al Aqsa Brigades Died when the car he was in was hit by a missile fired in an airstrike. A local commander also critically injured, and two bystanders wounded.[185]
November 7, 2006 Al-Yamun West Bank Salim Yousef Mahmoud Abu Al-Haija (24); Ala'a Jamil Khamaisa (24); Taher Abed Abahra (25); Mahmoud Rajah Abu Hassan (25). Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades The four militants were shot while sitting near the Al-Yamun bakery (Palestinian version), fled wounded and were killed in a local house. Aiman Suleiman Mahmoud Mustafa (31), a bakery worker came out to see what was happening and was shot dead. Salim Ahmed Awad (27), Ibrahim Mahmoud Nawahda (30), Salim Ahmed Awad (27) and Mohammed Yousef Abu Al-Haija (27) were also shot and taken prisoner.[186] Israel Defense Forces undercover squad.
November 20, 2006 Gaza City Gaza Strip Bassel Sha'aban Ubeid (22); Abdel Qader Habib (26) Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Missile fired at a Mercedes containing both, parked outside the Ubeid family home. Collateral damage, 5 civilians, members of the Amen family, including Hanan Mohammed Amen, aged 3 months and Mo'men Hamdi Amen (2), injured by shrapnel.[186] Israeli Air Force[21]
May 17, 2007 Gaza City Gaza Strip Imad Muhammad Ahmad Shabaneh (33) Hamas Killed while travelling in a car hit by an Israeli helicopter missile. Israeli helicopters[21][175]
June 1, 2007 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Fawzi (Fadi) Abu Mustafa PIJ/Al Quds Brigades senior member Killed by an IAF airforce missile while riding a motor bike. Israeli Air Force[21][187][21][187][188][188][21][189][21][190][21][191][21][192][21][193][194][21][195][188][21][187][188][21][187][196]
June 24, 2007 Gaza City Gaza Strip Hussein Khalil al-Hur=Hossam Khaled Harb (32) Hussein Harb Peugeot al-Quds Brigades local leader. Struck by a missile while driving a Peugeot through Gaza City
October 23, 2007 Gaza City (near) Gaza Strip Mubarak al-Hassanat (35) Popular Resistance Committees head and Director of military affairs in the Hamas Interior Ministry. Israeli airstrike (IAF) on his car.
December 17, 2007 Gaza City Gaza Strip Majed Harazin (Abu Muamen) PIJ. Senior Commander, West Bank, overseer of rocket operations. Killed together with two others in his car, reportedly packed with explosives.
December 17, 2007 Gaza City Gaza Strip Abdelkarim Dahdouh; Iman Al-Illa; Ahmad Dahdooh, Ammar al-Said; Jihad Zahar; Mohamman Karamsi PIJ. Missile strike from an aircraft on a car, combined with IDF undercover unit, on a PIJ cell preparing to launch rockets.
December 18, 2007 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Hani Barhoum; Mohammed A-Sharif Hamas Strike on a Hamas security position.
January 13, 2008 Al-Shati Refugee Camp Gaza Strip Nidal Amudi; Mahir Mabhuh; third man unidentified al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades Senior operative The three were killed in a car driving through the refugee camp, struck by an IAF missile.
January 17, 2008 Beit Lahiya Gaza Strip One unidentified[21] =Raad Abu al-Ful (43) and his wife. PIJ rocket manufacturer They were killed by an IAF airstrike which fired missiles at their car.
January 20, 2008 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ahmad Abu Sharia Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades Commander Hit by an IAF missile as he walked in the streets. Two other Palestinians wounded.
February 4, 2008 Gaza City Gaza Strip Abu Said Qarmout Popular Resistance Committees member Killed by an IAF missile that struck his car. Three others were wounded, two seriously.
April 14, 2008 Gaza Strip Ibrahim Abu Olba DFLP Israeli Air Force.[21]
April 30, 2008 Near Shabura refugee camp, Rafah Gaza Strip Nafez Mansour (40) Hamas Killed in an IAF missile strike. Reportedly involved in Gilad Shalit abduction. Collateral damage. Three bystanders, one dying of his wounds. A further bystander and young girl also hurt.[21] Israeli Air Force/Shin Bet joint operation.[197]
June 17, 2008 al-Qararah, Rafah district Gaza Strip Mu'taz Muhammad Jum'ah Dughmosh (27); Musa Fawzi Salman al-'Adini (35); Mahmoud Muhammad Hassan a-Shanadi (25); Nidal Khaled Sa'id a-Sadudi (21)Muhammad 'Amer Muhammad 'Asaliyah (20).[175] Army of Islam Killed when their car was struck by an IAf missile. A further two people were wounded.[198] Israeli Air Force.[21]
August 1, 2008 Tartus Syria Muhammad Suleiman Syrian General. National Security Advisor. Presidential Advisor for Arms Procurement and Strategic Weapons. Killed by sniper fire to the head and neck. Israel denied responsibility for the killing, but was widely suspected of involvement. According to an NSA intercept published by wikileaks, the NSA defined it as the 'first known instance of Israel targeting a legitimate government official." [199][200][201] The U.S. Embassy in Damascus reported that Israelis were the 'most obvious suspect (alleged).'[202]
January 1, 2009 Jabalia Camp Gaza Strip Nizar Rayan (49) Top level Senior Hamas leader. Professor of Sharia law, Islamic University of Gaza. Among first 5 top Hamas decision makers, and field operative. Advocated suicide bombings inside Israel.[203][204] His house destroyed by an IAF bomb. along with his 4 wives and 6 of his 14 children. 30 others in the vicinity were wounded. According to Israel, secondary explosions from weapons in the building caused collateral damage. Rayan was not the target, rather, the strike aimed to destroy Hamas' central compound which included several buildings that served as storage sites for weapons. Israel further stated that phone warnings were delivered to the residents.[204][205] Israeli Air Force
January 3, 2009 Gaza City Gaza Strip Abu Zakaria al-Jamal Senior Hamas military wing commander of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, and leader of Gaza City's rocket-launching squads[206] Killed in Israeli airstrike.[207]
January 15, 2009 Jabalia Gaza Strip Said Seyam Hamas Interior Minister Killed in Israeli airstrike with his brother, his son, and Hamas general security services officer. Salah Abu Shrakh.[208] Israeli Air Force
January 26, 2009 Bureij Refugee Camp Gaza Strip Issa Batran (failed. See 30 July 2010) Senior military commander of the Hamas military wing Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Targeted at his home. The attempt to assassinate him failed, but the shell hit the balcony of their home and killed his wife Manal Sha'rawi, and five of their children: Bilal, Izz Ad-Din, Ihsan, Islam and Eyman. Batran and his child Abdul-Hadi survived.[209][210] Israel Defense Forces
March 4, 2009 Gaza Strip Khaled Shalan Senior Operative PIJ Killed in Israeli airstrike, together with 2/3 other militants, targeted after alleged involvement in rocket attacks on the Israeli city of Ashkelon. They jumped from their car but were critically wounded. 5 bystanders were also wounded.[211][212][213] Israeli Air Force

2010s
Date Place Location Target Description Action Executor
January 11, 2010 Deir al-Balah Gaza Strip Awad Abu Nasir Islamic Jihad Senior Field Commander Had escaped several assassination attempts. Reportedly involved in attempts to harm Israeli soldiers. Killed by a missile.[214][215] Israeli Air Force[21]
January 12, 2010 Tehran Iran Masoud Alimohammadi Iranian Physicist Killed in a car bomb. Majid Jamali Fashi reportedly confessed to an Iranian court he had been recruited by Mossad to carry out the execution, while the US State Department called the allegation "absurd". Mossad (alleged)[216]
January 19, 2010 Dubai United Arab Emirates Mahmoud al-Mabhouh Hamas senior military commander of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, believed to have been involved in smuggling weapons and explosives into Gaza.[217] Widely reported to have been killed by Israeli intelligence members. Israel stated that there is no proof of its involvement, and neither confirmed nor denied the allegations of a Mossad role.[218][219] Dubai police report that Israeli agents used Australian, French, British, Irish, and Dutch passports.
July 30, 2010 Deserted area in the Nuseirat refugee camp Gaza Strip Issa Abdul-Hadi al-Batran (40) Hamas Senior military commander of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades in central Gaza, who had survived 4 previous attempts on his life (26 Jan.2009). Thought to have been involved in manufacturing rockets. Killed by a missile in retaliation for earlier rocket attack on city of Ashkelon. A further 13 Palestinians were injured in the strike.[209][210] Israeli Air Force
November 3, 2010 Gaza Strip Mohammed Nimnim Allegedly al-Qaeda affiliated, Army of Islam commander[220] Car explosion, due to either a bomb planted by Israel or an Israeli airstrike.[221] Israeli Air Force, with Egyptian intelligence.
November 17, 2010 Gaza Strip Islam Yassin al-Qaeda affiliated, Army of Islam commander[222] Israeli airstrike on his car, killing him, his brother, and injuring four others.[223] Israeli Air Force
January 11, 2011 Gaza Strip Mohammed A-Najar Islamic Jihad operative. Suspected of planning attacks against civilians and launching rockets at Israel[224]
Attacked by the Israel Airforce while driving his motorcycle in the Gaza Strip.[224]

Israeli Air Force
April 2, 2011 Ismail Lubbad, Abdullah Lubbad, Muhammad al Dayah Hamas Allegedly aiming to kidnap Israeli tourists in Sinai over Passover. .[21]
April 9, 2011 Gaza Strip Tayseer Abu Snima Senior Hamas military commander of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Killed along with 2 of his bodyguards by the Israeli air force during a period of escalated rocket fire from Gaza. He was the most senior Hamas commander killed since 2009.[225] Israeli Air Force
July 23, 2011 Tehran Iran Darioush Rezaeinejad Iranian electrical engineer Killed by unknown gunmen on motorcycle. Rezaeinejad was involved in development of high-voltage switches, which are used in a key component of nuclear warheads. Such switches may also have civilian scientific applications.[226] The German Newspaper Der Spiegel claimed Mossad was behind the operation. He is the third Iranian nuclear scientist killed since 2010.[227] Mossad (alleged)
August 18, 2011 Gaza Strip Abu Oud al-Nirab; Khaled Shaath; Imad Hamed Popular Resistance Committees Commanders Killed hours after a terrorist attack killed 6 civilians and one soldier in southern Israel. 4 additional members of the group were killed in the strike.[228] Israeli Air Force, Shin Bet
August 24, 2011 Ismael al-Asmar PIJ Allegedly weapons smuggler and militant in Egypt's Sinai, killed just before shooting a Qassam rocket. [21]
September 6, 2011 Khaled Sahmoud Popular Resistance Committees Killed after allegedly firing 5 Qassam into Southern Israel [21]
October 29, 2011 Ahmed al-Sheikh Khalil PIJ Munitions expert Killed in retaliation for allegedly launching rockets into Israel earlier that day. [21]
November 12, 2011 Tehran Iran General Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam The main architect of the Iranian missile system and the founder/father of Iran's deterrent power ballistic missile forces.
He was also the chief of the "self-sufficiency" unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Killed along with 17 other members of the Revolutionary Guards known as Bid Kaneh explosion.
Those who died are known as the "Shahidan Ghadir".
Iranian officials said that the blast at the missile base was an accident, and ruled out any sabotage organized by Israel.
AGIR said that the explosion "had taken place in an arms depot when a new kind of munitions was being tested and moved".
However, TIME magazine cited a "unnamed western intelligence source" as saying that Mossad was behind the blast.
Israel neither confirmed nor denied its involvement.
[229] [230] [231]

Mossad (alleged)
December 9, 2011 Isam Subahi Isamil Batash Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades [21]
January 11, 2012 Tehran Iran Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan Iranian nuclear scientist The bomb that killed Ahmadi-Roshan at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, and another unidentified person was a magnetic one and the same as the ones previously used for the assassination of the scientists, and the " work of the Zionists [Israelis]," deputy Tehran governor Safarali Baratloo said.[232]
[233][234]

Mossad (alleged)
March 9, 2012 Tel al-Hawa Gaza Strip Zuhir al-Qaisi; Mahmud Ahmed Hananni Qaisi was Secretary-General of the Popular Resistance Committees According to Israeli intelligence, he was planning an imminent attack in the Sinai.[235] Israeli Air Force
August 5, 2012 Tel al-Sultan Refugee Camp.[236] Gaza Strip Nadi Okhal (19); Ahmad Said Ismail (22) Popular Resistance Committee, Two senior operatives. IDF sources say they were associated with global jihadist movement. Killed while riding a motor bike. The other passenger was badly wounded. [21]
September 20, 2012 Gaza Strip Gaza Strip Anis Abu Mahmoud el-Anin (22); Ashraf Mahmoud Salah (38). Hamas security officers. Salah belonged to the Popular Resistance Committees Their car was shelled by aircraft overhead.[237] Israeli Air Force[21]
October 13, 2012 Jabaliya Gaza Strip Hisham Al-Saidni (Abu al-Walid al- Maqdisi) (43/47/53);[238] Ashraf al-Sabah.[239][240] Respectively Salafi-jihadist militant leader of al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad and the Mujahedeen Shura Council, and head of Ansar Al-Sunna. Israeli and one Salafi source say they had links with Al-Qaeda.[241][242] Killed by a drone-launched rocket while riding a motor bike in company with Jazar. Several civilians, including a 12-year-old boy, were wounded.[243]
October 13, 2012 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Yasser Mohammad al-Atal (23) Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine Rocket strike while he was riding his motor bike. A second man was critically injured.[240][244]
October 14, 2012 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ezzedine Abu Nasira (23); Ahmad Fatayer (22)[240] Popular Resistance Committees Struck by a missile while riding in a tuk-tuk after firing rockets into Israel to avenge deaths resulting from two airstrikes the day before. Two others seriously wounded.[245] Israeli Air Force[21]
November 14, 2012 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ahmed Jaabari Top level Commander of Hamas' military wing Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. Number 2 to Mohammed Deif. Killed in an airstrike at the start of Operation Pillar of Cloud. Led Hamas' 2007 takeover of the Gaza Strip and, according to Israel, was responsible for most attacks on Israel originating in Gaza from about 2006 to 2012, including the capture of Gilad Shalit.[246]
November 15–19, 2012 Gaza Strip Hab's Hassan Us Msamch
Ahmed Abu Jalal
Khaled Shaer
Osama Kadi
Muhammad Kalb
Ramz Harb
Yahiyah Abbayah Hab's Hassan Us Msamch, was a senior operative and Hamas Bombmaker.
Ahmed Abu Jalal, was a Senior Hamas commander of the Hamas central military wing in Al-Muazi.
Khaled Shaer, was a senior operative in the anti-tank operations.
Osama Kadi, was a senior operative in anti-tank operations.
Muhammad Kalb, was a senior operative in the aerial defense operations.
Ramz Harb, was an Islamic Jihad senior operative in propaganda in Gaza city.
Yahiyah Abbayah was a senior Hamas expert bomb maker and a military commander in central Gaza. All of them were killed by IAF airstrike inside their command bunker and weapon storage during Operation Pillar of Defense.
February 12, 2013 Damascus Syria Hassan Shateri Top IRGC General. Under the pseudonym Hussam Khoshnevis, He was a Head of Iranian IRGC special reconstruction project for Hezbollah infrastructure in southern Lebanon.
Israel air strike killed him during his traveling from Damascus to Beirut.
[247]

April 30, 2013 Gaza City Gaza Strip Hithem Ziad Ibrahim Masshal (24/25) and three others, one on the bike. Al Quds Brigades (Israel). Hamas security guard at Al-Shifa Hospital (Hamas version).[248] Defined by Israel as a Freelance Terror Consultant" and active in different Jihad Salafi terror organisations responsible for two rockets fired towards Eilat on 17 April, he was killed when a rocket hit him on his motorbike. The strike broke a fragile cease-fire agreement.[249]
December 4, 2013 Beirut Lebanon Hassan al-Laqqis Senior Hezbollah Military Commander. Chief of technology officer and in charge of the Arms Procurement and Strategic Weapons for the group. Shot and Killed by gunmen in the head with a silenced gun outside his home and car.
Israel never took responsibility, but it is widely suspected Mossad committed it.
[231]

Mossad
January 22, 2014 Beit Hanoun Gaza Strip Ahmad Zaanin; Mahmoud Yousef Zaanin PFLP;PIJ The relatives were held responsible for rocket attacks into southern Israel. Only Ahmed was admitted by PIJ to be a member. His cousin and he were killed sitting in a pickup truck parked outside their home.[250] Israeli Air Force[21]
February 9, 2014 Deir al-Balah Gaza Strip Abdullah Kharti Popular Resistance Committees member. Regarded by IDF as involved with rocket fire episodes. Hit and critically wounded, with a friend, while riding on a motorcycle.[251]
March 3, 2014 farmland near Beit Hanoun[252] Gaza Strip Mus'ab Musa Za'aneen (21); Sharif Nasser (31) PIJ (Israeli version):Had just fired homemade rocket landing in a field south of Ashkelon (Palestinian version): It was not known if either were militants. A child and a fourth person were wounded.[253]
June 11, 2014 Gaza Strip Mohammed Ahmed Alarur/Awar (30/33) of Beit Lahiya; Hamada Hassan, a Beit Lahia resident (25) was critically wounded.[254] Hamas policeman. Salafist cell leader (Israeli description) Described by IDF sources as a global jihad-affiliated terrorist planning attacks against Israel responsible for a rocket salvo on Sderot that interrupted the silence of a Passover holiday. Alarur was hit by a missile while riding a motorbike. A car nearby was also struck.[255] One report identifies a further victim, his 7 year old nephew, who was riding in the family care and who died of wounds on June 14, ascribing to the latter a role of 'human shield.'[256] Israel Air Force, Shin Bet.
June 27, 2014 al-Shati refugee camp Gaza Strip Muhammad al-Fasih and; Usama al-Hassumi Two Senior operatives. Al-Nasser Salah al-Din Brigades Struck by two helicopter-launched missiles while driving a black Kia vehicle. Two other people were wounded.[257] Israeli Air Force
July 5, 2014 Damascus Syria Mwafaq Badiyeh Samir Kuntar's right-hand man and the personal liaison officer between Samir Kuntar and Hezbollah. He was killed by an explosive device planted on his car by "Mossad agents." While driving on the main road between Quneitra and Damascus. The security source claim the assassination was a response to rockets fired from Syria to Israel in March, that the Syrian army and Hezbollah were responsible for. Mossad (alleged)
July 8, 2014 Gaza Strip Muhammad Shaaban Muhammad Shaaban is a head of Hamas Special Forces Naval Commando Unit in Gaza He was killed along with 2 passengers when his car was hit by IAF air strike followed by attempted infiltration by 5 Hamas Naval Frogmen inside Israel Beach in Gaza border.
[258]

Israeli Air Force
July 27, 2014 Gaza Strip Salah Abu Hassanein
Hafez Mohammad Hamad
Hussein Abd al-Qader Muheisin
Akram Sha'ar
Mahmoud Ziada
Osama al-Haya
Ahmad Sahmoud
Abdallah Allah'ras
Shaaban Dakhdoukh
Mahmoud Sinwar Salah Abu Hassanein leader and spokesperson of Islamic Jihad in Gaza.
Hafez Mohammad Hamad was Top level Hamas commander for Islamic Jihad in the Beit Hanoun (northern Gaza) area who is directly responsible for the rocket fire on Sderot during escalation leading up to Operation Protective Edge.
Hussein Abd al-Qader Muheisin was a Hamas commander for Islamic Jihad in Sheijaya.
Akram Sha'ar is a Hamas commander for Islamic Jihad in Khan Younis, who is directly responsible for both rocket fire and terror attacks in Israel.
Mahmoud Ziada was a Hamas commander for Islamic Jihad in Jabaliya, responsible for upgrading Hamas rocket arsenal and directing fighting against Israel during Operation Protective Edge.
Osama al-Hayya A Senior Hamas leader in Sheijaya, whose son is in Hamas's 'political wing' Khalil al-Hayya.
Ahmad Sahmoud was a Top level Hamas commander in Khan Younis.
Abdallah Allah'ras is a Senior commander in the Hamas's "military wing,""the Al-Qassam Brigades.
Shaaban Dakhdoukh was a commander of the forces in Zeitoun, who worked on burying long-range rockets and helped to smuggle weapons for his forces.
Mahmoud Sinwar a Hamas Military commander, who was involved in the creation of attack tunnels and the launching of rocket fire into Israeli territory and the raid in which Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was captured. All of them were killed by IAF airstrike inside of their house along with their comrades and entire family and also inside their buried Gaza tunnels.
[258][259]

August 3, 2014 Jabalia Camp Gaza Strip Ahmad al-Mabhouh Nephew of slain Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in charge of engineering and destruction officer in Hamas.
Among other things, he was responsible for hiding rockets before they were launched at Israel, preparing complex explosive devices and planning armed attacks against Israeli targets. The IDF and Shin Bet attacked a building in Jabaliya on Saturday night, killing Hamas operative Ahmad al-Mabhouh, the nephew of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, who was inside.
[260]

Israeli Armed Forces, Shin Bet
August 19, 2014 Gaza City Gaza Strip Mohammed Deif (failed attempt) Chief of staff and Supreme Military Commander of Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades. The main architect of Hamas's tunnel system. Several IAF missiles struck Deif's 6 storey home. His wife Widad (27), 7 month old son Ali and daughter Sarah (3) were killed in the strike. Three other residents in the building were also killed. According to Fox News, anonymous Israeli intelligence sources claimed that Deif had been killed in the strike. Hamas denied the reports that Deif, who has survived five previous Israeli attempts to assassinate him, had died in the F-16 bombing of his home. In April 2015, Israel confirmed that Deif survived the assassination attempt.[261][262][263][264][265] Israeli Air Force
August 21, 2014 Rafah Gaza Strip Raed al Atar Rafah Division Senior commander.
Mohammed Abu Shmallah Rafah Division Senior commander.
Mohammed Barhoum Rafah Division Senior commander. 3 Hamas Senior Military commanders Struck by a pair of F-16 one-ton bombs guided through a window of the building where they had been located.[266][267]
January 18, 2015 al-Amal Farms, Quneitra District Syria Jihad Mughniyah
Mohammed Ahmed Issa
Abu Ali Reza Al Tabatabai
Mohammed Ali Allah Dadi
Ismail Al Ashhab
Abu Abbas Al Hijazi
Mohammed Ali Hassan Abu Al Hassan
Ghazi Ali Dhawi
Ali Hussein Ibrahim
Along with 6 other Iranian and Hezbollah high-ranking officers Jihad Mughniyah was a son of a slain Hezbollah supreme military commander Imad Mughniyah.
Mohammed Ahmed Issa was Head of Security and Operations. He was also a Senior Hezbollah Military Commander in Syria.
Ismail Al Ashhab was a Senior Hezbollah military commander and a top liaison officer with Iran in charge of training Hezbollah forces along the Golan heights frontier.
Abu Ali Reza Al Tabatabai was a Top Iranian IRGC General.
Mohammed Ali Allah Dadi was a Top Iranian IRGC General.
Abu Abbas Al Hijazi was a field commander and officer of Hezbollah in Syria.
Mohammed Ali Hassan Abu Al Hassan was also a field commander and officer of Hezbollah in Syria.
Ghazi Ali Dhawi was also a field commander and officer of Hezbollah in Syria.
Ali Hussein Ibrahim also a field commander and officer of Hezbollah in Syria. Struck and hit by Israel Air Force Nimrod/Hellfire missile Apache Helicopter during their reconnaissance and inspection mission along with Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line at the Golan Heights.
According to Israel Intelligence Security, they were planning for massive mega attack, including infiltration, shooting, assassinations, suicide bombing, anti-tank attack, and missile attack with the intention of kill and kidnap Israel soldiers and civilians community along with Quneitra and Galilee border.
And also help to establish the missile base inside Quneitra region.
Israel neither confirmed nor denied an air strike.
December 21, 2015 Damascus Syria Samir Kuntar
Farhan Issam Shaalan
Mohammed Riza Fahemi
Mir Ahmad Ahmadi
along with several high ranking IRGC commanders and Hezbollah members Samir Kuntar was a senior Hezbollah commander and also a convicted murderer of an Israeli family in 1979, held in Israeli prison for the next 30 years before released in a prisoner swap in 2008.

Mohammed Riza Fahemi and Mir Ahmad Ahmadi were two Iranian senior military officers of the IRGC Intelligence division. According to the Israeli defence establishment, they were meeting in order to plan the next round of Iran-sponsored terrorist operation against Israel from the Golan Heights areas recently secured by the Syrian military. Two Israeli planes allegedly destroyed a six-story residential building in Jaramana on the outskirts of Damascus. Kuntar's death was confirmed by his brother and Hezbollah. The explosion also killed eight Syrian nationals, among them Hezbollah commanders, and injured a number of other people.[268][269]
December 17, 2016 Sfax Tunisia Mohammed Al Zawari Mohammed Al Zawari was a Chief of Hamas drone program and an Aviation Engineer expert. He also worked on the development and production of Hezbollah drones. He was shot dead in the head 6 times by using guns equipped with silencer just in front of his house, who located in Sfax 270 km Southeast of Tunis. Hamas accused Mossad[270]
March 24, 2017 Gaza Strip Palestine Mazen Fuqaha Mazen Fuqaha was a Senior Hamas Operative. He was also a Senior commander of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas Military wing. According to Hamas, he was shot dead 4 times in the head and chest by Israeli Special Forces by using silenced weapons guided by Shin Bet Agents and Gaza operatives. Israeli Special Forces/ Shin Bet[citation needed]
April 21, 2018 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia Fadi al-Batsh Batash was a Hamas-affiliated Palestinian engineer from the Gaza Strip. Shot dead by two people on a motorcycle when he was leaving a mosque after his morning prayers. Mossad is suspected.[271]

ANZ , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:46 pm GMT
@Rich A member of the military of a country we are not at war with is a legitimate target?

You really must try harder next time to earn the shekels you've been promised. That simply won't pass for quality propaganda.

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:53 pm GMT
@Rich Your "most moral" nation of Epstein cannot survive without blackmailing and deceiving, and yet you are coming on the UNZ forum to lecture the readers about morals? This is ridiculous.
Time to realize that holobiz is over.
Rurik , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:53 pm GMT
@Rich

Gandhi drank his own urine

And you'd drink Bibi's, and he'd be only too happy to piss in your face, so it's one of the 'symbiotic relationships' the scientists tell us about.

Bibi pisses in Rich's face, and Rich obliges by not missing a drop.

You and Lindsey would make a fine team!

(with apologies for vulgar language, but it's hard to imagine anything more indecorous than Rich's efforts here).

Crazy Horse , says: Website Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:56 pm GMT
@Rich Spoken like a true Hasbera Clown. The Iranians actually defeated the "ragtag forces of Saddam Hussein" that were supplied with US biological and Chemical weapons since their objective was purely defensive. Just as those "ragtag forces" in Vietnam defeated the US by continuing to exist despite the genocidal bombing campaigns.

You should really improve your literacy level by actually reading a book instead of some Zionist Agitprop.

bluedog , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:57 pm GMT
@A123 And the troll pops up again,with his wish list,I guess someone forgot to tell him Santa's not filling any wish's this early in the year.!!!
Gizmo880 , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:59 pm GMT
@RowBuddy Are you so naive as to think that dumping Trump in 2020 will change anything? Israel owns both parties equally, and it is a fact that up to this point in his administration Donald Trump has the least amount of blood on his hands when compared to each of the last three Presidents.

If you think differently, then ask yourself how the Nobel Peace Prize winning Messiah and the Hilldebeast destroyed the #1 economic country in Africa and turned it into a total shit hole nightmare. That would be the country of Libya for those not paying attention or who worship at the feet of the equally corrupt Democrat party.

bruce county , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:59 pm GMT
@NTG Thats great then .. I havbe the popcorn ready should make for some good tv..
Tsar Nicholas , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:06 am GMT
@Franklin Ryckaert

Israel has no president-for-life system.

Netanyahoo is doing his best.

bluedog , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:10 am GMT
@Not Raul Well lets take this to its conclusion,Trump nukes Iran it drifts over into Russia killing a few hundred or thousands,now just what do you think Russia would do,do you think that Russia would take that as an act of war against them, and let those missile's programed to impact the White House and pentagon be on there way;!!!
plantman , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:11 am GMT
This just in

Richard Engel
‏Verified account @RichardEngel

Iraqi security official tells @nbcnews there has been anther US airstrike, this one north of Baghdad targeting Shiite militia leaders. Reports of 6 killed.
This right BEFORE a big Shiite protest tomorrow in Baghdad. It seems certain to provoke an escalation.

The attack has been confirmed by other sources.
It looks like the provocations will continue until Iran responds creating the pretext for a broader war.

anon [276] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:12 am GMT
@Alfred US is unique to indict people from opposite spectrums of the same crimes usually after one of the criminals are dealt with . 911 has been blamed on Iran. It has been approved by American court . Settlements have been reached without any participation of Iran . After Bin Laden was dealt with for crimes of 911, Saddam was pointed fi anger at with similar success story . Pakistan has been also accused directly and indirectly of the same crimes .

Pan Am had checkered history The intercepts of messages that seemingly originated from Libya was manufactured and relayed by Israeli agents of worst filthy zionist mindset to draw visceral wrath of America on Libya .

Now then Zio will be the first to blame it on Iran and who knows after that Pakistan.

Rurik , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:13 am GMT
@annamaria

The fallen Iranian was an honest and honorable man, unlike the Jewish procuress of underage girls for wealthy pedophiles and the Jewish plunderer of pensions.

I'd like to send this to every US military barracks in the world.

I'd like to see it on every soldier's locker and pasted on every Army recruitment center in America.

Young Americans have been slaughtering honorable Muslim men, women and children, thousands of miles away, so that repulsive pigs like Epstein or Weinstein

can rape their daughters while they're off fighting and dying.

It's an untenable situation, and one we should all try to stop.

bluedog , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:17 am GMT
@Valley Forge Warrior Strange how when one troll posts the other trolls all come in to agree with him/it/her.!!!
NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:26 am GMT
@Not Raul

Let's say the Saudis attack the USA again like they did on 9-11

The Unz Review already has some good comedy writers. I would suggest that you start with open mic nights in bars and coffee shops until you develop some basic skills.

nokangaroos , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:27 am GMT
@Rurik Not to worry the maneuver is too transparent.

1. Strategically, they accomplished zilch.
2. They made a first-rate martyr.

That they had no better idea can only mean:

1. They are losing.
2. They did it in hopes of provoking an overreaction (much like Heydrich had to die because he did more for the Czech worker than anyone before or after him).

And over the last four decades the Iranians have grown calloused to provocation

Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:27 am GMT
@Rurik

By doing nothing, but speaking out, Iran's message of victimization is it's more powerful, moral weapon.

A noble sentiment, Rurik. Sadly, in the last few decades, morality has taken a back seat, and evil seems to consistently triumph. Consider the plight of the unarmed Palestinians protesting near the Israeli wall on their land. They have held the moral upper ground, while the Israelis have consistently mowed them down, women and children alike, with nary a protest from the rest of the world, least of all from their bought-and-paid-for Arab neighbors, like Egypt and Jordan (don't get me started on the KSA). Meanwhile, countries that have protested, like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, are considered terrorists.

I think that "turning the other cheek" was a shrewd jewish trick on christians. The only way to stop a bully is punch him in the nose.

Rich , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:34 am GMT
@annamaria In my world Epstein and his friends get the death penalty. My people have no semitic or Ashkenazi blood at all. But just because some deranged general dislikes Israel, doesn't make him a good guy. He was a leader of an army that engages in terrorism, as well as pursuing an agenda that is antithetical to freedom and basic human rights. I'm not here lecturing anyone, but if you consider the millionaire mullahs and their lackeys "heroes", I'd say you're confused, at the least.
Nicolás Palacios Navarro , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:39 am GMT
@Rurik I believe a not insignificant amount -- perhaps even the majority -- of pro-war Americans know this to be true: That they and their progeny are mere cannon fodder for Zionist imperialism. But they simply don't care or are even proud of dying for so "worthy" a cause. Never underestimate the persistent and deeply-rooted hysterical adulation that Israel commands -- nor the utter foolishness of your average American.
Poco , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:47 am GMT
@JamesinNM I fully expect Israel to set off a nuke in the US and destroy some Southern or Midwestern city where the "deplorables" live. Then indisputable evidence will be found pinning it on Iran. Kills two birds with one stone.
They get the war they want, kill a bunch of those they hate in America. And those they hate in America clamor for the destruction of others they hate in Iran. The mother of all false flags. The one on 9/11 didn't completely get the 7 nations job done.
Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:48 am GMT
@Rich Soleimani was fighting AL CIADA aka ISIS a creation of the ZUS and Israel and ZBritain and NATO, and so they killed him as they could not let him continue to kill the terrorists created by the CIA and MOSSAD and MI6.
NTG , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:49 am GMT
@Passer by i said a "Profitable", not a good one. And i didn't mean the US economy as a nation economy.
The whole "western" system right now is driven by some very few (an NO they are NOT Jews, they are only rich, very rich). And only those will profit from it. Until someone stop them directly.
Those people don't care about live or nation. They only care about money, their own money.
Rurik , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:50 am GMT

And over the last four decades the Iranians have grown calloused to provocation

I hope so. It's so bloody obvious by now.

Like the way they've been trying to 'rope a dope' Putin into a wider war with Ukraine, but Putin's far too savvy to take the bait.

Just let the ZUS keep frothing like a rabid dog, (h/t Ron Unz) and the world will eventually tire of its antics, and put it down, by repudiating the dollar.

Shue Arie , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:53 am GMT
If Iran is threatened with an all out war they could easily close the Straight of Homes and destroy the Saudi oil fields with Chemical weapons that'll render extracting Saudi oil mute. Result would be loss of Western World economy crashing big time and the USA falling into civil war cause they cannot maintain their freebies to the population. Not to mention attacking every US base in the ME. After all if Iran was facing annihilation they would have nothing to lose but to bring everyone down with them.
RudyM , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:55 am GMT
@sally It's ultimately for some fucking Jews. What else is new?
Iris , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:55 am GMT
@Rich

Iran won't escalate because they tried, and lost a general. If they try anything else, they'll pay too steep a price.

They might have just killed a foremost general, but the ones who have just proved to the world that they are losing are the US/Israeli Zionists.

When engaged in a strategic survival fight against a historic, cohesive nation of 80 millions people, killing one of their generals won't make any difference. It just reveals that you have run out of more effective, long-term means and have reached a strategic dead-end.

It is like losing a dispute over land with a powerful neighbour, and throwing a stone at one of his windows to satisfy a tantrum. It won't change anything significant.

This is the end of the road for Zionist long-term strategy in the ME.

Iran will not retaliate militarily, but you will soon understand the law of unintended consequences:
– Soleimani was so popular in Iran that Iranians will rally around their government; so much for the social and economic undermining of the Islamic Republic that was Israel's best card.
– Iraqis will also rally around their institutions; the end of the US occupation has now been put on top of their priorities.
– Israel will have to face an even stronger and more cohesive Shia Crescent, as Iraq will join in.

Good luck, hasbara troll.

Poco , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:55 am GMT
I'm not necessarily a cheerleader for Iran but, were I a leader in Iran, every time the US attacked one of mine, some Israeli bigshot would bite the dust. Every time. Dual citizens would be my preferred target. It would be a favor to the world.
NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:57 am GMT
@Johnny Walker Read The murdered peacemaker John Lennon famously asked, "What if there was a war and nobody showed up?" Since Vietnam, any American who has joined the military is a fool. These fools have not only aided in the destruction of many non-threatening nations and the deaths of millions of innocents but they have also aided in the destruction of the USA itself, for the working American people that is.
Haxo Angmark , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:01 am GMT
@anon this @ Unz is nothing, compared to

VoxDay and ZeroHedge where

the $2.39/per comment (((hasbara)))'s are swarming like gnats.

Rurik , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:02 am GMT
@Cloak And Dagger

the Israelis have consistently mowed them down, women and children alike, with nary a protest from the rest of the world, least of all from their bought-and-paid-for Arab neighbors, like Egypt and Jordan (don't get me started on the KSA).

yea, or the SJW in the US House or NYT. Where are 'the squad' when it comes to Palestine, or Iran, for that matter?

Counting shekels, that's where.

I think that "turning the other cheek" was a shrewd jewish trick on christians. The only way to stop a bully is punch him in the nose.

I wholeheartedly agree, in a fair contest.

But Iran is in no position to fight a war with the ZUS. It would be crushed, and the zios would be just as giddy over dead American goyim as they would dead Iranians, if not more so.

One thing I just can't understand, is how fellow Muslims can accommodate Zionism, as it's practiced these days. Like the KSA, as you mention.

So, yea, it's an awful situation, but I'd still counsel a non-violent protest posture, even as the fiend menaces and slaughters them. But if an Iranian or Iraqi, or God knows how many other people who've been so terribly wronged, were to strike out, and kill one or two goons in the service of zion, I know I couldn't begrudge them. Like the Afghans who occasionally kill their ZUS trainers/occupiers. It's perfectly understandable.

Shue Arie , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:03 am GMT
@Rich I challenge you to show just a single act of terrorism committed by General Soleimani and Iran, and I mean an act of terror not a retaliation. Iran has done nothing to the West to warrant the aggression against it. Her only problem is the vast resources it has that the West so desperately wants to control.
anonymous [178] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:04 am GMT
@plantman BAGHDAD -- A United States air strike targeted an Iraqi militia late on Friday on Taji road north of Baghdad, state TV said. It did not name the militia or provide further details.

"Air strikes targeting Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces umbrella grouping of Iran-backed Shi'ite militias near camp Taji north of Baghdad have killed six people and critically wounded three, an Iraqi army source told Reuters late on Friday."
https://torontosun.com/news/world/second-u-s-air-strike-targets-iraqi-militia-north-of-baghdad-state-tv/wcm/a24f3976-686c-4342-8102-93abfca24962

Question #1: Do members of US military have right -- or obligation -- to refuse orders that violate international rules and conventions on military engagement, US Constitution, or basic morality?

Question #2: Thirty -- fifty -- seventy years from now, will an Iraqi court charge with war crimes and crimes against humanity the 82nd Airborne soldiers pictured above?

nokangaroos , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:04 am GMT
@Passer by All correct in the medium term just a bit wishful in the here and now

All excellent points why the US MUST hold onto the Gulf, Persian or not, with teeth and fingernails;
losing control over oil the US don´t need means they can force no one to trade actual value for green paper, which not only means cold turkey from all those dandy little wars but also groid uprising back home.

Sure, folding up and going home would be the best for all concerned –
but it will never happen :/

Crazy Horse , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:08 am GMT
@Gizmo880 This is what the Clinton apologist with his head up his Duff "editor" over at Veterans Today thinks as well. As if O-bomb-em wasn't as bad or even worse than Cheney er I mean Bushwhacker Bush. I mean get real! These people are so deluded. If we just all close our eyes and vote Democrat and sing kumbaya we'll enter a world of hope and change.

Yeah whatever.

ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:09 am GMT
@A123 A123 is asking how long the armed forces will remain willing to die for psychopaths? Good question.
Biff , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:12 am GMT
@Rich

He was a leader of an army that engages in terrorism, as well as pursuing an agenda that is antithetical to freedom and basic human rights

Quit picking on Colin Powell

Herald , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:12 am GMT
@Not Raul

Let's say the Saudis attack the USA again like they did on 9-11

Oh deary deary me, now tell us do you still believe in fairies? Well of course you do, so silly of me to ask.

Rurik , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:14 am GMT
@Nicolás Palacios Navarro

Never underestimate the persistent and deeply-rooted hysterical adulation that Israel commands -- nor the utter foolishness of your average American.

I'm somewhat more charitable of the Americanus Bovinus.

I suspect that he either knows of the 'special relationship, in which case he'd be reluctant to kill and die for his enemies in Israel, or he's just another duped fool.

Pat Tillman started off being a duped fool, but then he figured it out. They solved that 'problem' with three 5.56mm holes in a 'tight pattern' to Pat's forehead.

Adrian , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:17 am GMT
@Agent76 Were the neocons also inspired by Deuteronomy 7 which talks about the necessary destruction of 7 (seven!) nations?

Deuteronomy 7 New International Version (NIV)

Driving Out the Nations

7 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations -- the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you -- 2 and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles[b] and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

Priss Factor , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:18 am GMT
Trump is acting out the American Paradox. Jews have such total power that the only way to ease the Jewish attack on you is to serve them even harder. Jews have done everything to disparage and defame Trump, and what does the 'tough guy' do? To ease the agony, he sucks up to Zion even more so that 'my Jews' will push back against the 'Jews who hate me'.

Jews are the gods of America. In the Bible, if the God clobbers you, your only hope of salvation is to serve Him with greater servitude. In America, if Jews kick your butt, your only option is to hope that they will kick you less hard by kissing their ass.

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:23 am GMT
@Rurik Dear Rurik, the tribe is in a self-destruction mode -- they cannot help it. Zionists are consumed by ethnic hatred and the hatred is blinding and destroying them.

It is tragic that the psychopaths have murdered the great numbers of decent and innocent human beings.

What is truly appalling is the cowardice of American brass. While politicians are the natural persons of easy morals, the dishonorable and pussy-catting American commanders are a stunning phenomenon. From Rumsfeld to Brennan to the current "boss" (what's his name which he is busy dishonoring?), the US brass has learned how to stay comfortable (and profitably) on their knees serving the zionist masters.

ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:25 am GMT
So Saker suspected that it was not Libya that was responsible for Lockerbie but Iran? Keep thinking. Cui bono might help.
Sunshine , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:30 am GMT
@Ilya G Poimandres Absolutely, couldn't have said it better myself. None of this is legal or acceptable and for a country that's so obsessed with giving foreigners "constitutional rights", it makes us look like a bunch of hypocrites. But of course we are. And they don't do it in my name and I want no part of any of it.
annamaria , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:33 am GMT
@ivegotrythm The Jewish State has become the epitome of the Banality of Evil.
Sunshine , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:35 am GMT
@Poco This is a very real worry of mine. Very plausible and actually, probable. I worry that it will be a biological weapon. That scares the crap out of me! And I wouldn't put it past them one bit. They love it when we suffer and die. The Bible was right about them.
Priss Factor , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:38 am GMT
Actions like this make us question past US military actions. US paints itself as the good guy fighting the bad guys, but US has provoked so many nations and forced them to react, whereupon US employed its superior firepower to kill countless people.

Maybe the US was always evil.

Will the progs and Democrats hit Trump hard on this? Or will their response be muted because their Jewish masters actually like this side of treacherous Trump doing the bidding of Israel and Zion?

Jewish Power is utterly vile. Sacrifice any number of people for Zion. It's really a new form of human sacrifice. Jews make a big deal of how their religion forbade human sacrifice, but they sacrifice human lives by way of US foreign policy.

Well, Trump became John McCain. Meet McTrump.

Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:40 am GMT
@TaintedCanker The reason decent people dislike America and Israel more than Iran et al. is because America and Israel are the aggressors here. Why is that so hard to understand?
Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:40 am GMT
@Rurik

But Iran is in no position to fight a war with the ZUS. It would be crushed, and the zios would be just as giddy over dead American goyim as they would dead Iranians, if not more so.

Yes, Iran would be crushed in a direct military confrontation, however, an asymmetric war is a different beast altogether. I referred in an earlier post to "death by a thousand cuts", and that is what Iran should do – directed assassinations by their allies, who are everywhere. What is good for the goose

Start by taking down a few zios like Pompeo, Bolton, Adelson, etc., and suddenly bullying isn't so cheap.

One thing I just can't understand, is how fellow Muslims can accommodate Zionism, as it's practiced these days. Like the KSA, as you mention.

I don't know that they do tolerate zionists – but they have been effectively muzzled by the tyrants we prop up to control them (e.g. MBS, Sisi, et al.). Look at our cousins in Europe, who are just as muzzled and jailed for raising a single dissenting voice against jews or Israel. Forget Europe, we, ourselves are on the threshold of something similar here. Unconstitutional laws go unchallenged. Note the recent laws forbidding protests against Israel on campus. A flood is imminent.

Where are 'the squad' when it comes to Palestine, or Iran, for that matter?

Like damning with faint praise, the fact that the Palestinian/Iranian cause is represented by the 'squad' does more damage to their plight than if they had kept their moths shut. The squad is easy to take down and their position on this issue is easily dismissed, and they fail to gain the support of people like me because their other issues are so ludicrous. Their flawed character (e.g incest, lies, etc.) hardly makes them good lawyers for anyone, leave alone Palestinians and Iranians.

Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:43 am GMT
@Valley Forge Warrior Will he use gas chambers?
MEexpert , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:45 am GMT
@A123 You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You take tidbits from the MSM and what the establishment says and regurgitate. You are a stooge of Natenyahu, the real sociapath. Trump is becoming one very fast as well.

The regional stability only requires that uncle Sam come home and stop shedding American blood as well as Middle Eastern blood.

Attacking the embassy was clearly Khameni's desperate effort to shore up personal weakness at home. Not only did he fail to keep the embassy, he also lost a key terrorist. The weak leader just became much weaker.

Here is a very good example of your ignorance. You have typical American problem. They think they know how the Iranian mind works. They don't know a thing about how Iranians think. Iran has ten more Sulemanis waiting in line to take his place and there are ten more Al-Mohandus in Iraq.

Does anyone remember what an American General said about ISIS? He said it will take 30 to 40 years to defeat of ISIS in Iraq. It took less three years for the Iraq militias, all volunteer group mobilzed as a result of a fatwa by Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, to defeat ISIS and ISIS was being supplied arms by the US. Al-Mohandus was one of that group.

Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:47 am GMT
@Anonymous His handle should be TakingItUpTheAssForIsrael.
Parfois1 , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:53 am GMT
@renfro Thank you for posting that list. Any just soul in this world should keep a copy of that list as a permanent reminder of the nature of the Jewish state and its sponsor/protector – insane criminals deserving the harshest of their own gods' revenge: total obliteration from the face of the earth for ever. They are the scourge of humanity; is anyone with a conscience safe in thie world?
lavoisier , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:03 am GMT
@anonymous

Question #1: Do members of US military have right -- or obligation -- to refuse orders that violate international rules and conventions on military engagement, US Constitution, or basic morality?

These guys just follow orders. They are not taught to think about the morality of their actions, but to trust the wisdom of their leaders and the justice of the cause.

No thinking person could honestly serve in the American Military today. Their cause is not defense of any ideals or their own homeland, but to serve an unjust and evil government in thrall to Jewish supremacists.

I want to burn the American flag.

nsa , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:05 am GMT
The only hope for us sane people is to hunker down and crack open another delightful $1.39 plus tax 8.1% Hurricane 25 ouncer. Americans like to think of themselves as rugged individualists, when in reality they are pathetically superstitious and naturally subservient. Half the country every Sunday actually worships a mythical jew zombie and even routinely mutilates the genitals of their male offspring to demonstrate total fealty to their cock cutter cult overlords. The other half every Sunday worships giant muscular Africans in plastic hats and tight spandex groping each other in a simulated homoerotic orgy on their flat screen living room joo boxes. Oh, and it has been proven that guzzling fully synth swill like Ice House, Steel Reserve, and Hurricane is actually healthier than counter and designers beers as brews made from actual fermented real grains all contain the magic ingredient, RoundUp ..providing your liver and brain can withstand a steady diet of 8%to 10% high octane fuel.
Patrikios Stetsonis , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:08 am GMT
@Harbinger I keep saying it.
Bomb to dust these maaaa-humpers in that shithole south of Lebanon.
The World major problems will go away with the next 10 years
Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:09 am GMT
@Adrian I am a born again Christian and reader of the Bible but I cannot qoute chapter and versues like yourself and many more who are able. Thanks for your reply and be blessed!
Ghan-buri-Ghan , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:15 am GMT
@Haxo Angmark I don't think all, or even most, of them are hasbarists. They are mostly brain-addled American boomer "conservatives" who blindly believe everything the Jews spoon-feed them. And really, 80% of (((ZeroHedge))) is also Jewish propaganda these days, so why shouldn't their commenters reflect that?

It's not so different from the moronic commentary found in the Steve Sailer section here at Unz, which seems to increasingly bleed out to the rest of the site.

Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:18 am GMT
January 03, 2020 There can be no justification for this act of murder

"America's lawless arrogance has gone too far with the assassination of Iran's top military commander. The deadly airstrike against General Qasem Soleimani was carried out on the order of President Donald Trump.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52797.htm

anon [276] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:26 am GMT
@Rich He was a leader of an army that engages in terrorism"
Israel is nation that survives on terrorism It was birthed by terrorism . It gets money everytime some guy makes threats to a desolate synagogue or storms on the headstones of some graveyard . The money helps the nation to survive get food water electricity and it uses the change for making bullets to hit at the eyes of the Palestinian boys.
Anthony Aaron , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:29 am GMT
@Rich I don't see where anyone is putting forth the idea that Iran can defeat the United States -- and they don't have to to, essentially, 'win'.

After all, look at the end results for We The People Of The United States as a result of the (false flag known as) 9/11 -- let's see, we've got the Patriot Act to destroy our individual rights; we've got the TSA folks to do likewise; we've got the NSA to spy on anyone and everyone; we've spent Trillion$ chasing phony WMDs (thanks to the 'intelligence' shoved at US by the israelis); we've spent heaven-only-knows how much modifying the cabins of our commercial aircraft to prevent 'terrorist' attacks; we've allowed folks to capitalize on the whole Twin Towers insurance scam.

All in all, we've been under the gun since 9/11 -- afraid of our own shadows -- bowing to the israeli bastards who know no limits to their evil -- and, thanks to President Trump, American blood will be spilled for them once again – and American freedoms will be lost for the once again.

anon [276] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:29 am GMT
@Nicolás Palacios Navarro America needs interfaith dialogue with Islam but without including the Jewish faith . It is for the forgiveness that we hope will be showed to and bestowed on our future generations . We need to include Buddhist as well.
Maiasta , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:32 am GMT
@Alfred A good summation. However, it gets even darker than this.

Journalist working at the outer limits of the mainstream (e.g. Robert Fisk) had long suspected an Iranian hand in Pan Am 103. And lawyers for the two Libyans prosecuted for the bombing identified 11 alleged members of the rather obscure Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF) as the men responsible. The Iranians did back this group, BUT numerous sources claim that the operation took place with the consent of US authorities.

Why would the US allow such an attack upon its citizens? According to former Congressional staffer and (former) CIA asset Susan Lindauer, the attack was directed at shutting down an investigation into a CIA-run drug-trafficking ring (codenamed "Operation Khourah") operating from Beirut. In her words:

"The Defence Intelligence Agency had gone into Lebanon and were gathering forensic evidence to prove the CIA's role in heroin trafficking.

"They boarded Pan Am flight 103 that morning and they were flying back to Washington to deliver their report, with heroin, cash and banking records."

The UK Guardian summarised the scenario thusly:

//Among the Lockerbie victims was a party of US intelligence specialists, led by Major Charles McKee of the DIA, returning from an aborted hostage-rescue mission in Lebanon. A variety of sources have claimed that McKee, who was fiercely anti-drugs, got wind of the CIA's deals and was returning to Washington to blow the whistle. A few months after Lockerbie, reports emerged from Lebanon that McKee's travel plans had been leaked to the bombers. The implication was that Flight 103 was targeted, in part, because he was on board. //

So extensive is the evidence of all this murk that even CNN has acknowledged it:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/pOmzEbRi30k?feature=oembed

Parfois1 , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:34 am GMT
@anonymous

Do members of US military have right -- or obligation -- to refuse orders that violate international rules and conventions on military engagement, US Constitution, or basic morality?

Yes, it's not only a right, it's an obligation. Following orders is not a defence for anyone knowingly involved in crimes of war and against humanity.

However, the plea of obedience to superior orders can be a mitigating circumstance and reduce the severity of punishment. A private soldier responsibility for a war crime would be the same as that of the general or commander-in-chief who made the order, but his punishment would be reduced or symbolic.

In this case, a properly constituted court would convict Trump and all others in the chain of command, down to the operators of the drone, for the assassination of Suleimani.

barr , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:35 am GMT
@JamesinNM Tell that to Perle,Kristol,Kagan Kaplan Lutti Abrams Feith Wolfowitz and Haim Saban , Sheldon Adeslhon , Singer and Marcus . Use loudspeaker to make it reach the settlers occupiers and Likudniks .

Who gives a toss to Bible ?

Castellio , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:54 am GMT
@renfro Thank you for this list.

Unfortunately it is partial, as it doesn't include Iraqis individually targeted and assassinated from 2003 on. Do you have access to that list as well?

denk , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:56 am GMT
The Muslim league were suckered into the Bosnia war,
Iranians and others were fighting under NATO and dying for the great satan against the Serbs.

Let this be the final waking up call, who's your real enemy.

Rich , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:01 am GMT
@anon Okay, I get it, you don't like Israel, but does your dislike of Israel mean the Iranians are hale and hearty fellows? Most of their leadership are corrupt millionaires who use a medieval religion to justify torturing and enslaving their populace. The Iranian leadership is full of evil people who are openly hostile to the United States and its interests. Sorry.

The fact that you, and many others on this site, are strongly hostile to Israel and feel affection for the defeated Palestinians, doesn't change the fact that Israel acts as an ally to the US in its dealings with various enemies. The argument over how much, if any, foreign aid should be given to foreign nations has nothing to do with the fact that Iran has chosen to be an enemy of the US. Had they not killed an American contractor and coordinated the attack on the US embassy in Iraq (as well as other terrorist attacks), General Soleimani, might still be alive to torture his enemies and plan terrorist attacks.

Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:10 am GMT
'Soleimani Murder: What Could Happen Next?'

To be brief?

Short term: nothing good. Long-term: an end to the Zionist entity.

Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:13 am GMT
Can't be too careful

'U.S. Airstrike Targets Iraqi Militia North of Baghdad, State TV Reports
Iraqi army sources say at least five killed in attack on Iran-backed militia convoy, which group says was carrying medical teams '

-- Haaretz

Obviously, we want to make certain Iran feels it necessary to respond.

bluedog , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:15 am GMT
@Rich Then I guess he would fit right into Washington with their deranged people that kill wedding parties and children,would put on illegal no fly zones killing 500,000 children,now just where do you think their freedoms were .Its people like you that are sick in the head all puffed up with the empire bullshit that everything on the planet belongs to us and was just put there for our taking,your a perfect example of a neocon hiding behind patriotism.the sick kind that will destroy the world if we let it.!!
anonymous [178] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:28 am GMT
@Cloak And Dagger TruNews is amazing.

Soleimani Assassination: Did the Pentagon Use Hypersonic Weapon?
https://www.trunews.com/stream/soleimani-assassination-did-the-pentagon-use-hypersonic-weapon

Their perspective on the assassination took several different angles than were presented even here on Unz. I disagree with their conclusion that Iran has only two options: all out war NOW -- Iran will be destroyed but so will Israel, and US bases will be eradicated; or sit on their hands and take the repeated hits that USPisrael intends to send. (the latter seems to be the case: another attack has already taken place).

But Rick Wiles and Doc Burkhart reported two more bits of information:
1. US press spokesman hinted that the PMU that was attacked by USA & lost 32 men, helped plan the attack on Suleimani; claim was Suleimani was 'going rogue' -- US is offering an "out" to Iran in that Iran Central was not directing the anti-American operation that Suleimani was planning.
The briefer said: "Iran has only two options: Come to the table and negotiate, or endure more attacks."

Because IRGC – Quds force had been declared a terrorist organization, killing Suleimani was hunkey-dorie.

Realize, tho, that Adam Schiff has proposed legislation that hate crimes be prosecuted as domestic terrorism, and the Monsey incident upped the ante on that, so that domestic terrorism would be prosecuted the same way as international terrorism. Knocking over a grave marker in a Jewish cemetery could possibly be turned into an act of international terrorism. Rick Wiles or any of us anonymous keyboard warriors that Fran Taubman is so eager to doxx could be named as Terrorist, and, presumably, be droned by our own government, in our own American home, at the behest of Israeli partisans.

2. Israeli newspapers quoted Netanyahu that he knew in advance about the assassination, likely was in on the planning (with Pompeo).
Also, a New York Times article wrote on Jan. 2 -- before the attack:

"What if the former commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Qassem Suleimani, visits Baghdad for a meeting and you know the address? The temptations to use hypersonic missiles will be many."

What's a hypersonic missile? Who has them? How did NYTimes know this stuff?
Did US use hypersonic missiles? Was the NYTimes article, and the assassination of the Quds general, warnings to other world leaders?

Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:30 am GMT
@Rich Hard to believe Iranian millionaires are worse than dual-citizen billionaires in the US in terms of corruption.
Biff , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:40 am GMT
@Rich

Okay, I get it, you don't like Israel, but does your dislike of Israel mean the Iranians are hale and hearty fellows?

Like clockwork

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/12/27/opposing-interventionism-in-nation-x-means-you-love-nation-xs-government/

Every time you speak out against western imperialism in a given nation or question western propaganda narratives about that nation's government, you will inevitably be accused of loving that nation's government by anyone who argues with you.

When I say "inevitably", I am not exaggerating. If you speak in any public forum for any length of time expressing skepticism of what we're told to believe about a nation whose government has been targeted by the US-centralized empire, you will with absolute certainty eventually run into someone who accuses you of thinking that that government is awesome and pure and good.

Thales the Milesian , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:43 am GMT
What the Iranians will do?

A big fat nothing!

As Thucydides wrote over 2300 years ago:

"The strong will do whatever they can; the weak will suffer whatever they must."

Putin, a president of a stronger country than Iran, accepts this fact of history and kisses American a$$.

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:47 am GMT
@Rich "Israel acts as an ally to the US in its dealings with various enemies."

-- This is a really poor joke. Israel is the worst enemy of the US. Israel is guilty of killing and maiming the servicemen on the USS Liberty.
Your filthy Pollard has created the worst spying episode in the history of the US (the goodies were sold by Israel to China).
Mossad and Mossad's deputies Epstein et al have contributed a huge amount of evilness to the US and beyond.
The ongoing mass slaughter for Eretz Israel on the US dime & limb has been the greatest achievement of sadistic Israel-firsters.
And only God knows the details of the zonists' involvement in 9/11.

If you want to talk about "corrupt millionaires and evil people" who "torture and enslave" and who are "openly hostile" to the United States -- and all other countries that are not totally zionized (like Russia and Iran) -- then your talk should be about zionists and the Jewish State.

By the way, were not you among the dancing Israelis celebrating the miraculous (controlled) demolition of the towers?

Anonymous [339] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:52 am GMT
And why is all this happening?

Mostly because White American Christians are generally afraid of the Jewish lobby.

So that lobby gets its way.

And America loses.

We probably don't care much about our country, do we?

redmudhooch , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:00 am GMT
Trump has already sent a letter via the Swiss to the Iranians begging them not to retaliate in exchange for lifting sanctions and "other incentives"

Sounds so cowardly and stoopid it must be true.

Committing a brazen act of war is always the best prelude to a letter begging for calm https://t.co/gGkQ7aglfm

-- Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) January 4, 2020

AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:04 am GMT
@Colin Wright You are an optimist. You expect something good, at least long-term.
Hippopotamusdrome , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:04 am GMT
LOL, the (D) Joe Biden putting on the anti-war schtick when an (R) president bombs brown people in the Middle East. The did this to Bush (R) too.

A blast from the past when Obama (D) and Hillary (D) were bombing brown people in Libya:

Kadafi death: Joe Biden says 'NATO got it right' in Libya
"Whether he's alive or dead, he's gone. The people of Libya have gotten rid of a dictator," Biden said at an event in New Hampshire

"NATO got it right," he said. "In this case, America spent $2 billion and didn't lose a single life. This is more the prescription for how to deal with the world as we go forward "

barr , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:10 am GMT
@Maiasta Victor Ostrovsky, a Canadian former intelligence colonel with Israel's Mossad secret service and author of the bestseller By Way Of Deception (the title comes from the Mossad motto), will testify that it was Mossad commandos who set up the transmitter in Tripoli that generated a false signal about the "success" of the Berlin bomb – he has already given a detailed description of this daring operation in his second book, The Other Side Of Deception. Ostrovsky, who will testify by closed-circuit television from somewhere in North America – he fears that, if he comes to Holland, he may be "Vanunu-ed" (ie kidnapped and smuggled back to Israel) for breaking his secrets oath – will state that the Lockerbie intercept so resembles the La Belle intercept as to have probably the same provenance. This is what US lawyers call the "duck" argument: "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles, the preponderance of evidence is that it is a duck."
Ostrovsky's evidence would then put the onus on the Lord Advocate to prove that the Lockerbie intercept is genuine, not disinformation. Ostrovsky believes that, in both bombings, Israel implicated Libya to shield Iran, thereby encouraging Iran not to persecute its small Jewish community.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/apr/17/lockerbie
redmudhooch , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:11 am GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if the idiots "in charge" of this country decide to do a false flag "terrorist" attack here in America, killing civilians, if this goes further. They're already putting out articles indicating this. I don't believe the Iranians would target civilians here, but we all know who would. Operation Gladio
Kratoklastes , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:19 am GMT
@Kiza

Does anyone know even one example where an Israeli's head or head of a Western Jew has been chopped off?

Daniel Pearl was Jewish. His mother was an Iraqi Jew. As it happens his father was also Jewish, but that's irrelevant.

If you didn't know that the highest-profile beheading victim was Jewish, you haven't really been paying attention.

The Alarmist , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:23 am GMT
@Rich

Their dead general was a member of the military and a legitimate target.

By that logic, every member of the US military is a legitimate target, especially since the US just drew first blood.

Priss Factor , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:30 am GMT
The best thing that the Iranians could do is blurt out the truth for all the world to hear. Especially if your side is militarily weaker, truth must be the main weapon. The Iranian leader should mock and shame Donald Trump as a cuck-stooge of not only Zionism but Jewish Supremacism that rules the US. He should point out how Jewish Zionist Power has been out to destroy Trump from day one, but the orange-man coward remains most servile to the very group that has done most to undermine his presidency. [MORE]
The current state of the world is so embarrassing. It's like goyim of all stripes are stuck in some gladiatorial ring under Jewish orchestration. Jews hate whites and Trump. Jews hate Iranians. Given that both groups have in common the rabid & virulent hostility of Jewish supremacists, the most natural thing would be for both sides to unite against the Jews. Whites and Iranians are natural allies. But what do they do? Trump the so-called 'white nationalist' sucks up to Jews and attacks Iran. And Iran feels compelled to denounce all of America when the real culprits are the freaking Jews. Goyim are the gladiators in SPARTACUS -- though slaves of Rome, they slaughter each other for the amusement of Roman elites. Though Jews are hostile to whites and Iranians, whites are willing to kill Iranians to win approval from their Jewish masters, and Iranians waste so much time denouncing all of the US. What the world needs is a Spartacus-like figure. Spartacus united the slaves and made them fight Rome than each other. Goyim need to unite to fight Jewish Supremacist Power. This is where China, Russia, and Iran are doing the right thing, but they are still loathe to Name the Jew. Current US belligerence is the direct outcome of Jewish domination.
Iranians should throw Trump's words right back in his face. In 2016, Trump said the Iraq War was a total disaster, and that the US should get out of the Middle East. He also said the US should work for world peace by working with Russia. But since then, Jewish supremacists and its cuck-minions in the Deep State have done everything to undermine Trump, and the weary beast has succumbed to Jewish machinations. Trump is more Sparky the running dog than Spartacus. But then, much of the blame must go to white American Conservatives. Their brand of idiotic Christianity, atomizing libertarianism, and anti-intellectualism led to all the elite institutions being taken over by Jews, progs, and cucky-wucks. It could be Putin is mute about Jewish power because the Russian economy is still substantially in Jewish hands. One might hope China will be bold in stating the truth, but the Chinese way is strategic than principled. Also, China has been pulled into US market imperialism. It's the US gambit as the sole superpower with a vast market. If old European Empires suppressed economic growth in their colonies, US encourages economic growth as dependence on US markets. Thus, all the economies that grew by selling to the US are deathly afraid of losing market access. As the religion of the US is now globo-homo-shlomo-afro, they dare not speak the truth that Jewish Power is behind the current rot of globalist cultural imperialism.

It is about time for Russia, Iran, and all nations to mock the US as a Jewish Supremacist empire, one where craven white cowards do little but crawl on their knees and pledge undying support for Jewish supremacists and Zion. Why? Because soulless US is only about one thing: Money and Idolatry. Jews got the money and idolized themselves as the supreme identity group that ALL other groups must serve. While Jewish elites rub their hands at the prospect of another Middle East War, it will be goyim , white American soldiers and countless Persians/Arabs/Muslims, who will do all the killing and dying. Jewish globalists went from Semites to Supremites, and now, so-called Anti-Semitism is Anti-Supremitism, which is more necessary than ever. And it's about time Russia addressed the J-Question. Vladimir Putin has been silent on this for too long, but it is time for truth. It is time to put down the gauntlet. No, no one one should make crazy neo-nazi talking points. They just need to speak the truth that Jews control the US, the lone superpower, and that the Jewish modus operandi is Jewish hegemony at any cost. Also, Zionism has turned into Yinon-ism based on the Yinon Plan.

We've all been duped by Jewish Power. There was a time when Jews assured goyim, "Stick with us, and you shall have true free speech", "Struggle with us against unfettered capitalist greed", and "Support our cause to expose the Deep State and to create a more open and transparent society." But Jews weren't really against Excessive Power & Privilege. They just wanted to bring down the old Wasp elites so that they, as the new elites, would have the power to curtail free speech, rake in all the profits, and use deep state apparatus to destroy rivals and critics. Jewish Power is the main source of many woes around the world, but because of the stigma of 'antisemitism', so many people will blame anyone but the Jews. When Alex Jones got deplatformed, whom did he blame? The Chinese. Trump is pushed against the rope, so whom does he shake his fist at? Iranians. John McCain and Mitt Romney were smeared and slimed by the Jew-run mass media(despite their total cuckery to Zion) in 2008 and 2012, but whom did they rag on? Trump and his supporters. What a sorry bunch. (Granted, morons like Richard Spencer and Neo-Nazi crew deserve their share of blame by sinking the promising dissident Alt Right label with what truly amounts to white supremacism and even neo-Nazism, thereby making it more difficult for Trump to address legitimate white interests.)

Anyway, imagine a scenario where Nazi Germany attacks Poland, France, Russia, and Great Britain but all those nations praise Hitler & Nazi Germany while taking their rage and frustration on each other. Such is the state of the world today. Jews torment and destroy so many nations and peoples, but entire nations are willing to war with one other while speaking and doing nothing about the Jewish Glob. Unless people understand the urgency of Naming the Jew, nothing will change. It's like a doctor won't cure cancer if he does EVERYTHING but name the cancer. If there's a dead rat decaying and stinking up the apartment, no amount of 'solutions' will fix the problem unless someone names the dead rat and remove it from the premises. After WWII, Jews got a grace period, well-deserved due to Shoah. But it's time to face facts about Jews of the Now. Pretending Jews are still Shoah victims is like pretending current China is still the 'Sick Man of Asia' of the 19th century. Times change, and Jews are the supreme rulers of the world, and this must be called out. But that worthless pile of shi* Trump only sucks up to Jews more even as they bugger his ass. And white Americans are truly retarded. Jewish Power is carrying out White Nakba in US, EU, Canada, and Australia -- as cuck-white elites in media, academia, and institutions are nothing but mental minions of Jewish Power, as in Jews lead, goyim follow -- , and whites are being turned into New Palestinians, but all these worthless white 'conservatives' are cheering Trump's anti-BDS law that violates the US constitution. How utterly pathetic.

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:34 am GMT
@Anonymous "White American Christians are generally afraid of the Jewish lobby."

-- Agree. The US brass are cowards. The US government of cowards is for sale. The US media is owned by Israel-firsters who have been propagating lies upon lies. "Is this good for Jews?" has become the zionists' battle cry that scares Americans into submission.

The scared Americans need to process the fact of holobiz being over. The Jews are not victims -- the Jews are shameless aggressors and traitors busy with frightening and corrupting the western governments to the bones because allegedly "this is good for Jews:" https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/

Let's be clear about what we just did–we assassinated two key military and political leaders on the sovereign territory of Iraq without the permission of the Iraqi Government. There is no evidence or valid intelligence that shows Soleimani directing Iraqi Shia militias to attack and kill US troops. None. But those facts do not matter.

Judging from the media reaction on cable news, there is a lot of whooping and celebrating the death of Soleimani as a decisive blow against terrorism. Boy we showed those Iranians who is boss. But that is not how the Iranians see it and that is not how a significant portion of the Iraqi Shia population see it. From their perspective this is the equivalent of the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor.

The zionized cowards in the US government made American servicemen into targets for retaliation in response to American crimes in Iraq -- crimes that were committed because "this is good for Jews" who want their Eretz Israel by any means, including a mass slaughter of the innocent in the Middle East.
Boy Jewish intelligence is terribly overrated. The zionists do believe that selecting and promoting cowards and profiteers on the positions of power in the US is "good for Jews." Idiots.

Marshal Marlow , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:35 am GMT
Iran will do politics while the US does war.

Iran will explain to Iraq that the US will fight to every last drop of Iraqi blood while Iran will do its best to support their fellow Shia. The Iraqi parliament, not wanting another war inside Iraq and hating the US for starting it, will vote to expel the US or maybe to simply refuse the US any air rights.

The US then either retreats out of Iraq or it become an occupying force. If the US retreats, it'll go down in history as a strategic defeat. If the US decides to occupy, it'll need to disband the Iraqi parliament (ie a democracy) and replace it with the inevitable transitional government who'll be fed with a steady stream of suitcases full of $100 bills. At the same time, the US will need to fight a bloody guerilla war which will ultimately end in a strategic defeat when the US population gets bored by the smart-bomb video footage.

Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:36 am GMT
@Kratoklastes 'Daniel Pearl was Jewish. His mother was an Iraqi Jew. As it happens his father was also Jewish, but that's irrelevant.

'If you didn't know that the highest-profile beheading victim was Jewish, you haven't really been paying attention.'

Back when the war against ISIS was ginned up, two Western 'reporters' were beheaded. At least one of them was carrying an Israeli passport.

Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:37 am GMT
@The Alarmist We've declared war. Morally, Iran can do whatever they please.

within the guidelines contained within the Quran, of course.

The Alarmist , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:41 am GMT
@NTG

Their are considerable more Galaxy C17 traffic in Ramstein/Germany and the whole C17 (as far as you can identify them)look like a swarm of bees on the way to the middle east.

Galaxy was the C-5; C-17 is the Globemaster. In addition to its role in Tactical and Strategic airlift, it also serves as MedEvac, often to Ramstein/Landstuhl.

Kratoklastes , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:50 am GMT
@Z-man

That's a good suggestion but I still think they should go after Pompeo. If you really want to keep it 'tit for tat' with even less retaliation then poor Gen. Milley should be splashed. (Evil grin)

Milley's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs: his 'same-store sales' equivalent would have been Hossein Salami.

Soleimani wasn't even head of the IRGC – that's also Hossein Salami.

If the US had "red-carded" Salami, today they would be cleaning up missile debris and human remains at US bases all over the Middle East, and "Iron Dome" would get definitive evidence that it's a joke.

Although Soleimani had genuine clout and a high profile, he was only the head of Quds Force, which is kinda MI (plus a bit of special operations/coordination of irregulars).

So I would guess that the appropriate tit-for-tat splash would be LtGen Scott Berrier (G2 – Intel).

Everyone's heard of that guy, right?

Plus, if they splashed Pompous, the resulting fatberg would burn for longer than the Springfield tyre fire. Nobody wants that.

Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:55 am GMT
@Passer by During the lead-up to the Gulf War, I recall "experts" like you talking about how Hussein's "battle-hardened" "elite" Republican Guard was going to send those wet-behind-the-ears American soldiers running home with their tails tucked between their legs. They were all then as prescient as you are now. Spare me these countless internet military "experts" who always seem to know who can do what, and yet end up being wrong in every instance.
Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:00 am GMT
@Colin Wright The Quran promotes a supremacist ideology for world domination. It is the Muslim equivalent of the Talmud. Neither the Muslims nor the zionists will get a moment's restful sleep until they know their place, but psychopathic anti-Christ peoples are full of the devil, making them a curse on humanity.
renfro , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:02 am GMT
@Castellio

Unfortunately it is partial, as it doesn't include Iraqis individually targeted and assassinated from 2003 on. Do you have access to that list as well?

No , but will try to find one when have the time.

Kratoklastes , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:05 am GMT
@Colin Wright I admit I stopped paying attention to beheadings after the first few.

It seemed pretty obvious that it was the worst possible advertisement for a cause. The only people who would think " Kewl !" were people already on their side. Plus it was guaranteed to horrify moderates. It also guaranteed a full-court hostile press in Western media (SWIDT? two uses of 'press' in the same word – genius!).

It struck me as the sort of thing that (ahem) plays into the hands of those who wanted to give pan-Arab nationalism a bad name. Almost as if that was the intention.

They should have hired Hill and Knowlton and done their PR properly.

.

Also, the aesthetics were awful .

The guys doing the beheadings had very white forearms – whiter than most Anglo military guys.

I'm sensitive like that: I found the beheaders' pasty skin off-putting.

The lack of struggle from the victims was also weird – evidence perhaps that they were sedated, which is good for them I guess.

Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:08 am GMT
@John Chuckman North Koreans who are treated like crap are those in the communist-run prison camps in North Korea itself.
Anon [207] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:08 am GMT

For example, there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one in direct retaliation for the deliberate shooting down by the USN of IranAir 655 Airbus over the Persian Gulf.

– The crash of the Pan Am 103 was, according to Ari Ben-Menashe, related to a fabricated claim on 5 CIA agents running drugs via their contacts in Frankfurt under CIA's Bill Casey.

– One less known point on the Pan Am 103 is the probable assassination by South Africa's apartheid government of United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson (according to Patrick Hasseldine).

– "Pik Botha and a South African delegation from Johannesburg, who was initially booked to travel to the Namibian independence ratification ceremony in New York on Pan Am Flight 103 from London. Instead, the booking was cancelled as he and six delegates took an earlier flight, thereby avoiding the fatal PAN AM 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland" (wiki, Pik Botha).

Robert Mueller's 30-year search for justice on Pan AM 103 led to nothing except the USual platitudes (unfounded accusations) on Iran and the PLO.

Rich , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:14 am GMT
@The Alarmist Well, yes, every member of every military is a legitimate target. Especially a general. If it sounds logical to you, that's because not only is it logical, it's common sense. As far as who drew first blood, that's a little more complicated. Some might argue that the Iranians drew first blood when the present group of radical medievalists overthrew the Shah and then seized the US embassy in 1979 or a whole load of other attacks by Iranians and their proxies. I really don't understand the outpouring of sympathy for a general in a foreign nation that is an outspoken enemy of the US. I get it, you guys hate Israel, but that doesn't absolve the Iranian mullahs or their henchmen. They are not your friends, they don't like you and their end game is the same end game they've had since the founding of their "religion", the violent spread of Islam throughout the world. Read the Koran first, before you throw your support behind these jihadists. If their own holy book doesn't open your eyes and you still believe the West is the "imperialist", find me Constantinople on the map.
renfro , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:15 am GMT
@Parfois1 Do keep a copy ..at the rate info exposing Israel's true nature is disappearing and being censored , its gotten harder and harder to find.
NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:23 am GMT
@Thales the Milesian A wise leader conserves his military strength. Sun Tzu
Maiasta , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:28 am GMT
@barr Thanks for the reminder. I'm familiar with Ostrovsky, of course, and i found the book you mentioned to be quite an eye-opener, albeit still written from a basically pro-Israel point-of-view.

re: "Israel implicated Libya to shield Iran." Yes, this is more than plausible, especially when we consider that Israel was largely responsible for arming Iran during the long war with Iraq in the 1980s. The latter may seem counter-intuitive to many, but it actually fell perfectly in line with the Oded Yinon plan for regional balkanisation. I think that as soon as the Iraqi Resistance movement was crushed back in 2008, Iran was considered no longer so useful to the Zionists, and they began the next phase of destabilisation. Obviously, all regional powers are to be taken out one-by-one, and that presents a problem when it comes to a regional alliance such as the so-called "Shia Crescent" of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon (or Hezbollah).

I think it likely that the Qassem assassination though, is a significant miscalculation that will cost Trump and the US dearly.

Sol , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:41 am GMT
@anon Haven't been paying attention to Hazony recently. Thanks for the update.
anonymous [102] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:52 am GMT
@Rich I agree with the notion that Persian capabilities are consistently overstated on unz.com They look more capable than Arabs. That's not much. They haven't shown the ability to develop their own weapons. The rest of their industry sucks (e.g. cars).
Kratoklastes , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:57 am GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso You're comparing apples with suppositories.

Rolling out of Kuwait across a plain is way easier than rolling up the Zagroz – especially when the other guy knows you're coming and has had 50 years to prepare, and the natives at your back want the other guy to win.

The Zagroz aren't as daunting as trying to go up the sides on AH76 in Parwan, which is some of the most inhospitable terrain on Earth. Invading Iran via Iraq (which is the US' only option) isn't even as hard (topographially) as trying to take Zürich by invading Switzerland starting from Milan.

Topography matters.

Safwan to Baghdad is flat freeway (and was, even in 1991); Baghdad to Hamedan, not so much. (Hamedan's the town on the other side of the Zagroz, on the only non-impossible route to Teheran).

For the average grunt, it would be like " Restrepo " from day 1, constantly, for the entire trip – but with no HESCO.

It would guarantee tens of thousands of cases of PTSD.

Armour and artillery really really really needs roads (or rail), and aerial reconnaissance is way easier on a sandy table top, than in mountains.

Castellio , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:00 am GMT
@renfro 1
The killing of Iraqi Academics: A War to Erase the Future and Culture of Iraqis
List of Iraqi academics assassinated in Iraq during the US-led occupation
Academics assassinated: 324
Updated: November 7, 2013
(Last case registered: No. 125)
Spanish Campaign against the Occupation and for the Sovereignty of Iraq
IraqSolidaridad 2005-2013
[MORE]
The following list of University academics assassinated in Iraq is updated with the information delivered by the Iraqi CEOSI sources inside Iraq. It presents all the data compiled in the previous IraqSolidaridad editions. This relation has been collated and completed with that elaborate by the Belgian organization 'BRussells Tribunal' [1]. This list only refers to the academic, institutional and research fields from Iraqi Universities, so that it does not include the staff that belongs to other fields and institutions, who has been targeting since the beginning of the occupation, such as directors of primary and secondary schools, high schools or health workers [2].

BAGHDAD
Baghdad University
1. Abbas al-Attar: PhD in humanities, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Humanities. Date unknown.
2. Abdel Hussein Jabuk: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
3. Abdel Salam Saba: PhD in sociology, lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
4. Abdel Razak al-Naas: Lecturer in information and international mass media at Baghdad University's College of Information Sciences. He was a regular analyst for Arabic satellite TV channels. He was killed in his car at Baghdad University 28 January 2005. His assassination led to confrontations between students and police, and journalists went on strike.
5. Ahmed Nassir al-Nassiri: PhD in education sciences, Baghdad University, assassinated in February 2005.
6. Ali Abdul-Hussein Kamil: PhD in physical sciences, lecturer in the Department of Physics, Baghdad University. Date unknown.
7. Amir al-Jazragi: PhD in medicine, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Medicine, and consultant at the Iraqi Ministry of Health, assassinated on November 17, 2005.
2
8. Basil al-Karji: PhD in chemistry, lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
9. Essam Sharif Mohammed: PhD in history, professor in Department of History and head of the College of Humanities, Baghdad University. Dead October 25, 2003.
10. Faidhi al-Faidhi: PhD in education sciences, lecturer at Baghdad University and al- Munstansiriya University. He was also member of the Muslim Scientists Committee. Assassinated in 2005.
11. Fouad Abrahim Mohammed al-Bayaty: PhD in German philology, professor and head of College of Philology, Baghdad University. Killed Abril 19, 2005.
12. Haifa Alwan al-Hil: PhD in physics, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Science for Women. Assassinated September 7, 2003.
13. Heikel Mohammed al-Musawi: PhD in medicine, lecturer at al-Kindi College of Medicine, Baghdad University. Assassinated November 17, 2005.
14. Hassan Abd Ali Dawood al-Rubai: PhD in stomatology, dean of the College of Stomatology, Baghdad University. Assassinated December 20, 2005.
15. Hazim Abdul Hadi: PhD in medicine, lecturer at the College of Medicine, Baghdad University.
16. Husain Ali al-Jumaily: Lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Political Sciences. He was assassinated in Bagdad on 16 July. [Source: BRussells Tribunal's university Iraqi sources, January 17, 2009].
17. Khalid Hassan Mahdi Nasrullah: Lecturer and Secretary of the Faculty of Political Sciences, Baghdad University. After four days of been kidnapped in Baghdad, his body was found with signs of torture on Mars 27, 2007. [Source: BRussells Tribunal's university Iraqi sources, January 17, 2009].
18. Khalel Ismail Abd al-Dahri: PhD in physical education, lecturer at the College of Physical Education, Baghdad University. Date unknown.
19. Khalil Ismail al-Hadithi: Lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Political Sciences. He was assassinated in Amman [Jordan] on April 23, 2006. [Source: BRussells Tribunal's university Iraqi sources, January 17, 2009].
20. Kilan Mahmoud Ramez: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
21. Maha Abdel Kadira: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Humanities. Date unknown.
22. Majed Nasser Hussein al-Maamoori: Professor of veterinary medicine at Baghdad University's College of Veterinary Medicine. Assassinated February 17, 2007.
23. Marwan al-Raawi: PhD in engineering and lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
24. Marwan Galeb Mudhir al-Hetti: PhD in chemical engineering and lecturer at the School of Engineering, Baghdad University. Killed March 16, 2004.
25. Majeed Hussein Ali: PhD in physical sciences and lecturer at the College of Sciences, Baghdad University. Date unknown.
3
26. Mehned al-Dulaimi: PhD in mechanical engineering, lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
27. Mohammed Falah al-Dulaimi: PhD in physical sciences, lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
28. Mohammed Tuki Hussein al-Talakani: PhD in physical sciences, nuclear scientist since 1984, and lecturer at Baghdad University. Assassinated September 4, 2004.
29. Mohammed al-Kissi: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
30. Mohammed Abdallah al-Rawi: PhD in surgery, former president of Baghdad University, member of the Arab Council of Medicine and of the Iraqi Council of Medicine, president of the Iraqi Union of Doctors. Killed July 27, 2003.
31. Mohammed al-Jazairi: PhD in medicine and plastic surgeon, College of Medicine, Baghdad University. Assassinated 15 November 2005.
32. Mustafa al-Hity: PhD in medicine, pediatrician, College of Medicine, Baghdad University. Assassinated 14 November 2005.
33. Mustafa al-Mashadani: PhD in religious studies, lecturer in Baghdad University's College of Humanities. Date unknown.
34. Nafea Mahmmoud Jalaf: PhD in Arabic language, professor in Baghdad University's College of Humanities. Killed December 13, 2003.
35. Nawfal Ahmad: PhD, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Fine Arts. She was assassinated at the front door of her house on 25 December 2005.
36. Nazar Abdul Amir al-Ubaidy: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
37. Raad Shlash: PhD in biological sciences, head of Department of Biology at Baghdad University's College of Sciences. He was killed at the front door of his house on November 17, 2005.
38. Rafi Sarcisan Vancan: Bachelor of English language, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Women's Studies. Assassinated June 9, 2003.
39. Saadi Dagher Morab: PhD in fine arts, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Fine Arts. Killed July 23, 2004.
40. Sabri Mustafa al-Bayaty: PhD in geography, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Humanities. Killed June 13, 2004.
41. Saad Yassin al-Ansari: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University. He was killed in al-Saydiya neighborhood, Baghdad, 17 November 2005.
42. Wannas Abdulah al-Naddawi: PhD in education sciences, Baghdad University. Assassinated 18 February 2005.
43. Yassim al-Isawi: PhD in religious studies, Baghdad University's College of Arts. Assassinated 21 June 2005.
44. Zaki Jabar Laftah al-Saedi: Bachelor of veterinary medicine, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Veterinary Medicine. Assassinated October 16, 2004.
45. Basem al-Modarres: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Philosophy. [Source: al-Hayat, 28 February 2006].
46. Jasim Mohamed Achamri: Dean of College of Philosophy, Baghdad University. [Source: al-Hayat, 28 February 2006].
47. Hisham Charif: Head of Department of History and lecturer at Baghdad University. [Source: al-Hayat, 28 February 2006].
4
48. Qais Hussam al-Den Jumaa: Professor and Dean of College of Agriculture, Baghdad University. Killed 27 March 2006 by US soldiers in downtown Baghdad. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source].
49. Mohammed Yaakoub al-Abidi: Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
50. Abdelatif Attai: Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
51. Ali al-Maliki: Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
52. Nafia Aboud: Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi. Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
53. Abbas Kadem Alhachimi: Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
54. Mouloud Hasan Albardar Aturki: Lecturer in Hanafi Teology at al-Imam al-Aadam College of Theology, Baghdad University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
55. Riadh Abbas Saleh: Lecturer at Baghdad University's Centre for International Studies. Killed 11 May 2006. [Source: CEOSI university source, 17 May 2006].
56. Abbas al-Amery: Professor and head of Department of Administration and Business, College of Administration and Economy, Baghdad University. Killed together with his son and one of his relatives at the main entrance to the College 16 May 2006. [Source: CEOSI university source, May 17, 2006].
57. Muthana Harith Jasim: Lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Engineering. Killed near his home in al-Mansur, 13 June 2006. [Source: CEOSI university source, 13 June 2006].
58. Hani Aref al-Dulaimy: Lecturer in the Department of Computer Engineering, Baghdad University's College of Engineering. He was killed, together with three of his students, 13 June 2006 on campus. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source, 13 June 2006].
59. Hussain al-Sharifi: Professor of urinary surgery at Baghdad University's College of Medicine. Killed in May 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 12 June 2006].
60. Hadi Muhammad Abub al-Obaidi: Lecturer in the Department of Surgery, Baghdad University's College of Medicine. Killed 19 June 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source, 20 June 2006].
61. Hamza Shenian: Professor of veterinary surgery at Baghdad University's College of Veterinary Medicine. Killed by armed men in his garden in a Baghdad neighborhood 21 June 2006. This was the first known case of a professor executed in the victim's home. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 21 June 2006].
62. Jassim Mohama al-Eesaui: Professor at College of Political Sciences, Baghdad University, and editor of al-Syada newspaper. He was 61 years old when killed in al-Shuala, 22 June 2006. [Source: UNAMI report, 1 May-30 June 2006].
5
63. Shukir Mahmoud As-Salam: dental surgeon at al-Yamuk Hospital, Baghdad. Killed near his home by armed men 6 September 2006. [Source: TV news, As-Sharquia channel, 7 September 2006, and CEOSI Iraqi sources].
64. Mahdi Nuseif Jasim: Professor in the Department of Petroleum Engineering at Baghdad University. Killed 13 September 2006 near the university. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source].
65. Adil al-Mansuri: Maxillofacial surgeon and professor at the College of Medicine, Baghdad University. Kidnapped by uniformed men near Iban al-Nafis Hospital in Baghdad. He was found dead with torture signs and mutilation in Sadr City. He was killed during a wave of assassinations in which seven medical specialists were assassinated. Date unknown: July or August 2006 [Source: Iraqi health service sources, 24 September 2006].
66. Shukur Arsalan: Maxillofacial surgeon and professor at the College of Medicine, Baghdad University. Killed by armed men when leaving his clinic in Harziya neighborhood during a wave of assassinations in which seven specialists were assassinated. Date unknown: July or August 2006. [Source: Iraqi Health System sources, 24 September 2006].
67. Issam al-Rawi: Professor of geology at Baghdad University, president of the Association of University Professors of Iraq. Killed 30 October 2006 during an attack carried out by a group of armed men in which two more professors were seriously injured. [Sources: CEOSI sources, and Associated Press].
68. Yaqdan Sadun al-Dhalmi: Professor and lecturer in the College of Education, Baghdad University. Killed 16 October 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources].
69. Jlid Ibrahim Mousa: Professor and lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Medicine. Killed by a group of armed men in September 2006. During August and September 2006, 6 professors of medicine were assassinated in Baghdad. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources].
70. Mohammed Jassim al-Assadi: Professor and dean of the College of Administration and Economy, Baghdad University. Killed 2 November 2006 by a group of armed men when he was driving to Baghdad University. Their son was also killed in the attack. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources and Time Magazine, 2 October 2006].
71. Jassim al-Assadi's wife (name unknown): Lecturer at College of Administration and Economy, Baghdad University [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources and Time Magazine, 2 October 2006].
72. Mohammed Mehdi Saleh: Lecturer at Baghdad University (unknown position) and member of the Association of Muslim Scholars. Imam of Ahl al-Sufa Mosque in al-Shurta al-Jamisa neighborhood. Killed 14 November 2006 while driving in the neighborhood of al-Amal in central Baghdad. [Source: UMA, 14 November 2006].
73. Hedaib Majhol: Lecturer at College of Physical Education, Baghdad University, president of the Football University Club and member of the Iraqi Football Association. Kidnapped in Baghdad. His body was found three later in Baghdad morgue 3 December 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 2 December 2006].
74. Al-Hareth Abdul Hamid: Professor of psychiatric medicine and head of the Department of Psychology at Baghdad University. Former
6
president of the Society of Parapsychological Investigations of Iraq. A renowned scientist, Abdul Hamid was shot dead in the neighborhood of al-Mansur, Baghdad, 6 December 2006 by unknown men. [Sources: CEOSI Iraqi sources, 6 December 2006, and Reuters, 30 January 2007].
75. Anwar Abdul Hussain: Lecturer at the College of Odontology, Baghdad University. Killed in Haifa Street in Baghdad in the third week of January 2007. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 23 January 2007].
76. Majed Nasser Hussain: PhD and lecturer at the College of Veterinary Medicine, Baghdad University. He was killed in front of his wife and daughter while leaving home in the third week of January 2007. Nasser Hussain had been kidnapped two years before and freed after paying a ransom. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 23 January 2007].
77. Khaled al-Hassan: Professor and deputy dean of the College of Political Sciences, Baghdad University. Killed in March 2007. [Source: Association of University Lecturers of Iraq, 7 April 2007].
78. Ali Mohammed Hamza: Professor of Islamic Studies at Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. Killed 17 April 2007. [Sources: TV channels As-Sharquia and al-Jazeera].
79. Abdulwahab Majed: Lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Education. Department and college unknown. Killed 2 May 2007. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 5 May 2007].
80. Sabah al-Taei: Deputy Dean of the College of Education, Baghdad University. Killed 7 May 2007. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources. 8 May 2007].
81. Nihad Mohammed al-Rawi: Professor of Civil Engineering and deputy president of Baghdad University. Shot dead 26 June 2007 in al-Jadria Bridge, a few meters away from the university campus, when exiting with his daughter Rana, whom he protected from the shots with his body. [Sources: BRussells Tribunal and CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 26-27 June 2007].
82. Muhammad Kasem al-Jaboori: Lecturer at the College of Agriculture, Baghdad University. Killed, together with his son and his brother-in-law, by paramilitary forces 22 June 2007. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 27 June 2007].
83. Samir [surname unknown]: Lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Administration and Economy. His body was found shot one day after being kidnapped in Kut where he was visiting family. Professor Samir lived in the Baghdad district of al-Sidiya. [Source: Voices of Iraq, http://www.iraqslogger.com , 29 June 2007].
84. Amin Abdul Aziz Sarhan: Lecturer at Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. He was kidnapped from his home in Basra by unidentified armed men 13 October 2007 and found dead on the morning of 15 October. [Source: Voices of Iraq, 15 October 2007].
85. Mohammed Kadhem al-Atabi: Head of Baghdad University's Department of Planning and Evaluation. He was kidnapped 18 October 2007 from his home in Baghdad by a group of armed men and found dead a few hours later in the area of Ur, near to Sadr City, which is under the control of Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 26 October 2007].
7
86. Munther Murhej Radhi: Dean of the College of Odontology, Baghdad University. He was found dead in his car 23 January 2008. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 24 January 2008].
87. Mundir Marhach: Dean of Faculty of Stomatology, Baghdad University. According to information provided by the Centre for Human Rights of Baghdad, he was killed in March [exact day unknown]. [Source: al-Basrah reported 12 March 2008].
88. Abdul Sattar Jeid al-Dulaimy, a Microbiologist and lecturer in the College of Veterinary Medicine and in other institutions in the University. He was killed in November 2003 by three gunmen in front of his wife and his four children. His three assassins were waiting the family return to Baghdad after have been visiting his parents in al-Ramadi city, west Baghdad. His wife was also sot in her head, but she survived. His 14 year old eldest child died of a heart problem a year later. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source, 11 June 2008.]
*. Abdulkareem Shenein Mohammad: professor of Arabic Language in the College of Islamic Sciences, University of Baghdad, killed on 27 May 2010 by an assassin (an student, Baghdad police source informed) with a silencer gun in his personal office in the University. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source upon media reports, 27 May 2010.] [Subsequent reports confirm that Professor Abdulkareem Shenein Mohammad survived the attack.]
89. Mudhafar Mahmoud: associated professor in the Geology Department in the College of Science, University of Baghdad. Dr Mahmoud was assassinated on 28 November 2010 near his house in Baghdad. [Source: Iraqi source to BRussells Tribunal on 1st December, 2010.]
90. Ali Shalash: professor of Poultry Diseases in the College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Baghdad, killed by assassins who broke into his house in Al-Khadraa area in Baghdad on 17 February, 2011. [Source: Iraqi source to CEOSI on 18 February, 2011.] 91. Ahmed Shakir was a specialist in cardio-vascular diseases and professor at the Faculty of Medicine in the University of Baghdad. According to security reports, Dr. Shakir was killed when a bomb planted in his car exploded in Zaafaraniyya, south of Baghdad, last Monday 1 July 2013. The report released by UNESCO can be read here [Source: UNESCO, July 3, 2013].
Al-Maamoon Faculty [private college, Baghdad]
92. Mohammed al-Miyahi: Dean of al-Maamoun Faculty in Baghdad. He was shot with a silencer-equipped gun in front of his house in al-Qadisiah district, southern Baghdad, as he stepped out of his car 14 December 2007. [Source CEOSI Iraqi source and Kuwait News Agency, reported 19 December 2007, IPS reported 19 December 2007, and al-Basrah, reported 12 March 2008].
Al-Mustansiriya University (Baghdad)
8
93. Aalim Abdul Hameed: PhD in preventive medicine, specialist in depleted uranium effects in Basra, dean of the College of Medicine, al-Mustansiriya University. Date unknown.
94. Abdul Latif al-Mayah: PhD in economics, lecturer and head of Department of Research, al-Mustansiriya University. Killed January 9, 2004.
95. Aki Thakir Alaany: PhD and lecturer at the College of Literature, al-Mustansiriya University. Date unknown.
96. Falah al-Dulaimi: PhD, professor and deputy dean of al-Mustansiriya University's College of Sciences. Date unknown.
97. Falah Ali Hussein: PhD in physics, lecturer and deputy dean of the College of Sciences, al-Mustansiriya University, killed May 2005.
98. Musa Saloum Addas: PhD, lecturer and deputy dean of the College of Educational Sciences, al-Mustansiriya University, killed 27 May 2005.
99. Hussam al-Din Ahmad Mahmmoud: PhD in education
sciences, lecturer and dean at College of Education Sciences, al-Mustansiriya University. Date unknown.
100. Jasim Abdul Kareem: PhD and lecturer at the College of the Education, al-Mustansiriya University. Date unknown.
101. Abdul As Satar Sabar al-Khazraji: PhD in history, al-Mustansiriya University, killed 19 June 2005. [A same name and surname lecturer in Engineering at the College of Computer Science Technology, al-Nahrein University was assassinated in March 2006.]
102. Samir Yield Gerges: PhD and lecturer at the College of Administration and Economy at al-Mustansiriya University, killed 28 August 2005.
103. Jasim al-Fahaidawi: PhD and lecturer in Arabic literature at the College of Humanities, al-Mustansiriya University. Assassinated at the university entrance. [Source: BBC News, 15 November 2005].
104. Kadhim Talal Hussein: Deputy Dean of the College of Education, al-Mustansiriya University. Killed November 23, 2005.
105. Mohammed Nayeb al-Qissi: PhD in geography, lecturer at Department of Research, al-Mustansiriya University. Assassinated June 20, 2003.
106. Sabah Mahmoud al-Rubaie: PhD in geography, lecturer and dean at College of Educational Sciences, al-Mustansiriya University. Date unknown.
107. Ali Hasan Muhawish: Dean and lecturer at the College of Engineering, al-Mustansiriya University. Killed March 12, 2006. [Source: Middle East Online, 13 March 2006].
108. Imad Naser Alfuadi: Lecturer at the College of Political Sciences, al-Mustansiriya University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
109. Mohammed Ali Jawad Achami: President of the College of Law, al-Mustansiriya University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
110. Husam Karyakus Tomas: Lecturer at the College of Medicine, al-Mustansiriya University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
9
111. Basem Habib Salman: Lecturer at the College of Medicine at al-Mustansiriya University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
112. Mohammed Abdul Rahman al-Ani: PhD in engineering, lecturer at the College of Law, al-Mustansiriya University. Kidnapped, together with his friend Akrem Mehdi, 26 April 2006, at his home in Palestine Street, Baghdad. Their bodies were found two days later. [CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 5 May 2006].
113. Jasim Fiadh al-Shammari: Lecturer in psychology at the College of Arts, al-Mustansiriya Baghdad University. Killed near campus 23 May 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source, 30 May 2006].
114. Saad Mehdi Shalash: PhD in history and lecturer in history at the College of Arts, al-Mustansiriya University, and editor of the newspaper Raya al-Arab. Shot dead at his home with his wife 26 October 2006. [Source: al-Quds al-Arabi, 27 October 2006].
115. Kamal Nassir: Professor of history and lecturer at al-Mustansiriya and Bufa Universities. Killed at his home in Baghdad in October 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 2 November 2006].
116. Hasseb Aref al-Obaidi: Professor in the College of Political Sciences at al-Mustansiriya University. Since he was kidnapped 22 October 2006, his whereabouts is unknown. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources].
117. Najeeb [or Nadjat] al-Salihi: Lecturer in the College of Psychology at al-Mustansiriya University and head of the Scientific Committee of the Ministry of Higher Education of Iraq. Al-Salihi, 39 years old, was kidnapped close to campus and his body, shot dead, was found 20 days after his disappearance in Baghdad morgue. His family was able recover his body only after paying a significant amount of money, October 1, 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources].
118. Dhia al-Deen Mahdi Hussein: Professor of international criminal law at the College of Law, al-Mustansiriya University. Missing since kidnapped from his home in the Baghdad neighborhood of Dhia in 4 November 2006 by a group of armed men driving police cars. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 5 November 2006].
119. Muntather al-Hamdani: Deputy Dean of the College of Law, al-Mustansiriya University. He was assassinated, together with Ali Hassam, lecturer at the same college, 20 December 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 24 December 2006. The Iraqi police identified Ali Arnoosi as the deputy dean assassinated 21 December, and Mohammed Hamdani as another victim. It is unknown whether both [Muntather al-Hamdani and Mohammed Hamdani] are the same case or not].
120. Ali Hassam: Lecturer at the College of Law at al-Mustansiriya University. He was killed together with Muntather al-Hamdani, deputy dean of the college, 20 December 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 24 December 2006. The Iraqi police identified Ali Arnoosi as the deputy dean assassinated 21 December, and Mohammed Hamdani as another victim. It is unknown whether both [Muntather al-Hamdani and Mohammed Hamdani] are the same case or not.
121. Dhia al-Mguter: Professor of economy at the College of Administration and Economy of al-Mustansiriya University. He was killed
10
23 January 2007 in Baghdad while driving. He was a prominent economist and president of the Consumer's Defense Association and the Iraqi Association of Economists. A commentator at for As-Sharquia television, he participated in the Maram Committee, being responsible for investigating irregularities occurring during the elections held in January 2006. Al-Mguter was part of a family with a long anti-colonialist tradition since the British occupation. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and Az-Zaman newspaper, 24 January 2007].
122. Ridha Abdul al-Kuraishi: Deputy dean of the University of al-Mustansiriya's College of administration and economy. He was kidnapped 28 March 2007 and found dead the next day. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers, 7 April 2007. See the letter sent to CEOSI (Arabic)].
123. Zaid Abdulmonem Ali: professor at the Baghdad Cancer Research Center, institution associated to the Al-Mustansirya University in Baghdad. Dr. Abdulmomem Ali was killed in March 26, 2011 when an IED attached to his vehicle went off in al-Nusoor square, west of Baghdad. The explosion also left Ali's wife and two civilians others wounded. [Source: Aswat al-Iraq news agency, on March 26, 2011.]
124. Mohmamed Al-Alwan: Dean of the College of Medicine, Al-Mustansirya University in Baghdad. Dr Al-Alwan was assassinated in his clinic in Harithiyah, Baghdad, on April 29, 2011. He had been the Dean of Medical College for over 4 years. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, March 30, 2011 from Iraqi media and International Iraqi Medical Society.] 125. Naser Husein al Shahmani, professor at al-Mustansyria University was shot by some gunmen few days ago. They killed him on the spot. [Source: Ahmad al Farji's article (in Arabic), October 28, 2013.]
University of Technology [Baghdad]
126. Muhannad [or Mehned] al-Dulaimi: PhD in mechanical engineering, lecturer at the Baghdad University of Technology. Date unknown.
127. Muhey Hussein: PhD in aerodynamics, lecturer in the Department of Mechanical Engineering of the Baghdad University of Technology. Date unknown.
128. Qahtan Kadhim Hatim: Bachelor of sciences, lecturer in the College of Engineering of the Baghdad University of Technology. Assassinated May 30, 2004.
129. Sahira Mohammed Machhadani: Baghdad University of Technology. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers, March 2006].
130. Ahmed Ali Husein: Lecturer at the Baghdad University of Technology, specialist in applied mechanics. He was killed by a group of armed men in downtown Baghdad 22 May 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 24 May 2006].
131. Name unknown: Lecturer at Baghdad University of Technology. Killed 27 June 2006 by a group of armed men. They were driving a vehicle in the Baghdad neighborhood of al-Mansur and shot him without
11
stopping. Next day, students and professors staged demonstrations in all universities across the country opposing the assassination and kidnapping of professors and lecturers. [Source: al-Jazeera and Jordan Times, 27 June 2006].
132. Ali Kadhim Ali: Professor at Baghdad University of Technology. Shot dead in November 2006 in the district of al-Yarmuk by a group of armed men. His wife, Dr Baida Obeid -- gynecologist -- was also killed in the attack. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources, 16 November 2006].
133. Mayed Jasim al-Janabi: Lecturer in physics at Baghdad University of Technology. Killed 23 May 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, December 2006].
134. Khalel Enjad al-Jumaily: Lecturer at University of Technology. Department and college unknown. He was killed 22 December 2006 with his son, a physician, after being kidnapped. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 24 December 2006].
135. Abdul Sami al-Janabi: Deputy President of the Baghdad University of Technology. Missing after being kidnapped during the third week of January 2007. In 2004, Abdul Sami al-Janabi was dean of al-Mustansiriya University's College of Sciences in Baghdad. He resigned from this position after Shia paramilitary forces threatened to kill him. Such forces began then to occupy university centers in the capital. Transferred by the Ministry of Higher Education to a new position to preserve his security, Sami al-Janabi has almost certainly been assassinated. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 23 January 2007].
136. Ameer Mekki al-Zihairi: Lecturer at Baghdad University of Technology. He was killed in March 2007. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers, 7 April 2007. See pdf].
137. Saad Abd Alwahab Al-Shaaban: Former Dean of the College of Computer Engineering and Information Technology in the University of Technology. Killed on Thursday 14 October 2010 by plastic explosive implanted to his car in Adhamia district of Baghdad. Saad Abd Alwahab Al-Shaaban left Iraq in 2006 and returned back to Baghdad. He was lately working in the National Center for Computer Science, Ministry of Higher Education. (Source: [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources on Alane News Agency, , October 15, 2010.]
138. Saad Abdul Jabar: professor at the Technological University in Bagdad. Assassinated in Al-Siyada district, Southwest Baghdad, while driving his car by murderers using silenced guns on 26 February, 2011.[Source: Asuat Al-Iraq agency, 26 February, and Yaqen agency, February 27, 2010.]
Al-Nahrein University [Baghdad]
139. Akel Abdel Jabar al-Bahadili: Professor and deputy dean of al-Nahrein University's College of Medicine. Head of Adhamiya Hospital in Baghdad. He was a specialist in internal medicine, killed 2 December 2005.
140. Mohammed al-Khazairy: Lecturer at University College al-Kadhemiya Hospital, al- Nahrein University. He was a specialist in plastic surgery.
12
141. Laith Abdel Aziz: PhD and lecturer at the College of Sciences, al-Nahrein University. Date unknown. [Source: al-Hayat, 28 February 2006].
142. Abdul as-Satar Sabar al-Khazraji: Lecturer in engineering at the College of Computer Science Technology, al-Nahrein University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006]. [A same name and surname PhD in history, lecturer at Al-Munstansiriya University was killed on 19 June 2005.]
143. Uday al-Beiruti: Professor at al-Nahrein University. Kidnapped in University College al-Kadhemiya Hospital's parking lot by armed men dressed in Interior Ministry uniforms. His body was found with sigs of torture in Sadr City. Date unknown: July/August 2006. His murder took place during a wave of assassinations in which seven of his colleagues were killed. [Source: Iraqi health service sources, 24 September 2006].
144. Khalel al-Khumaili: Professor at the College of Medicine, al-Nahrein University. He was found shot dead in December 2006 [exact date unknown] after being kidnapped at University College al-Kadhemiya Hospital, together with his son, Dr Anas al-Jomaili, lecturer at the same college. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 24 December 2006].
145. Anas al-Jumaili: Lecturer at the College of Medicine, al-Nahrein University. He was found shot dead in December [exact date unknown] with his father, Dr Jalil al-Jumaili, professor of medicine, after being kidnapped at University College al-Kadhemiya Hospital. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 24 December 2006].
146. Adnan Mohammed Saleh al-Aabid: Lecturer at the College of Law, al-Nahrein University. He was found dead 31 January 2007 after having been kidnapped from his home 28 January 2007 together with lecturers Abdul Mutaleb Abdulrazak al-Hashimi and Aamer Kasem al-Kaisy, and a student. All were found dead in Baghdad morgue. [Sources: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and al-Quds al-Arabi, 1 February 2007].
147. Abdul Mutaleb Abdulrazak al-Hashimi: Lecturer at the College of Law, al-Nahrein University. He was found dead 31 January 2007 after having been kidnapped 28 January 2007 on his way home, together with lecturers Adnan Mohammed Saleh al-Aabid and Aamer Kasem al-Kaisy, and a student. All were found dead in Baghdad morgue. [Sources: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and al-Quds al-Arabi, 1 February 2007].
148. Aamer Kasem al-Kaisy: Lecturer at the College of Law, al-Nahrein University. He was found dead 31 January 2007 after having been kidnapped on his way home 28 January 2007, together with a student and lecturers Abdul Mutaleb Abdulrazak al-Hashimi and Adnan Mohammed Saleh al-Aabid. All were found dead in Baghdad morgue. [Sources: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and al-Quds al-Arabi, 1 February 2007].
149. Khaled al-Naieb: Lecturer in microbiology and deputy dean of al-Nahrein University's College of Higher Studies in Medicine. Killed 30 March 2007 at the main entrance to the college. Having been threatened by the Mahdi Army, Moqtada as-Sadr's militia, Dr al- Naieb had moved to work in Irbil. During a brief visit to his family in Baghdad, and after recently becoming a father, he was killed at the main entrance
13
to the college on his way to collect some documents. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 4 April 2007. Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report dated April 7, 2007. See pdf].
150. Sami Sitrak: Professor of English and dean of al-Nahrein University's College of Law. Professor Sitrak was killed 29 March 2007. He had been appointed dean of the College after the former dean's resignation following an attempt to kill him along with three other College lecturers. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers, April 7, 2007. See pdf].
151. Thair Ahmed Jebr: Lecturer in the Department of Physics, College of Sciences, al- Nahrein University. Jebr was killed in the attack against satellite TV channel al-Baghdadiya April 5, 2007. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers, April 7, 2007. See pdf].
152. Iyad Hamza: PhD in chemistry, Baghdad University. He was the academic assistant of the President of al-Nahrein University. On May 4, 2008 he was killed near his home in Baghdad. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi source, May 6, 2008].
153. Khamal Abu Muhie: Professor at the College of Medicine, al-Nahrein University. Killed on 22 November 2009 at his home in the neighborhood of Adamiya, Baghdad. [Source: Al-Sharquia TV, November 22, 2009].
Islamic University [Baghdad]
154. Haizem al-Azawi: Lecturer at Baghdad Islamic University. Department and college unknown. He was 35 years old and married and was killed 13 February 2006 by armed men when he arriving home in the neighborhood of Habibiya. [Source: Asia Times, March 3, 2006].
155. Saadi Ahmad Zidaan al-Fahdawi: PhD in Islamic science, lecturer at the College of Islamic Science, Baghdad University. Killed March 26, 2006.
156. Abdel Aziz al-Jazem: Lecturer in Islamic theology at the College of Islamic Science, Baghdad University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
157. Saad Jasim Mohammed: Lecturer at the Baghdad Islamic University. Department and college unknown. Killed, together with his brother Mohammed Jassim Mohammed, 11 May 2007 in the neighborhood of al-Mansur. The armed men who committed the crime where identified by the Association of Muslims Scholars as members of a death squad. [Sources: press release of the Association of Muslims Scholars, May 12, 2007, and CEOSI Iraqi University sources, May 13, 2007].
158. Qais Sabah al-Jabouri: Professor at the Baghdad Islamic University. Killed 7 June 2007 by a group of armed men who shot him from a car when he was leaving the university with the lecturers Alaa Jalel Essa and Saad Jalifa al-Ani, who were killed and seriously injured respectively. [Sources Association of Muslims Scholars press release, June 7, 2007, and CEOSI Iraqi university sources, June 9, 2007].
159. Alaa Jalel Essa: Professor at the Baghdad Islamic University. Killed 7 June 2007 by a group of armed men who shot him from a car when he was leaving the university with the lecturers Qais Sabah al-Jabouri and Saad Jalifa al-Ani, who were killed and seriously injured
14
respectively. [Sources: Association of Muslims Scholars press release, June 7, 2007, and CEOSI Iraqi university sources, June 9, 2007].
Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education [Baghdad]
Academics killed after a massive kidnapping occurred November 13, 2006:
160. Abdul Salam Suaidan al-Mashhadani: Lecturer in political sciences and head of the Scholarship section of the Ministry of Higher Education. He was kidnapped November13, 2006, in an assault on the Ministry. His body was found with signs of torture and mutilation 24 November 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, November 26, 2006.]
161. Abdul Hamed al-Hadizi: Professor [specialty unknown]. He was kidnapped on November 13, 2006 in an assault on the Ministry. His body was found with signs of torture and mutilation, 24 November 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, November 26, 2006].
162. Thamer Kamel Mohamed: Head of the Department of Human Right at the Ministry of Higher Education. Shot on 22 February 2010 on his way to work in one of main Baghdad streets [al-Qanat Street]. The assassins used silencers fitted in their guns. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, February 23, 2006 and Alernet].
Al-Mansour University [Baghdad]
163. Amal Maamlaji: IT professor at the al-Mansour University in Baghdad. She was born in Kerbala and got involved in human rights – particularly women's rights. She was shot dead in an ambush while driving her car [160 bullets were found in her car] according to her husband, Athir Haddad, to whom France24 interviewed by telephone. [Source: France24, July 4, 2008,].
Baghdad Institutes
164. Izi al-Deen al-Rawi: President of the Arabic University's Institute of Petroleum, Industry and Minerals. Al-Rawi was kidnapped and found dead November 20, 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, November 20, 2006].
BABYLON Hilla University
165. Khaled M al-Khanabi: PhD in Islamic history, lecturer in Hilla University's School of Humanities. Date unknown.
166. Mohsin Suleiman al-Ajeely: PhD in agronomy, lecturer in the College of Agronomy, Hilla University. Killed on December 24, 2005.
167. Fleih al-Gharbawi: Lecturer in the College of Medicine. Killed in Hilla [capital of the province of Babylon, 100 kilometers south of Baghdad] 20 November 2006 by armed men. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources, 20 November 2006].
168. Ali al-Grari [or Garar]. Professor at Hilla University. He was shot dead November 20, 2006 by armed men in a vehicle on the freeway
15
between Hilla and Baghdad. [Source: Iraqi police sources cited by Reuters, November 20, 2006].
AT-TAMIM Kirkuk University
169. Ahmed Ithaldin Yahya: Lecturer in the College of Engineering, Kirkuk University. Killed by a car bomb in the vicinity of his home in Kirkuk, February 16, 2007. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, February 17, 2007].
170. Hussein Qader Omar: professor and Dean of Kirkuk University's College of Education Sciences. Killed in November 20, 2006 by shots made from a vehicle in the city center. An accompanying colleague was injured. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, November 21, 2006, and Iraqi Police Sources cited by Reuters, November 20, 2006].
171. Sabri Abdul Jabar Mohammed: Lecturer at the College of Education Sciences at Kirkuk University. Found dead November 1, 2007 in a street in Kirkuk one day after being kidnapped by a group of unidentified armed men [Source: Iraqi university sources to the BRussells Tribunal and CEOSI, November 2, 2007].
172. Abdel Sattar Tahir Sharif: Lecturer at Kirkuk University. Department and college unknown. 75-years-old, he was assassinated March 5, 2008 by armed men in the district of Shoraw, 10 kilometers northeast of Kirkuk. [Source: Aswat al-Iraq/Voices of Iraq, 5 March 2008].
173. Ibrahim Shaeer Jabbar Al-Jumaili: Pediatrician and professor of Medicine at Kirkuk University. Dr. Ibrahim S.J. Al-Jumaili, 55 years old, was murdered July 22, 2011, after he resisted attempts by four people to kidnap him, police said. [Source: AFP, July 22, 2011]. 174. Amer al-Doury: Dr. Amer al-Douri was the Dean of the Administration and Economic College in Kirkuk. He was first handcuffed and then executed in Hawija at protesters site, when Maliki's SWAT Security Forces raided the peaceful protesting site and killed 86, injured hundreds, and arrested more on Tuesday April 23, 2013. [Source Al Sharquiya TV News 20].
NINEVEH
Mosul University
175. Abdel Jabar al-Naimi: Dean of Mosul University's College of Humanities. Date unknown.
176. Abdul Jabar Mustafa: PhD in political sciences, dean of Mosul University's College of Political Sciences. Date unknown.
177. Abdul Aziz El-Atrachi: PhD in Plant Protection in the College of Agronomy and Forestry, Mosul University. He was killed by a loose bullet shot by and American soldier. Date unknown.
178. Eman Abd-Almonaom Yunis: PhD in translation, lecturer in the College of Humanities, Mosul University. Killed August 30, 2004.
179. Khaled Faisal Hamed al-Sheekho: PhD and lecturer in the College of Physical Education, Mosul University. Killed April 11, 2003.
180. Leila [or Lyla] Abdu Allah al-Saad: PhD in law, dean of Mosul University's College of Law. Assassinated in June 22, 2004.
16
181. Mahfud al-Kazzaz: PhD and lecturer at University Mosul. Department and college unknown. Killed November 20, 2004.
182. Mohammed Yunis Thanoon: Bachelor of sciences, lecturer in the College of Physical Education, Mosul University. Killed January 27. 2004.
183. Muneer al-Khiero: PhD in law and lecturer in the College of Law, Mosul University. Married to Dr Leila Abdu Allah al-Saad, also assassinated. Date unknown.
184. Muwafek Yahya Hamdun: Deputy Dean and professor at the College of Agronomy, Mosul University. [Source: al-Hayat, February 28, 2006].
185. Omar Miran: Baghdad University bachelor of law [1946]. PhD in history from Paris University [1952], professor of history at Mosul University, specialist in history of the Middle East. Killed, along with his wife and three of his sons, by armed men in February 2006 [exact date unknown].
186. Naif Sultan Saleh: Lecturer at the Technical Institute, Mosul University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
187. Natek Sabri Hasan: Lecturer in the Department of Agricultural Mechanization and head of the College of Agronomy, Mosul University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
188. Noel Petros Shammas Matti: Lecturer at the College of Medicine, Mosul University. Married and father of two daughters, was kidnapped and found dead August 4, 2006.
189. Noel Butrus S. Mathew: PhD, professor at the Health Institute of Mosul University. Date unknown.
190. Ahmad Hamid al-Tai: Professor and head of Department of Medicine, Mosul University. Killed 20 November 2006 when armed men intercepted his vehicle as he was heading home. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, November 20, 2006].
191. Kamel Abdul Hussain: Lecturer and deputy dean of the College of Law, Mosul University. Killed in January 11, 2007. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 23 January 2007].
192. Talal Younis: Professor and dean of the College of Political Sciences. Killed on the morning of April 16, 2007 at the main entrance to the college. Within less than half an hour Professor Jaafer Hassan Sadeq of the Department of History at Mosul University was assassinated at his home. [Sources: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and al-Mosul].
193. Jaafer Hassan Sadeq: Professor in the Department of History of Mosul University's College of Arts. Killed April 16, 2007 at home in the district of al-Kafaaat, northwest of Mosul. Within less than half an hour, Professor Talal Younis, dean of Mosul University's College of Political Sciences, was killed at the main entrance to the college. [Sources: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and al-Mosul].
194. Ismail Taleb Ahmed: Lecturer in the College of Education, Mosul University. Killed 2 May 2007 while on his way to college. [Source: al-Mosul, May 2, 2007].
195. Nidal al-Asadi: Professor in the Computer Sciences Department of Mosul University's College of Sciences. Shot dead by armed men in the district of al-Muhandiseen, according to police sources in Mosul.
17
[Sources: INA, May 2, 2007, and Iraqi sources to the BRussells Tribunal, May 3, 2007].
196. Abdul Kader Ali Abdullah: Lecturer in the Department of Arabic, College of Education Sciences, Mosul University. Found dead 25/26 August 2007 after being kidnapped five days before by a group of armed men. [Source: Iraqi sources to the BRussells Tribunal and CEOSI August 26-27, 2007].
197. Unknown: Lecturer at Mosul University killed in the explosion of two car bombs near campus, October 1, 2007. In this attack, six other people were injured, among them four students. [Source: KUNA, October 1, 2007].
198. Aziz Suleiman: Lecturer at Mosul University. Department and College are unknown. Killed in Mosul January 22, 2008. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, January 24, 2008].
199. Jalil Ibrahim Ahmed al-Naimi: Director of the Sharia Department [Islamic Law] at Mosul University. He was shot dead by armed men when he came back home [in Mosul] from University, 30 January 2008. [Sources: CEOSI and BRussells Tribunal University Iraqi sources, Heytnet and al-Quds al-Arabi, January 31, 2008].
200. Faris Younis: Lecturer at Agriculture College, Mosul University. Dr. Younis was killed June 2, 2008 as a result of a car bomb put in his car. Different sources reported that dozens of academics and students from Mosul University were arrested by Badr militias and Kurd pershmergas. These facts occurred at the end of May, 2008, when the city was taken over by US occupation and Iraqi forces [Source: CEOSI University Iraqui sources, June 3, 2008].
201. Walid Saad Allah al-Mouli, a university professor [Department unknown] was shot down on Sunday 15 June 2008 by unknown gunmen while he was on his way to work in Mosul's northern neighborhood of al-Hadbaa, 405 Km northern Baghdad, killing him on the spot. In the attack, two of his sons were seriously wounded and are in a critical condition. [Source: Aswat al-Iraq-Voices of Iraq-[VOI], June 16, 2008].
202. Ahmed Murad Shehab: professor of Mosul University's Faculty of Administration and Economics. Ahmed Murad Shehab was fatally shot in the neighborhood of al-Nur, on Mosul's left bank. [Source: Press TV, 21 de abril de 2009].
203. Unidentified female university professor: The professor of law was assassinated in front of her home in the al-Intissar district of western Mosul by unknown gunmen on Tuesday, the local police said. They declined to give her name. [Source: PressTV, April 21, 2009].
204. Unknown: lecturer at Mosul University. On May 24, 2009, gunmen ambushed killed a university teacher near his home in Al Andalus neighborhood, Mosul. [Source: The New York Times May 24, 2009].
205. Ibrahem Al-Kasab: professor in the College of Education, Mosul University. Dr. Al-Kasab was shot dead on 4th October, 2010. Unknown gang assassinated him in his home at the eastren part of Mosul. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and Al-Sabah al-Yadid October 4, 2010].
206. Amer Selbi: professor at College of Islamic Science, Mosul University. Assassinated on his way to College by murderers using
18
silenced guns on 6th March 2011. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 10 March, 2011].
207. Yasser Ahmed Sheet: assistant Dean of the Fine Arts Faculty of the Mosul University. Gunmen opened fire on Yasser Ahmed Sheet in front of his house in al-Muthanna neighborhood, eastern Mosul, on April 9, 2011, a local security source told to Aswat al-Iraq news agency. [Source: Aswat al-Iraq news agency, on April 9, 2011.]
208. Mohammed Jasem al Jabouri: professor in the Faculty of Imam al-Adham, Mosul, province of Niniveh, was killed during the night last 2 July, 2012 by gunmen who shot him to death near his house. [Sources: Association of Muslim Scholars and Safaq News, 3 July, 2012]
QADISIYA
Diwaniya University
209. Hakim Malik al-Zayadi: PhD in Arabic philology, lecturer in Arabic literature at al-Qadisyia University. Dr al-Zayadi was born in Diwaniya, and was killed in Latifiya when he was traveling from Baghdad 24 July 2005].
210. Mayid Husein: Physician and lecturer at the College of Medicine, Diwaniya University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
211. Saleh Abed Hassoun: al-Qadisiyah University's Dean of the School of Law. Salih Abed Hassoun was shot dead by a group of armed men when driving his car in downtown Baghdad on 7 July 2008. [Source:McClatchy, 8 July 2008.]
BASRA
Basra University
212. Abdel al-Munim Abdel Mayad: Bachelor and lecturer at Basra University. Date unknown.
213. Abdel Gani Assaadun: Bachelor and lecturer at Basra University. Date unknown.
214. Abdul Alah [or Abdullah] al-Fadhel: PhD, professor and deputy dean of Basra University's College of Medicine. Killed January 1, 2006.
215. Abdul-Hussein Nasir Jalaf: PhD in agronomy, lecturer at the College of Agronomy's Center of Research on Date Palm Trees, Basra University. Killed May 1, 2005.
216. Alaa Daoud: PhD in sciences, professor and chairman of Basra University [also reported as a lecturer in history]. Killed 20 July 2005.
217. Ali Ghalib Abd Ali: Bachelor of sciences, assistant professor at the School of Engineering, Basra University. Killed April 12, 2004.
218. Asaad Salem Shrieda: PhD in engineering, professor and dean of Basra University's School of Engineering. Killed Octobre 15, 2003.
219. Faysal al-Assadi: PhD in agronomy, professor at the College of Agronomy, Basra University. Date unknown.
220. Ghassab Jabber Attar: Bachelor of sciences, lecturer at the School of Engineering, Basra University. Assassinated June 8, 2003.
19
221. Haidar al-Baaj: PhD in surgery, head of the University College Basra Hospital. Date unknown.
222. Haidar Taher: PhD and professor at the College of Medicine, Basra University. Date unknown.
223. Hussein Yasin: PhD in physics, lecturer in sciences at Basra University Killed 18 February 2004 at his home and in front of his family.
224. Khaled Shrieda: PhD in engineering, dean of the School of Engineering, Basra University. Date unknown.
225. Khamhour al-Zargani: PhD in history, head of the Department of History at the College of Education, Basra University Killed 19 August 2005.
226. Kadim Mashut Awad: visiting professor at the Department of Soils, College of Agriculture, Basra University. Killed December 2005 [exact date unknown].
227. Karem Hassani: PhD and lecturer at the College of Medicine, Basra University. Date unknown.
228. Kefaia Hussein Saleh: PhD in English philology, lecturer in the College of Education Sciences, Basra University. Assassinated May 28, 2004.
229. Mohammed al-Hakim: PhD in pharmacy, professor and dean of Basra University's College of Pharmacy. Date unknown.
230. Mohammed Yassem Badr: PhD, professor and chairman of Basra University. Date unknown.
231. Omar Fakhri: PhD and lecturer in biology at the College of Sciences, Basra University. Date unknown.
232. Saad Alrubaiee: PhD and lecturer in biology at the College of Sciences, Basra University. Date unknown.
233. Yaddab al-Hajjam: PhD in education sciences and lecturer at the College of Education Sciences, Basra University. Date unknown.
234. Zanubia Abdel Husein: PhD in veterinary medicine, lecturer at the College of Veterinary Medicine, Basra University. Date unknown.
235. Jalil Ibrahim Almachari: Lecturer at Basra University. Department and college unknown. Killed 20 March 2006 after criticizing in a public lecture the situation in Iraq. [Arabic Source: al-Kader].
236. Abdullah Hamed al-Fadel: PhD in medicine, lecturer in surgery and deputy dean of the College of Medicine at Basra University. Killed in January 2006 [exact date unknown]. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources].
237. Fuad al-Dajan: PhD in medicine, lecturer in gynecology at the College of Medicine, Basra University. Killed at the beginning of March 2006 [exact date unknown]. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources].
238. Saad al-Shahin: PhD in medicine, lecturer in internal medicine at Basra University's College of Medicine. Killed at the beginning of March 2006 [exact date unknown]. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources].
239. Jamhoor Karem Khammas: Lecturer at the College of Arts, Basra University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
240. Karem Mohsen: PhD and lecturer at Department of Agriculture, College of Agronomy, Basra University. Killed 10 April 2006. He worked in the field of honeybee production. Lecturers and students called for a
20
demonstration to protest for his assassination. [Source: al-Basrah, April 11, 2006].
241. Waled Kamel: Lecturer at the College of Arts at Basra University. Killed 8 May 2006. Other two lecturers were injured during the attack, one of them seriously. [Source: al-Quds al-Arabi, May 9, 2006].
242. Ahmad Abdul Kader Abdullah: Lecturer in the College of Sciences, Basra University. His body was found June 9, 2006. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, June 10, 2006].
243. Kasem Yusuf Yakub: Head of Department of Mechanical Engineering, Basra University. Killed 13 June 2006 at the university gate. [Sources: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 14 June 2006 and al-Quds al-Arabi, June 16, 2006].
244. Ahmad Abdul Wadir Abdullah: Professor of the College of Chemistry, Basra University. Killed 10 June 2006. [Source: UNAMI report, May1 – June 30, 2006].
245. Kathum Mashhout: Lecturer in edaphology at the College of Agriculture, Basra University. Killed in Basra in December 2006 [exact date unknown]. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 12 December 2006].
246. Mohammed Aziz Alwan: Lecturer in artistic design at the College of Fine Arts, Basra University. Killed by armed men 26 May 2007 while walking in the city. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, June 1, 2007].
247. Firas Abdul Zahra: Lecturer at the College of Physical Education, Basra University. Killed at home by armed men July18, 2007. His wife was injured in the attack. [Source: Iraqi university sources to the BRussells Tribunal, August 26, 2007].
248. Muayad Ahmad Jalaf: Lecturer at the College of Arts, Basra University. Kidnapped 10 September 2007 by a group of armed men that was driving three cars, one of them with a government license plate. He was found dead in a city suburb the next day. [Source: Iraqi university sources to the BRussells Tribunal, September 12, 2007].
249. Khaled Naser al-Miyahi: PhD in medicine, Professor of neurosurgery at Basra University. He was assassinated in March 2008 [exact date unknown]. His body was found after his being kidnapped by a group of armed men in the streets of Basra. There were no ransom demands, according to information provided by Baghdad's Center for Human Rights.[Source: al-Basrah, March 12, 2008].
250. Youssef Salman: PhD engineering professor at Basra University. He was shot dead in 2006 when driving home from the University with three other colleagues, who were spared, according to the information provided by her widow to France24, in an phone interview [Source: France24, July 4, 2008].
Technical Institute of Basra
251. Mohammed Kasem: PhD in engineering, lecturer at the Technical Institute of Basra. Killed on January 1, 2004.
252. Sabah Hachim Yaber: Lecturer at the Technical Institute of Basra. Date unknown.
21
253. Salah Abdelaziz Hashim: PhD and lecturer in fine arts at the Technical Institute of Basra. Kidnapped in 4 April 2006. He was found shot dead the next day. According to other sources, Dr Hashim was machine-gunned from a vehicle, injuring also a number of students. [Sources: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, April 6, 2006, Az-Zaman, April 6, 2006, and al-Quds al-Arabi, April 7, 2006].
TIKRIT
Tikrit University
254. Basem al-Mudares: PhD in chemical sciences and lecturer in the College of Sciences, Tikrit University. His body was found mutilated in the city of Samarra 21 July 2004.
255. Fathal Mosa Hussein Al Akili: PhD and professor at the College of Physical Education, Tikrit University. Assassinated June 27, 2004.
256. Mahmoud Ibrahim Hussein: PhD in biological sciences and lecturer at the College of Education Sciences, Tikrit University. Killed September 3, 2004.
257. Madloul Albazi Tikrit University. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
258. Mojbil Achaij Issa al-Jabouri: Lecturer in international law at the College of Law, Tikrit University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
259. Damin Husein al-Abidi: Lecturer in international law at College of Law, Tikrit University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
260. Harit Abdel Yabar As Samrai: PhD student at the College of Engineering, Tikrit University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
261. Farhan Mahmud: Lecturer at the College of Theology, Tikrit University. Disappeared after being kidnapped 24 November 2006. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, November 26, 2006].
262. Mustafa Khudhr Qasim: Professor at Tikrit University. Department and college unknown. His body was found beheaded in al-Mulawatha, eastern Mosul, 21 November 2007. [Sources: al-Mosul, November 22, 2007, and Iraqi university sources to the BRussells Tribunal and CEOSI, November 22-25, 2007].
263. Taha AbdulRazak al-Ani: PhD in Islamic Studies, he was professor at Tikrit University. His body was found shot dead in a car on a highway near al-Adel, a Baghdad suburb. Also, the body of Sheikh Mahmoud Talb Latif al-Jumaily, member of the Commission of Muslim Scientists, was found dead in the same car last Thursday afternoon, May 15, 2008. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources May 21, 2008].
264. Aiad Ibrahem Mohamed Al-Jebory: Neurosurgeon specialist at the College of Medicine in Tikrit University. Picked up with his brother by military raid on his village in Al Haweja on the night of 6th March 2011. His body was delivered the following day to Tikrit Hospital. His brother fate is unknown. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, March 10, 2011].
DIYALAH
22
Baquba University
265. Taleb Ibrahim al-Daher: PhD in physical sciences, professor and dean at the College of Sciences, Baquba University. Killed December 21, 2004.
266. Lez Mecchan: Professor at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed 19 April 2006 with his wife and another colleague. [Sources: DPC and EFE, 19 April 2006].
267. Mis Mecchan: Lecturer at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Wife of Professor Lez Mecchan, also assassinated. Both were killed with another colleague 19 April 2006. [Sources: DPC and EFE, 19 April 2006].
268. Salam Ali Husein: Taught at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed 19 April 2006 with two other colleagues. [Sources: DPC and EFE, 19 April 2006].
269. Meshhin Hardan Madhlom al-Dulaimi: Professor at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed at the end of April, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 10 May 2006].
270. Abdul Salam Ali al-Mehdawi: Professor at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed at the end of April, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 10 May 2006].
271. Mais Ganem Mahmoud: Lecturer at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed at the end of April, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 10 May 2006].
272. Satar Jabar Akool: Lecturer at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed at the end of April, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 10 May 2006].
273. Mohammed Abdual Redah al-Tamemmi: Lecturer in the Department of Arabic Language and head of the College of Education, Baquba University. Killed 19 August 2006 together with Professor Kreem Slman al-Hamed al-Sadey, 70 years old, of the same Department. A third lecturer from the same department escaped the attack carried out by a group of four armed men Students and lecturers demonstrated against his and other lecturers' deaths. [Source: World Socialist, 12 September 2006, citing the Iraqi newspaper Az-Zaman, CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 25 December 2006].
274. Karim al-Saadi: Lecturer at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed August 2006. Students and lecturers demonstrated against his and other lecturers' deaths. [Source: World Socialist, 12 September 2006, citing the Iraqi newspaper Az-Zaman].
275. Kreem Slman al-Hamed al-Sadey: Professor in the Department of Arabic Language at the College of Education, Baquba University. He was 70 years old when killed 19 August 2006. In the attack Mohammed Abdual Redah al-Tamemmi, head of Education Department was also killed. A third lecturer from the same department escaped the attack of a group of four armed men. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 25 December 2006].
23
276. Hasan Ahmad: Lecturer in the College of Education, Baquba University. Killed December 8, 2006. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, December 2006].
277. Ahmed Mehawish Hasan: Lecturer in the Department of Arabic at the College of Education, Baquba University. Killed in December [exact date unknown]. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 25 December 2006].
278. Walhan Hamid Fares al-Rubai: Dean of the College of Physical Education, Baquba University. Al-Rubai was shot by a group of armed men in his office 1 February 2007. According to some sources his son was also killed. [Source: Reuters and Islammemo, 1-3 February 2007 respectively, and CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 2 February 2007].
279. Abdul Ghabur al-Qasi: Lecturer in history at Baquba University. His body was found by the police 10 April 2007 in Diyalah River, which crosses the city, with 31 other bodies of kidnapped people. [Source: Az-Zaman, 11 April 2007].
280. Jamal Mustafa: Professor and head of the History Department, College of Education Sciences, Baquba University. Kidnapped at home in the city of Baquba 29 October 2007 by a group of armed men driving in three vehicles. [Source: Iraqi university sources to the BRussells Tribunal, 30 October 2007].
281. Ismail Khalil Al-Mahdawi: professor at Al-Assmai Faculty of Education, Diyalah University. Died after serious injuries sustained due to exposure to fire arms equipped with silencers on 4 June, 2011, while he was on his way back home in Katoun area, western Baquba (Diyalah Governorate) according to a security sources. Dr. Al-Mahdawi was released two months ago after five-year detention at the US forces in Iraq. He was rushed to Baquba General Hospital. [Sources: Baghdad TV; Aswat Al-Iraq, College of Education Al-Assmai, Al-Forat TV, on June 4 & 5, 2011.]
282. Abbas Fadhil al-Dulaimi: Pressident of Diyalah University has been injured when targeted by a landmine near an intersection of roads and bridges in Bakoabah, Diyalah, on Tursday, January 13, 2013. The explosion killed two and wounded three of his security and body guards [Source: CEOSI's Iraqi sources]
AL-ANBAR
Ramadi University
283. Abdel Karim Mejlef Saleh: PhD in philology, lecturer at the College of Education Sciences, al-Anbar University.
284. Abdel Majed Hamed al-Karboli: Lecturer at Ramadi University. Killed December 2005 [exact date unknown].
285. Ahmad Abdl Hadi al-Rawi: PhD in biology, professor in the School of Agronomy, al- Anbar University. Date unknown.
286. Ahmad Abdul Alrahman Hameid al-Khbissy: PhD in Medicine, Professor of College of Medicine, al-Anbar University. Date unknown.
287. Ahmed Abbas al-Weis: professor at Ramadi University, al-Anbar. The attackers were dressed in military outfit when they shot the professor near his home in al- Zeidan district on August 25, 2009. [Source: Khaleej Times Online, 25 August 2009].
24
288. Ahmed Saadi Zaidan: PhD in education sciences, Ramadi University. Killed February 2005 [exact date unknown].
289. Hamed Faisal Antar: Lecturer in the College of Law, Ramadi University. Killed December 2005 [exact date unknown].
290. Naser Abdel Karem Mejlef al-Dulaimi: Department of Physics, College of Education, Ramadi University. Killed December 2005 [exact date unknown].
291. Raad Okhssin al-Binow: PhD in surgery, lecturer at the College of Medicine, al-Anbar University. Date unknown.
292. Shakir Mahmmoud Jasim: PhD in agronomy, lecturer in the School of Agronomy, al- Anbar University. Date unknown.
293. Nabil Hujazi: Lecturer at the College of Medicine, Ramadi University. Killed in June 2006 [exact date unknown]. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 20 June 2006, confirmed by Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education].
294. Nasar al-Fahdawi: Lecturer at Ramadi University. Department and college unknown. Killed 16 January 2006. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, December 2006].
295. Khaled Jubair al-Dulaimi: Lecturer at the College of Engineering, Ramadi University. Killed 27 April 2007. [Source: Iraqi sources to the BRussells Tribunal, 3 May 2007].
Fallujah University
296. Saad al-Mashhadani: University professor in Fallujah [Unknown Department]. Saad al-Mashhadani was critically wounded on 26 December, 2009 in an attack that killed his brother and wounded two of his security guards. [Source: The Washington Post, December 27, 2009].
297. Khalil Khalaf Jassim: Dean of Business and Economics College in Anbar University was assassinated in an armed attack last May 4, in al-Nazizah area, central Fallujah, according to a police source in Anbar province. Unidentified gunmen attacked his car, killing him on the spot Security forces cordoned off the crime scene and began an inspection in searching of militants, while the body was transferred to the Forensic Medicine Department. [Source, Shafaq News, May 4, 2013]
NAJAF
Kufa University
298. Khawla Mohammed Taqi Zwain: PhD in medicine, lecturer at College of Medicine, Kufa University. Killed May 12, 2006.
299. Shahlaa al-Nasrawi: Lecturer in the College of Law, Kufa University. Assassinated 22 August 2007 by members of a sectarian militia. [Source: CEOSI University Iraqi sources, 27 August 2007].
300. Adel Abdul Hadi: Professor of philosophy, Kufa University's College of Arts. Killed by a group of armed men 28 October 2007 when returning home from university. [Source: Iraqi University sources to the BRussells Tribunal, October 30, 2007].
SALAH AL-DEEN
University of Salah al-Deen
25
301. Sabah Bahaa Al-Deen: Dr. Sabah is a faculty member at Salah Aldeen University's College of Agriculture. He was killed by a car bomb stuck on his car last Wednesday Dec 12 when he was leaving the College. (Source: Aswat Al- Iraq).
KARBALA
University of Karbala
302. Kasem Mohammed Ad Dayni: Lecturer in the Department of Psychology, College of Pedagogy, Karbala University. Killed April 17, 2006. [Source: http://www.albadeeliraq.com] .
OPEN UNIVERSITY
303. Kareem Ahmed al-Timmi: Head of the Department of Arabic Language in the College of Education at the Open University. Killed in Baghdad, February 22, 2007.
COMMISSION OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
[CTE is an academic body that belongs to the Higher Education Ministry. Its headquarters are located in al-Mansur, Baghdad neighborhood. Almost twenty Technical Superior Institutes, booth from the capital and Central and Southern provinces, are dependent on this body].
304. Aamir Ibrahim Hamza: Bachelor in electronic engineering, lecturer at the Technical Institute. Killed August 17, 2004.
305. Mohammed Abd al-Hussein Wahed: PhD in tourism, lecturer at the Institute of Administration. Assassinated January 9, 2004.
306. Mohammed Saleh Mahdi: Bachelor in sciences, lecturer at the Cancer Research Centre. Killed November 2005.
INSTITUTIONAL POSITIONS
307. Emad Sarsam: PhD in surgery and member of the Arab Council of Medicine. Date unknown.
308. Faiz Ghani Aziz: PhD in agronomy, director general of the Iraqi Company of Vegetable Oil. Killed September 2003.
309. Isam Said Abd al-Halim: Geologic consultant at the Ministry of Construction. Date unknown.
310. Kamal al-Jarrah: Degree in English philology, researcher and writer and director general at the Ministry of Education. Date unknown.
311. Raad Abdul-Latif al-Saadi: PhD in Arabic language, consultant in higher education and scientific research at the Ministry of Education. Killed April 28, 2005.
312. Shakier al-Khafayi: PhD in administration, head of the Department of Normalization and Quality at the Iraq Council. Date unknown.
313. Wajeeh Mahjoub: PhD in physical education, director general of physical education at the Ministry of Education. Killed Abril 9, 2003.
314. Wissam al-Hashimi: PhD in petrogeology, president of the Arab Union of Geologists, expert in Iraqi reservoirs, he worked for the Iraqi Ministry of Petroleum. Assassinated August 24, 2005.
26
UNIVERSITY AFFILIATION UNKNOWN
315. Amir Mizhir al-Dayni: Professor of telecommunication engineering. Date unknown.
316. Khaled Ibrahim Said: PhD in physics. Date unknown.
317. Mohammed al-Adramli: PhD in chemical sciences. Date unknown.
318. Mohammed Munim al-Izmerly: PhD in chemical sciences. He was tortured and killed by US troops. His body was sent to the Baghdad morgue. The cause of death was initially registered as ―brainstem compression‖. Date unknown.
319. Nafi [or Nafia] Aboud: Professor of Arabic literature. Date unknown.
320. Ali Zedan Al-Saigh: PhD in Medicine and lecturer on Oncological Surgery (unknown university). Ali Zedan Al-Saigh was assassinated at Al-Harthia district (Bagdad) on June 29, 2010 after returning recently to Iraq. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source, June 30, 2010]
321. Adnan Meki: Specialty and University unknown. According to police sources, his corpse was found on July 13, 2010 with signals of stabbing at his home in Al-Qaddisiya neighborhood, western Baghdad. [Source: Al-Rafadan website, July14, 2010].
322. Unknown Identity: Specialty and University unknown. On July 14, 2010, unidentified gunmen riding in a car shot a university professor dead as he was leaving his home in the University District, West Baghdad, according to the report of an official security source. [Source: AKnews, July 14, 2010].
323. Mohamed Ali El-Din (Al-Diin) Al-Heeti: Professor in Pharmacy, unknown University. Mohamed Ali El-Din Al-Heeti was killed the afternoon of the 14th August, 2010 in the area of Al-Numaniya (north of Al-Wasat governorate) in an attack by unknown armed men. The professor came back to Iraq a few months ago to Iraq after a period of studies in George Washington University in the USA. [Source: Association of Muslim Scholars, 15 August, 2010.]
OTHER CASES
324. Khalel al-Zahawi [or Khalil al-Zahawi]: Born in 1946, al-Zahawi was considered the most important calligraphist in Iraq and among the most important in the Arab-Muslim world. He worked as a lecturer in calligraphy in several Arab countries during the 1990s. He was killed 19 May 2007 in Baghdad by a group of armed men. He was buried in Diyalah, where he was born. [Source: BBC News, 22 May 2007. His biography is available on Wikipedia].

Kratoklastes , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:06 am GMT
@Rich

Some might argue that the Iranians drew first blood when the present group of radical medievalists overthrew the Shah and then seized the US embassy in 1979 or a whole load of other attacks by Iranians and their proxies.

Some might argue that the overthrow of the Shah was simply the unseating of a brutal US-imposed tyrant whose regime was about as merciless as that of Pinochet, the Sauds, or any of the other despots that the US has installed and supported over the years.

The difference between my 'some' and your 'some' is that mine would be closer to the truth.

If the Chinese imposed a brutal and oppressive puppet regime on Australia, I would go so far as to support the whackballs from the Westboro Baptists if they were the group capable of overthrowing the puppet regime.

If you wouldn't do the same for your own neck of the woods, I am sure that there is as perfectly good explanation.

The US does have a puppet regime (albeit one that doesn't register on the brutality scale yet) it's not Chinese, of course.

Not Raul , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:20 am GMT
@Herald How much are the Saudis paying you, cuck?
Not Raul , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:21 am GMT
@Franklin Ryckaert How so? Do you think that the Saudis and their friends would never use terrorists to attack us?
Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:23 am GMT
@Rich 'Well, yes, every member of every military is a legitimate target. Especially a general. If it sounds logical to you, that's because not only is it logical, it's common sense '

That's why we were cool with Pearl Harbor. Just military personnel. No harm, no foul.

Not Raul , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:24 am GMT
@bluedog They used to test nukes in Nevada. Did the fallout kill millions of people thousands of miles away?
ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:24 am GMT
So America, how does it feel to be the world's assassin? Gives the "War on Terror" a whole new meaning, doesn't it? At least you have one last true friend, a great "Haver," who will watch your back.
Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:26 am GMT
@Rich ' Read the Koran first, before you throw your support behind these jihadists .'

We all know perfectly well you haven't read it yourself.

Reading snippets taken out of context on Islamophobic sites is not 'reading the Quran.'

BeenThereDunnit , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:47 am GMT
@Alfred This assessment of Trump's has been around for a while but how, specifically, would the US ever be made to leave Iraq and Syria? The only theoretical possibility would consist of a combined effort of the Iraqi government and people directed against the occupation force in that country. That would probably have to play out as a popular uprising against the Americans. But what if American troops, cheered on by Zionist circles back in the US, started to kill large numbers of Iraqis indiscriminately? Would the Iraqis have the stomach for that? And how could Trump declare victory and leave Iraq under such circumstances?

At the time of this writing, we have already seen the second round of killings of high-ranking Iranian and Iraqi commanders in Iraq, all of them Shiah. If the Shiah are said to be calculating, then these Shiah commanders have not been calculating this time, serving themselves on a platter to the Americans. The remaining commanders will have to wise up to the new reality quickly and switch over to full Hezbollah mode if they do not want to be wiped out altogether.

Aspects of the attack against the Aramco facility point to it having been an Israeli false flag at least in part. Pictures showed several dome-shaped oil tanks, all of them having a big, circular hole punched into them at zero deflection and precisely the same steep angle from precisely the same direction. This kind of damage cannot be achieved using GPS guided drones. Either the Iranians possess an unknown stealth capability, in which case the military equation in the Middle East changes drastically, or a false flag is left as the only remaining possibility. Israel would be the most likely culprit for that; the objective consists of duping Trump into war against Iran.

So, Trump may have been led to believe that Iran carried out the attack against the Aramco facility. Then somebody suggested to him to kill the Iranian general and several other Iranians partly as an act of revenge. Several Iraqi commanders also get slaughtered. Iraqi popular unrest boils over at the same time as more American troops are poured into the country, a massacre of Iraqi Shiah ensues and Iran is forced to react. That may be the calculation behind it all. The threat of impeachment and subsequent imprisonment does the rest to gird Trump along.

Right now, there are severe strains on the financial system with the Fed bailing out the repo market and also monetizing US debt at nearly 100%. The US is down to pure money printing; this mode of operation cannot go on for long before the whole house of card comes crashing down. The powers that be may be reckoning that the time for war against Iran is now or never.

So, the best course of action that heartland (Iran, Russia, China) may take may be to wait it out by doing as little as possible.

ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:10 am GMT
@MEexpert He knows what he is talking about. He is just not very good at it.
ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:26 am GMT
@Tulip It is not what "Trump wants."
Sean , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:46 am GMT
@Maiasta It remains to be seen if America will actually suffer a level of retaliation for the assassination that will surprise them. So far I think evidence suggests the miscalculation was Soleimani's. His Sept 2019 drone attacks on the main Saudi oil facilities were deliberately not very destructive, being intended as indication of what Iran can do, but America will not permit anyone to be a threat hanging over Saudi Arabia.

The Wikileaks cables show that US diplomats thought Soleimani was behind or at least supplying lethal assistance to attacks on US forces, and were willing to quietly negotiate with him. None of those putative hundreds of American deaths mattered all that much in the grand scheme of things. Masterminding the drone attack on Saudi oil was completely different, that was what made him a marked man.

Passer by , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:52 am GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso https://www.albawaba.com/news/remembering-when-us-simulated-war-game-against-iran-1288001
ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 8:05 am GMT
@Alfred Did you say there are credible rumors that Iran brought down PanAm 103 and Israel made it look like Libya in order to throw off suspicions from Iran? And, you say, the proof is that "Since PA103, no Iranian civilian aircraft of any sort has been attacked or threatened by the USA or any other country?" Are you some kind of Intelligence Analyst? This is deep. Or are you really saying there are credible rumors that Israel brought down PanAm 103 and made it look like Libya? Which, of course, is not so deep. And the proof is that
anno nimus , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 8:08 am GMT
Andrei, if as you say the Persians have imagination, why not imagine making peace with Israel? you also quoted before that politics is art of possible. well and good, peace is possible if there is realization and imagination that Israel is really not going anywhere. an eye for eye will make everyone blind. gandi?
btw, with all the mahdi stuff going on, how much rational are the Persian leaders?
what say the cyber warriors and armchair generals on drone warfare? is it ethical? moral? right? just? necessary? sane?
Alfred , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:03 am GMT
@nokangaroos Mohammed Reza Shah (installed by coup in 1941 because his daddy, an old-school Kurdish brigand

Actually, the father, Reza Shah was not a Kurd at all. His family was Persian from Mazandaran. He was in the Persian Cossack Brigade.

Reza Shah

Biff , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:06 am GMT
@Colin Wright

We all know perfectly well you haven't read it yourself.

Maybe we can start a go-fund-me page for Rich, and it can pay for his Koranic education, and then he can be shipped over to Tehran to tell them just how wrong they are – in his own kind of way. I'm sure they'll listen, and drop everything to worship at the holy altar of ((Rich)) . And then he can reply back with a big fat "I told you so!" .

Commentator Mike , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:16 am GMT
@Kratoklastes As if Afghanistan isn't inhospitable mountainous terrain? So somehow Iran's topography is worse is it? They invaded Afghanistan without even controlling any neighbouring countries. Now that they have already invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in preparation for the war on Iran, they could well roll in after a thorough aerial pounding. So if they suffer great losses so what? Did they ever care about their own soldiers or citizens that much anyway? If there's loot to be had they'll go for it.
Robert Magill , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:18 am GMT
This incident had one goal in mind and it was successful: Raising the price of crude by stirring up the Mid East. Raising the oil price will raise the US stock market and re-elect Trump. Expect more of the same prior to this year's elections. Same old, same old; people die, people win elections. Obama showed the way.
Astraea , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:31 am GMT
@Tulip Poor Melania!
9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:51 am GMT
"Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo belong to a doomsday cult and may be trying to bring on the Apocalypse " richardawkins.net
"Brought to Jesus the evangelical grip on the Trump administration" theguardian.com
It's scary that a lobbyist for a major arms manufacturer and a true believer in the Apocalypse are both advising a psychopath on US military action in the Middle East .
Robjil , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:04 pm GMT
@Adrian Yes, Wesley Clark spilled the beans. Seven nations to destroy is how the first Israel was formed.

Wesley said the nations that would be destroyed:

Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Iran.

Wesley says this is for nine eleven (false flag).

He said it would take 5 years to do so. 5 years was a guess since within 5 years is all it took to do WWI and WWII.

Iran is the only nation of the seven mentioned that has not been messed up by ZUS, its friends and its best friend Israel.

Nine eleven combo is a Kabbala theme. Nine is one less and eleven is one more than the Tree of Life number ten of Yahweh. Thus, this combo represents chaos and destruction.

The 911 number was created in 1968. WTC was being built around that time.

Nine Eleven date in the Jewish calendar is 12.23. 5761. Notice the 12th Jewish month of Elul and the 23th day of that month. The first Zion century began with the FED on 12. 23. 1913 of the Christian Calendar. This second Zion Century began on 12.23 on the Jewish Calendar.

12.23 in the Jewish Calendar is the date of the second dove coming back to Noah with an olive branch.

12.25 two days later is the date of the when God (Yahweh) created the world. Six days later man was created by Yahweh. That is the day of the Jewish New Year which celebrates Yahweh's creation of man. Thus, the 6 million game comes from that. 6 represents man.

On 12.25. 5761 ( 9.13.2001) all the planes were "allowed" to fly again in the US. It was a creation of "new" world after the end of the "flood of fear" like Yahweh did on that day in the Tanakh.

The games that our rulers play are sick.

9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:29 pm GMT
@BeenThereDunnit Beware the false flag attack , if American servicemen or citizens get killed by "Iranians",it won't take much to get the public behind a "decisive " attack on Iran , the objective would not be to defeat them but to create another failed state for the benefit of Israel , we are good at that, just look at Syria , Yemen, Libya , Afghanistan and Iraq .
"Israel made attack on Saudi oil fields" streetwisereports.com
ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:34 pm GMT
@Not Raul Maybe not millions, but certainly thousands. Slowly. Don't you read the news?
Robjil , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:50 pm GMT
@Castellio Knowledge is power.

ZUS empire and its master Israel are into killing off the best goyim.

I noticed this in Donbass. Any leader with charisma is "assassinated".

Donbass leaders or rebels have not put any figure head to show off after this.

ZUS controlled Ukraine does the same thing to its out of box thinkers or politicians.

In the ZUS homeland, JFK, MLK, RJK, JFK Jr., Malcolm X are some of the most famous cut down for the ZUS empire and its best buddy Israel.

Any dissent of the ZUS empire is banished by our "free" press media such as Youtube, Amazon, Twitter and so on.

The best of the goyim are cut down with no voice by banning or assassination.

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:54 pm GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso Even if you are correct that Iranians do not have the capacity to defend themselves from the zionized US military (armed on the Fed Reserve banksters' money), the ongoing war in the Middle East will be more devastating for the US (and the EU) than for the natives who try to defend their families and their culture. The moral death of the US is within reach.

Who has been guiding the US policies while using the US might? -- Banksters, MIC and zionists. American veterans of the Wars for Israel in the Middle East suicide themselves every single day. https://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/docs/data-sheets/2019/2019_National_Veteran_Suicide_Prevention_Annual_Report_508.pdf

The Jewish State has been running the famous Milgram experiment (dubbed "Nazi experiment") on Palestinians for 70 years. https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
Whereas the Milgram experiment was terminated (due to its ugliness) in the US, the Milgram experiment has been at the heart of Israel for 70 years. They, Israelis, have managed to create a new kind of people -- the amoral hypocrites. Or perhaps, the ongoing Milgram study in Israel has exposed the true nature of Talmudism ("is this good for Jews?" -- then everything goes).

The Jewish Bolsheviks have been quite successful in the US. Along with the incessant and successful pushing for the wars of aggression for Eretz Israel, the zionists were successful in making the regime change in Ukraine and running the war against civilians in eastern Ukraine. The success of Ukrainian operation was achieved thanks to the tight collaboration of US/UK zionists with the local oligarchs (mostly Jewish) and with Banderites (the self-proclaimed neo-Nazi). Ukrainian neo-Nazi were armed and supported by American zionists and by the Jewish State. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/rights-groups-demand-israel-stop-arming-neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-1.6248727
Meanwhile, the Jewish State was also arming and protecting the terrorist groups of jihadis on the territory of sovereign Syria. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-just-admitted-arming-anti-assad-syrian-rebels-big-mistake-1.6894850

The perfidy of zionists has been unnoticeable for the zionized presstitutes and the cheerleaders for more large-scale Milgram experiments in the Middle East, such as the puny "intellectual" Kenneth Pollack, who is nothing more but an amoral hypocrite of war-profiteering variety: https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-defense-policy/middle-east/the-trump-administration-is-suddenly-all-in-on-iran-in-iraq/

If the Jewish Community at large does not arise against the war in Iran, then the Jews have deserved the fame of Leo Frank and should be called "Leo Frank people." https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-adl-in-american-society/

Ironically, the numerous holobiz museums have become the reminder of Jewish rapacious predation and amorality.

AZ , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:06 pm GMT
The impeachment proceedings of Trump pushed him to satisfy the deep state by making this idiotic move. Netanyahu is also under investigation and should have been in jail. A war with IRAN is a nice way out of the impasse.
annamaria , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:19 pm GMT
@Rich " the violent spread of Islam throughout the world"

-- Actually, there has been the violent spread of zioconism throughout the world, including the Wars for Israel in the Middle East (and the flooding of Europe with the dispossessed refugees and radicalized jihadies), the Jewish assault on the First Amendment in the US, the physical assault and imprisonment of honest researchers in WWII on behalf of zionists (zionists cannot tolerate factual information that does not agree with Elie Wiesel's inventions), the zionization of US military, the blackmailing of persons in a position of power by Mossad (see Epstein-Maxwell saga of underage prostitution), and a cherry on the top -- the casual attitude of zionist to all non-jews as subhumans (see Gaza Ghetto, the suicided American veterans of the Wars for Israel, and the murdered civilians in eastern Ukraine, courtesy the US-supported Banderites).

Who needs reading the Quaran when the Jewish State has been arming Ukrainian neo-Nazi and arming and saving fanatical jihadi terrorists (including the murderous "white helmets") in Syria? Your quetching tribe is nothing but a rapacious amoral predator working in cahoots with the worst scum among the mega-banksters and mega-war-profiteers. At least you have already erected the numerous monuments (the Holobiz Museums) to remind the non-Jews about Jewish depravity.

Mark of the Beast , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:23 pm GMT
Join the Zionist Crusade!
Join the U.S military and fight for Israel.
Seven Islamic countries need to be destroyed for Greater Israel Project.
1.Afghanistan- check
2.Iraq-check
3.Sudan-check
4.Libya-check
5.Somalia-check
6.Syria-In Progress
7.Iran-TBA

It's coming down to the final stages!
And how!

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:28 pm GMT
@Commentator Mike "Did they ever care about their own soldiers or citizens that much anyway? If there's loot to be had they'll go for it."

-- Agree. The dual citizen and local Cheneys et al. care not about human life and such funny thing as patriotism.

Winter Watch , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:10 pm GMT
The Van Riper Gambit: Iran Scores Against Expensive High-Tech US Gadgetry
https://www.winterwatch.net/2020/01/the-van-riper-gambit-iran-scores-against-expensive-high-tech-us-gadgetry/
Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:38 pm GMT
@Kratoklastes Those beheadings are fake, nothing more than cheap Hollywood stunts. All of the ISIS videos come from a single source, Rita Katz/SITE, who is known to have Mossad connections.
Realist , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:39 pm GMT
@Rich

Some might argue that the Iranians drew first blood when the present group of radical medievalists overthrew the Shah and then seized the US embassy in 1979 or a whole load of other attacks by Iranians and their proxies.

Of course those would be dumb bastards with no knowledge of history the CIA installed the Shah in a 1953 coup.

KenH , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:40 pm GMT
@Tulip Kim Jong Un just called Trump a dotard a few weeks ago is testing more nuclear missiles and is back to taunting the Trump Administration. That makes Trump look weak but because the N. Koreans have the ability to massively retaliate against U.S. forces and because they are a nuclear power Trump does nothing but tweet.

If Iran had short range nuclear missiles that could reach Israel and Saudi Arabia they would be getting far more respect and Trump would be treading lighter like he is with N. Korea.

Realist , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:44 pm GMT
@ivegotrythm

A123 is asking how long the armed forces will remain willing to die for psychopaths? Good question.

Yes, how long will the American people be willing to die for the US and Israeli governments.

Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:52 pm GMT
@Maiasta The interesting thing about Ostrovsky's book (and probably the real reason it generated controversy) is that he admits that the Mossad relies on diaspora Jews for intelligence gathering, cover, etc. for running its operations abroad.
Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:57 pm GMT
@Rich I'm too busy reading the Talmud.
Rich , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:01 pm GMT
@Colin Wright Anyone with even a limited knowledge of the laws of war knows that a military base is a legitimate target. That doesn't mean any nation that is attacked is going to be happy about it. For better or worse Pearl Harbor was a legitimate target and the US was negligent in its defenses there. Of course, I believe the Nips were sorry for that move in the end. Should've stuck to fighting poorly armed, divided Asian countries.
lauris71 , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:15 pm GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso On the other hand, Saddam simply sat on his fat *ss and watched how US built up fighting force of 150 000 men, planes and whatnot.
If Iran has any strategic sense it simply does not allow this to happen. Sometimes pre-emptive strikes are the correct strategy. And then US is left only with carriers far from iranian shores and airbases in Jordan or even further away. Of course, it can still destroy most of Iran's infrastructure eventually – while simultaneously watching how his client states in Gulf will be levelled to ground. But bringing land forces to Iran without relying on friendly ports and airbases will be D-day scale operation – much, much larger than Desert Storm of Iraq Freedom.
vot tak , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:29 pm GMT
From saker's article:

"Iran HAS to retaliate and HAS to do so publicly."

That is exactly what zionazia wants Iran to do. Why does saker want the Iranians to do exactly what israel wants them to do?

"Right now, the Dems (still the party favored by the Neocons)"

Total nonsense. The neocons are overwhelmingly republicans, both leaders and followers. They got their real start in the republican reagan regime and have increased their influence in each republican regime since.

"Now think about this from the Neocon point of view. They might be able to get the US goyim to strike Iran AND get rid of Trump."

LOL, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? The neocon trump is 100% israel's boy. In fact, he should be considered an extension of the israeli likud political block, which is who backs and promotes neoconnery in the usa. The neocon american media such fox and the various conservative talk radio networks are neocon. They promote trump, demonize the democrats and are fanatical likud israeli loyalists.

"For example, there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one in direct retaliation for the deliberate shooting down by the USN of IranAir 655 Airbus over the Persian Gulf. I am not saying that I know for a fact that this is what really happened, only that Iran does have retaliatory options not limited to the Middle-East."

Not credible, propaganda instead. The zionazis blamed Libya, Iran and Syria, depending on which served their psywar needs of the moment. One saw the same zionazi strategy used after the 9/11 wtc attack. As the zionazis attacked other countries, they justified it in their psywar as a response to that country's "involvement" in 9/11. The air liner was likely destroyed through an israeli/western security service falseflag act, like the later 9/11 falseflag.

This article posits some useful ideas, it also reinforces some zionazi policy goals and propaganda.

Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:44 pm GMT
@Rich 'Anyone with even a limited knowledge of the laws of war knows that a military base is a legitimate target.'

You skip elegantly over the minor detail that we were not at war with Iran. Hey: let's bomb a military base in China!

What the hell? And if France feels like taking out the Pentagon -- well, who are we to complain?

Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:46 pm GMT
@redmudhooch They already have ie the attack on the WTC on 911, done by Israel and the ZUS.
Rich , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:52 pm GMT
@Realist Somewhat sad that your poor education has misinformed you about the origins of the Shah and the Pahlavi dynasty. The Pahlavis came to power in 1925 when Reza Khan overthrew the Qajar dynasty who had ruled the region since the late 18th century. The 1953 incident you refer to is the attempted communist takeover by Mossadegh which was almost successful but prevented by the US and UK who helped keep the Pahlavis in power. Is it a coup if there's an attempt to seize control of the government by communists but the king is able to hold onto power? I don't think so. Shame the Tsar wasn't able to stop the Bolsheviks and their reign of terror.
Wookie , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:27 pm GMT
@Not Raul You should have said Israel's 9-11 attack on the United States .
Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:34 pm GMT
@BeenThereDunnit Interesting speculation on the Aramco attack, but how do you explain Yemeni claims of responsibility?
nsa , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:39 pm GMT
@Rich "Somewhat sad your poor education blah blah blah"
Rich is a joo goblin pretending to be an aging boomerwaffen still fighting the big one from high atop his barstool lookout down at the VFW lounge. Have another $2 double, Rich, and tell us again how you kicked ass over there in 'Nam followed by your latest prostate troubles .
annamaria , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:45 pm GMT
@Beefcake the Mighty "the Mossad relies on diaspora Jews for intelligence gathering, cover, etc. for running its operations abroad."

-- The ongoing mass slaughter in the Middle East and the triumph of Banderites (neo-Nazis) in Ukraine are some of the glorious achievements of the Israel-firsters.

This is not the first time when the obnoxious tribe puts a lot of effort to cut a branch on which the tribe perches. The disloyal treacherous scum of the Mega Group-Epstein-Maxwell kind has been at the ZUSA wheel for some time already. The ziocons will not stop their bloody treachery until the US citizenry at large begins taking actions against the dreamers of Eretz Israel.

Russia and Germany are examples of what can happen to a sovereign state when the "most moral and victimized" are left to their ugly devices. The shameless AIPAC and 52 main Jewish American organizations bear the principle responsibility for the ongoing wars that are becoming more dangerous with each day.

MLK , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:54 pm GMT

Iran HAS to retaliate and HAS to do so publicly.

Is that what you thought when Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet?

Look, I'll keep it short because this gaggle is locked into some seriously delusion thinking.

Solemani was commanding an operation to put Trump in the position Carter was in with the hostage crisis. Do you knuckleheads really think that Trump was going to fall for it?

Especially since it was so obvious. With the Ayatollah shouting that Trump "couldn't do a damn thing." And Senator Murphy teeing up what was soon to come by declaring the POTUS "impotent."

That is just the latest, most desperate provocation, by Iran in coordination with the Democrats.

So killing Soleimani, along with those in the second airstrike, was anything but an escalation. This is what Milley was signaling when he said "The ball is in Iran's court." Khamenei stupidly revealed beforehand that he had sanctioned this plot. That constitutes enormous risk not only to the Iranian regime but the Democrats colluding with them.

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:55 pm GMT
@Rich Poor "Rich," we guess that you need to make a living, but do your superiors understand that your posts make more harm to "Jewish cause" than any jihadis' activities?

Though the Jewish State is, of course, one of the main sponsors of fanatical jihad (because this is good for Jews and bad for Syrians) and of the neo-nazi in Ukraine (because this is good for Jews and bad for Russians).
Keep posting. The exposure of the sick logic of Israelis is educational.

anarchyst , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:59 pm GMT
@Rurik Israel's favorite "war song is "Onward Christian Soldiers"
Assad al-islam , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:08 pm GMT
@vot tak

That is exactly what zionazia wants Iran to do. Why does saker want the Iranians to do exactly what israel wants them to do?

Iranians are very shrewd and they will never start a war with USA. At appropriate time Iran will annihilate Israel and USA will be scratching their heads. What will USA do, after the annihilation of Israel? Commit suicide for the sake of annihilated Israel?

Saker's Quote: "For example, there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one in direct retaliation for the deliberate shooting down by the USN of IranAir 655 Airbus over the Persian Gulf. I am not saying that I know for a fact that this is what really happened, only that Iran does have retaliatory options not limited to the Middle-East."

Saker is showing his true colors, that he only cares for mother Russia. How can he post this stuff, while he very well knows that when Iraq used chemicals, Iran refused to do so in return. Russia like USA will intentionally kill civilians to achieve their goal, but Iran will NEVER intentionally kill innocent civilians. Saker has been smoking too much lately, and forgetting that it is NOT spiritual to kill innocent civilians. No, no and no, everything is not fair in war and love ..

Iran is ethical and has morals where as USSR and Russia seems to lack them .

Realist , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:11 pm GMT
@Rich

The 1953 incident you refer to is the attempted communist takeover by Mossadegh which was almost successful but prevented by the US and UK who helped keep the Pahlavis in power.

The US and UK were after Iranian oil. The Shah was their puppet plain and simple.

ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:12 pm GMT
@Rich But Rich, almost all the Communists are Jews and Mossadegh was not Jewish. How could he be a Communist? All he did was nationalize the oil industry for Iranians instead of for the British. And you call Shiism Medievalist, but isn't Judaism a stone age religion? Do you put those little boxes with magic amulets on your head?
Anonymous [792] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:14 pm GMT
@Rurik "Uncle Shlomo wants YOU to die for Matzovania!"
RadicalCenter , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:24 pm GMT
@Rich You're certainly right, Rich, that any true Muslim is obligated to spread Islam by any means necessary, including violence and intimidation -- our Quality Commenter Talha's eloquent and shrewd apologia to the contrary notwithstanding. I wouldn't trust the people running Iran or any other Muslim country, and I'd not let any Muslims settle in our lands.

BUT the us gov does seem to be consistently lying and trying to pick a fight far from our shores. That dishonesty and belligerence is not obviated by the nature of the contrived opponent. And they do seem to be doing it at the behest of Israel and its powerful domestic lobby and media, often with no benefit to the American people, or affirmative harm to us.

Can't we both be realistic and not naive about Islam, AND not aggress or provoke a war?

RadicalCenter , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:29 pm GMT
@Colin Wright That's a fair point, but there are similar conclusions drawn by long, detailed analyses of the koran by ex-Muslims who are fluent in Arabic.

These are people who know both the Koran and the subsequent interpretive writings well. Doesn't mean they're necessarily all correct, just that the very fearful and critical view of Islam that many of us find persuasive, is NOT based only on selective or ill-informed readings of those texts.

turtle , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:33 pm GMT
@eah

decisive defensive action

Absolutely "weapons grade" pure horseshit.

RadicalCenter , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:39 pm GMT
@Robert Magill I don't doubt that the elites behind the us gov would cause tension, violence, even war to profit from it, through higher oil prices or otherwise.

As for the us stock market, though, how many of the 100 biggest, 500 biggest, or 5000 biggest publicly traded companies (by capitalization) would benefit from a spike in oil and nat gas prices?

Wouldn't modt publicly traded US companies be harmed by the higher fuel prices causing higher prices for groceries, clothes, and other goods that are shipped, flown, or trucked by vehicles burning fossil fuels?

Consumers wouldn't be able to afford to buy as much of those companies' goods and services after shelling out exorbitant prices to fuel their cars and heat / cool their homes, paying more for non-locally sourced groceries, etc. When the average American has to pay seven bucks for a gallon of gas, he will cut back on other spending and/or borrow (charge) more to survive. That means many fewer people spending on luxuries such as vacations and dining out and entertainment. More people postponing home renovation or repair, forgoing medical or dental care, and so on.

As for the states and localities of the USA, some might benefit on balance from higher oil and gas prices, but most definitely suffer from it. Much of Texas would benefit, including any state and local governments getting extraction taxes, but none of the nine million people in New Jersey, the 20 million people in Florida, and so on. I would wager that most US states are not net energy exporters but net energy consumers, but I'll check for stats on that.

SeekerofthePresence , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:48 pm GMT
@anarchyst Evangelicals can never cut their 'bilicals
To death and killing, to which they stick like barnacles.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/-NhHUZMufLA?feature=oembed

El Dato , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:50 pm GMT
@A123

elements of the IRGC will dispatch Khameni to save their own lives

Stop hitting opium pipes.

An Iranian "operation Valkyrie"?

Too much TV.

The Alarmist , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:11 pm GMT
@Rich US troops are only legitimate targets to the extent they are uninvited combatants in another country. Your reasoning on this is bizarre.

My comment had nothing to do with dissing Israel or defending Iran, but since you mention both, the US is entirely too subservient to the former since its inception and has been screwing in the internal affairs of the latter for the better part of a century. When I said the US drew first blood, I wasn't talking about last week.

pB , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:53 pm GMT
@Not Raul russia monitors all usa nukes, if they see any large scale nuclear attack they can not wait to make sure its heading just south of their border or just north of it.
any large scale nuclear launch by the usa would trigger mad.
and im sure the nuclear armed muslim power right next door will not particularly enjoy having to deal with the country smothered in fall out and the dead bodies of 80 million muslims.
A123 , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:05 pm GMT
@MLK You are 100% correct.

Solemani was commanding an operation to put Trump in the position Carter was in with the hostage crisis.

Trump's actions were proportionate and well considered. Instead of 'recapturing past glory', Khameni has another massive failure to his name. The weak leader is growing weaker as time goes by.

The strike also impacts the thinking of Iranian military leaders. They now understand that if the Ayatollah orders an irrational & unwinnable escalation, they may suffer personal consequences.

One thing could end this quickly and bloodlessly for all sides -- The IRGC removing the highly unpopular Khameni, thus protecting the people of Iran. This will not happen tomorrow, but Trump just took advantage of Khameni's errors to bring that day closer.
______

Of course, the paid Iranian shills posting here will decry this simple and obvious truth. Fortunately, no one believes them.

PEACE

Iris , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:19 pm GMT
@Beefcake the Mighty The September 2019 attacks occurred in the very special context of Aramco's Initial Public Offering (IPO). For the first time ever, Aramco, considered the largest company in the world in terms of valuation, was about to sell 1.5% of its shares on the stock market.

The attacks on the Aramco facilities at the time caused the total valuation to drop from an initial $2 trillion estimate to only 1,7 $trillion. So the attacks were extremely convenient for some international financial institutions who wanted to buy Aramco shares on the cheap .

The close relationship between such financial institutions and the Israeli government, who could have carried the attacks and blame it on Iran, is of course a complete coincidence. Or so we are told.

https://fortune.com/2019/11/17/saudi-aramco-1-7-trillion-valuation-ipo-undershooting-target/

BeenThereDunnit , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:22 pm GMT
@Beefcake the Mighty The only explanation would be that the Israelis got wind of the impending attack. Then they used it as a cover for their own attack. They may also have put themselves on alert, waiting for an attack having taking place. Then they struck the same target in near real-time, using ready-made plans. Both possibilities would certainly be far fetched. But they would not be completely illogical because oil installations being targeted could be expected after all the prior drone attacks carried out by the Yemenis. OTOH, a quick search on the Internet shows that GPS guidance has become considerably more precise in recent years. If the Iranians are able to make use of such technology after all, then a war in the Middle East would become an interesting proposition to say the least. The Americans can switch off GPS and they can jam GLONASS and the other GPSes that exist. But that's not possible over the entire Middle East. That would be too costly both in terms of the jamming itself and the losses incurred in the wider economy. GPS is terribly important in these days. Everything depends on it from oil tankers navigating to excavators being guided along.
Nicolás Palacios Navarro , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:24 pm GMT
@A123 Thank Yahweh that your average, drooling, red-white-and-duh American is always ready to believe any simple and obvious lie conjured by paid Israeli shills such as yourself.

PEACE

BeenThereDunnit , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:28 pm GMT
@9/11 Inside job Yes, if the Aramco attack was not a false flag, then the time for a false flag would certainly be now.
Iris , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:31 pm GMT
@A123

The weak leader is growing weaker as time goes by.

I don't know about Khamenei, but your comments are definitely growing weaker and more grotesque by the hour. Take a break, Hasbara.

KenH , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:35 pm GMT
Iran is in a no-win situation. If they do nothing and bide their time then I believe the Trump admin will manufacture a casus belli for additional military action this time possibly striking targets inside Iran. Trump's window is between now and the November 2020 election and his re-election is far from a lock given the demographic changes in the electorate since 2016 which is why Iran may decide just wait things out.

The real question is if Russia will get involved to assist Iran or just sit on the sidelines and whine and wimper about American aggression and violations of international law?

Others saw Donald Trump as a Dr. Strangelove when he was running for president but I thought that was ridiculous since I saw Trump as more of a showman and entertainer but I now see that they were right and I was wrong.

Rich , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:35 pm GMT
@ivegotrythm I'm a Chrisrened and Confirmed Catholic and if those $99 DNA tests are accurate, I have no ashkenazi or semitic ancestors. Just Europeans and Neanderthals in my family line. Not sure what I've written that seems to trigger everyone into thinking I'm Jewish.

I will admit that growing up I did date a couple of secular Jewish gals and I did have a few Jews among my childhood friends. That being said, I also have secular Muslim associates who are decent enough people. I try to see things as clearly as I can and also from a patriotic American point of view. Guess that offends many here who only want to live in an echo chamber where everyone has the same opinions.

renfro , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:42 pm GMT
@Castellio You found it ..good work!
A123 , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:57 pm GMT
@Iris ROTFL

The fact that you respond with insults strengthens my case. I have obviously presented facts that you cannot counter.

Thank you for your admission.

PEACE

Skeptikal , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 8:27 pm GMT
"For example, there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland"

Wasn't it PamAm whose slogan was "Fly the friendly skies . . ."?

I have relatives who fly a lot. I hope the skies remain friendly for American civilians . . .

Katherine

Skeptikal , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 8:39 pm GMT
@Anthony Aaron What if Russia started to declassify documents and info they must have in their possession on 9/11?
That would *really* cause "dissension" in the US of A.

Also, what if Russia put some kind of screws on Israel?

With the two "countries'" (scare quos meant for the Jewish National State) long and somewhat troubled association, there must be something the Russkies can do to scare the Zionists.

Actually, any 9/11 info would probably do both tricks at once.

Skeptikal , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 8:49 pm GMT
@Biff By the same token if you criticize those who are currently attacking Trump via the impeachment charade you will be accused of being a "Trump supporter/lover/apologist/kissing Trump's sphincter (yes, this is at Moon of Alabama, no less!).

This is the "Trump gotcha" equivalent of the MSM labeling anyone who advances a hypothesis besides the "official" narrative of events such as Dallas or 9/11 a conspiracy theory.

Based Inquisitor , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:05 pm GMT
@Paul holland Yes, Iran's best move would be to take out Bibi himself or one of Trump's bosses in the US, like Adelson. If Bibi himself is hit, Israel can't hide behind Trump's skirt any longer but will have to take the war to Iran itself.
MLK , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:12 pm GMT
@A123

Trump's actions were proportionate and well considered. Instead of 'recapturing past glory', Khameni has another massive failure to his name. The weak leader is growing weaker as time goes by.

Well, making himself part of the plot against Trump by shooting his mouth off ("You can't do a damn thing about it.") must be deeply unsettling within the Iranian regime about his leadership.

I've long given the Iranians their resistance due but it's becoming clear they're overrated. The W Bush and Obama administrations were gifts to Iran. It's impossible to overstate how thoroughly they overplayed their hand with Obama on JCPOA.

The strike also impacts the thinking of Iranian military leaders. They now understand that if the Ayatollah orders an irrational & unwinnable escalation, they may suffer personal consequences.

We have two fairly recent related analogues -- when Turkey shot down the Russian fighter and that lame US-backed coup against Erdogan. In the first case, unsurprisingly because Putin knows what he's doing, Russia extracted geopolitical gains for itself in return for letting Erdogan climb out of the tree. In the latter, Obama acted pretty much like the 11 year old girl that he was throughout his figurehead terms. Trump is still having to deal with the problem, all because Obama wouldn't give up the CIA Islamist living in PA, an entirely reasonable demand to put a period on things.

No doubt, the Iranians have already been told we can do this the easy way or the hard way. Trump LOVES making deals, particularly when he has the counter-party by the shorthairs.

anastasia , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:19 pm GMT
They are calling a celebrated General of the Iranian Army a "terrorist". It's like calling George W. Patton a terrorist.

They say that he was planning an imminent attack on American diplomats and soldiers.

Just how stupid do they think we are?

anastasia , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:20 pm GMT
If Israel asked Trump to eat dog poo-poo, I wonder if he would do it, with or without his phobia about germs.
BeenThereDunnit , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:21 pm GMT
The Saker forgets to mention the way this event went down. Trump walked into a room at the Mar-a-Lago where he was met by a bunch of Neocons including Kuchner. They told him of Soleimani presenting a target of opportunity and Trump ok'ed the attack. This paints a picture of Trump having lost every bit of control that might still have been in his hands. He was visibly agitated when he went on TV. Probably he had begun to realize what he has gotten himself into. The US then doubled down by striking a second time. You have to pause your breath to take in what has happened. The US have officially killed government officials of a country where they have stationed troops and that officially is an ally of the US. The US have also officially killed officials of another country that were on an official, diplomatic visit to their ally. Lots of uses of the word "official" here. But what it basically means is that all damns have broken. Total chaos is now the order of the day. The US have resorted to naked violence in their dealings with the rest of the world. Nobody is safe who cannot hold the US at gunpoint. It's the Wild West with nuclear weapons. It was true before but now the US have begun acting on it completely overtly. And the US congress is in the process of passing a bill that declares Russia a supporter of terrorism. You have to wonder what will happen once this bill has passed and some high-ranking Russian official makes his next visit to Kaliningrad via plane across the Baltic Sea.
Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:23 pm GMT
@Rich So you're just a cuck, then?
Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:35 pm GMT
@Kratoklastes I put as much stock in your "expertise" as I do in that of all the other military geniuses on the internet, which is to say, none at all.
Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:37 pm GMT
@Passer by I don't click on links that are substituted for comment.
Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:39 pm GMT
@annamaria You're telling things I already know. I don't know what in my post would have lead you to believe I need your dissertation.
Rich , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:52 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter It is, of course, reasonable to wish to avoid another foreign adventure in a distant land. I'm of two minds on the prospect. On the one hand, I agree that the US should turn its back on the Middle East, let them settle their own differences. On the other hand, there is a legitimate argument that the day the US backs down from these foreign entanglements, we lose the dollar as the world's reserve currency and this results in extreme economic hardship in the US (as well as much of the rest of the world).

In the meantime, both major parties support our foreign entanglements, both firmly support Israel and no one who is anti-Israel or anti-MIC is anywhere close to being elected to any high office in the country. So, observing from that angle, the argument for withdrawal has no chance of winning, and the argument for preventing the expansion of a loudly anti-US country from increasing its influence is not without merit. If we're going to be there anyway, we might as well keep winning.

As far as the opinion that the US is acting at the behest of Israel, I think it's more a case of sharing mutual interests at this time. Jews are a very rich and powerful ethnic group in this country, and will continue to be for quite some time. Their support for Israel is not unlike the old Anglos who twice dragged America into unnecessary wars against Germany for the benefit of merry old England. I'd rather all Americans were more concerned with the future and security of the US, but that's not the way it is.

Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 10:03 pm GMT
@anastasia He would eat it and say it was the most beautiful piece of dog crap ever.
Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 10:43 pm GMT
@anastasia That "celebrated" worthless general is only celebrated by inbred muslims.
Christine , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 10:47 pm GMT
What about the role Turkey might/will play? So far, it looks like a rather unprincipled loose cannon out for itself and therefore manipulable.
Based Inquisitor , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 10:49 pm GMT
@anonymous The US would not need hypersonic weapons when it has hundreds of armed drones constantly prowling the skies over Iraq.
Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 10:52 pm GMT
@lauris71 Yay -- another military expert!
Rich , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:14 pm GMT
@Beefcake the Mighty Because I dated a Jewish girl ? I don't think you know what a cuck is. Ask that fellow who picks up your wife in the evening, then brings her home in the morning to explain the meaning of the word.
bruce county , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:22 pm GMT
@Passer by Two hundred and fifty million dollar exercise??? Wow and they got smoked in ten miunutes. Very telling. Suicide bombers in zodiacs crazy to think of that..

Thanks for that.
I want to see the one where the Toronto Maple Leafs win a Stanley Cup .My team and maybe our year.

Harbinger , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:54 pm GMT
@Z-man Yup.
Here's the insanity of it all. Here in Scotland and I presume the rest of the UK, there are certain branches of Christianity who go out at the weekend, going around bars, giving leaflets on Jesus and engaging in conversation with homosexuals. I've had a few debates with them, but they just make me laugh. I know their bible better than them. Last time I asked them "ever heard of the Talmud?" They looked at me goggle eyed. I told them, specifically what it stated about their Jesus and Mary and they said I was lying. They stated that Jews would never do such things.

This is what we're dealing with. We're dealing with an utterly ignorant Christian following who truly do believe the crap about Jews, because they're utterly indoctrinated. The biggest problem isn't so much Judaism, it's the morons who wilfully follow the Jews, as God's chosen, believing they do no wrong. Utterly and completely indoctrinated fools.

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:03 am GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso Qassem Soleimani was indeed a celebrated Iranian general. He was known as an honorable man and talented military commander.
As for 'Gleimhart Mantooso' -- never heard of her.
SeekerofthePresence , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:06 am GMT
@BeenThereDunnit Important point. Trump now threatens to hit 52 major Iranian sites if there is any retaliation for the Soleimani assassination. The Russians will observe this precipitous escalation and factor it into the next standoff between Russian and American forces. Russia will have to assume that 'Murka will escalate massively, and will therefore be on a hair-trigger for the use of nuclear weapons. Massive escalation is now the order of the day, and presages nuclear war.
Anonymous [406] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:11 am GMT
@The Saker

If Trump is the Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable President", and their goals require him out of the way, "at which point the Neocons will jettison him and replace him by an even more subservient individual (say Pence or Pelosi)"

Scary thought: The neocons/Israel/DeepState/MIC/media have been going all out to either control and/or get rid of Trump through Russiagate and now impeachment. Having succeeded in getting Trump to commit this huge mistake, could they now decide it's worth going further than just impeachment to get rid of him, in order to create a horrible false flag to pin on Iran, get Pence/Pelosi into power, and have the US destroy Iran for Israel with media-orchestrated US public support?

Really wish Trump had had the sense to say no to this when they presented their murderous plan to him.

hotrod31 , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:20 am GMT
@Rich Rich: You imply that "Their dead general was a member of the military and a legitimate target." How on earth could any s-a-n-e person arrive at your conclusion? Are you nucking futs??
This twisted thinking would imply that any member of a sovereign country's military, while visiting another country on a peace mission, from your perspective, is a 'legitimate target'? With people like you, it is little wonder that the world ends up with imbeciles like Trump.
Well help me doG
The Scalpel , says: Website Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:24 am GMT
@Rurik First comes the vote to expel the US forces, then when they don't leave, the constant pinprick attacks and , if available, taking out a high value US target and it all gets blamed on Iraq irregular forces
nickels , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:49 am GMT
Rethinking Trump as the antichrist.
I just always he would be smarter, more smooth.
Not just such a bombastic low iq idiot New Yorker
NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:07 am GMT
@Rich

I try to see things as clearly as I can and also from a patriotic American point of view.

Perhaps you should consider having your eyes and hearing checked by a specialist. Also, some additional education regarding the history of the United States of America starting with the Declaration of Independence would appear to be long overdue. (Hint: The clue is in the word independence and the efforts that patriots made to achieve it)

freedom-cat , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:14 am GMT

No less alarming is that this creates the absolutely perfect conditions for a false flag à la "USS Liberty". Right now, the Israelis have become at least as big a danger for US servicemen and facilities in the entire Middle-East as are the Iranians themselves. How? Simple! Fire a missile/torpedo/mine at any USN ship and blame Iran. We all know that if that happens the US political elites will do what they did the last time around: let US servicemen die and protect Israel at all costs (read up on the USS Liberty if you don't know about it)

I made a remark about the likelihood of a False Flag in another thread and was lumped in as "weak-minded" and "know-it-all Unz-ite". LOL. ( https://www.unz.com/estriker/the-line-in-the-sand/ ). My comment on how Trump is stupid and a great scapegoat was also targeted because the person said Trump is "playing a charade" and is all deep state. Well, I don't think so at all. Trump is a walking Ego stick and an excellent scapegoat if anything goes wrong.

But seriously, how can anyone not see the immense gravity of the situation? My god, they murdered a General, which is next to killing a President. This is a clear provocation and I agree 100% with the possibilities that Saker brings up.

I'll take it further as well. There could be a nuke used against Iran in the event a False Flag of massive proportions directed at civilians gets people onboard for a fight. They don't want to get bogged down in a long war with Iran. My guess is Israel wants them out of the picture for a long time or for good.

NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:17 am GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso Well, annamaria is a much respected commenter here who often adds better information to those comments lacking much of anything substantial, such as your own. Consider it a favour to you and bear in mind also that a great many people read the comments without commenting themselves so they too are the beneficiaries of her well researched contributions. Have a nice day.
Alternate History , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:19 am GMT
All the options presented by Saker are viable and desirable. They don't even have to be limited to either/or. The political option of hitting exclusively IsraHell with salvos of missiles would be another option. Israel is, after all, the culprit behind the scenes.
Alternate History , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:25 am GMT
@Rich You are a brainwashed American. I'm sorry for the redundancy.
freedom-cat , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:34 am GMT
@Rich Imagine Iran taking out Amikam Norkin, the Commander of Israeli Air Force!! And maybe doing a Two-fer and get Bibi on the side.
Smith , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:46 am GMT
Member when Iran said they will level Israel in 30 minutes if US strikes Iran?

I wish a nigger would.

Z-man , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:08 am GMT
@Harbinger

Last time I asked them "ever heard of the Talmud?" They looked at me goggle eyed.

I too was ignorant of it until my later years.
An anecdotal story: Years ago at my 'office' Christmas party the one Jew in our group shared, with his goy coworkers , that he was struggling with The Talmud . You see he was a very secular ok kind of guy who liked to hang out with the 'un-chosen'. But he was now married to a very 'orthodox' woman and he had to learn about the Talmud. He confessed that the 'manual' was not too kind to gentiles. He was at a crossroad. I noticed the struggle he was going thru. I believe he stayed with his wife, I haven't seen him in years.
Thanks to him I became even more 'woke' to the truths of Judaism.

Kratoklastes , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:28 am GMT
@Commentator Mike

As if Afghanistan isn't inhospitable mountainous terrain? So somehow Iran's topography is worse is it? They invaded Afghanistan without even controlling any neighbouring countries.

Have you looked at where KOP is? By 2007 that was still a 'forward base'. It's only 100 miles from Kabul.

Also, while the US didn't explicitly 'control' Uzbekistan (which is where the initial force staged), Karimov was a US ally and there is no love lost between the Uzbeks and the Pashto.

Today, the US controls only those parts of Afghanistan that the Taliban haven't decided to take back yet. It's not clear why you would consider US strategy in Afghanistan as a good example – it's now widely-known to have been so bad that it required 17 years of official bullshit to cover its failure.

.

You've also missed about fifty key points of difference between Afghanistan and Iran.

The ones that most people don't need reminding about include –

① Afghanistan had no organised military to speak of;

② it had absolutely no air defence capabilities and limited airspace monitoring;

③ its disorganised military was having a hard time with Dostum, Massoud and Hekmatyar;

④ the initial US insertion was about 6 SAD guys whose main role was to meet up with the Northern Alliance; they, and the rest of TF Dagger arrived by helo from K-K in Uzbekistan (the US had always supported Karimov) – the TF Dagger insertion is now the record for the longest helo insertion in military history ;

⑤ Kandahar and Kabul had already fallen before FOB Rhino was established – in other words, the Northern Alliance plus US air power had done the job before ISAF even got its shit unpacked;

⑥ Notwithstanding the unseating of the Taliban, The US lost . They knew in 2001 that they were losing, and lied about it for 17 years.

On ⑥: when you're a superpower, if you fail to impose your Imperial Will on the place that is a LOSS .

.

Ordinarily, in these sort of situations it's left as an exercise to work out which of those points are critical in the new game (where the US tries to do the same thing in Iran).

But since most people are imbeciles, I'll put a thumb on the scales.

More below the fold. Read it or don't, but if you think of some counter-argument it's best to assume I've already thought of it, coz I'm good at this. (The folks at JWAC probably don't know my name any more, because the Yanks our crew helped train in the 90s have moved on since then).

[MORE]

In the case of Iran:

Re ①: Iran has a well-equipped professional military with an excellent senior staff. (That said: Afghanistan didn't have much by way of formal military, but it did have millions of people with battlefield experience against a technologically superior enemy about half of whom were on the Taliban side).

Re ⑤: Ain't gonna happen because ④ can't happen.

④ is made orders of magnitude harder by !{②,③} (! is the 'NOT' operator, indicating that {} is untrue in the Iranian case).

Dealing with !③ first: there is no domestic insurgency worth talking to in Iran – certainly not one that is remotely analogous to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in 2001, which was basically a full-fledged opponent in a civil war (which the NA won, with the aid of US air power). Whoever crosses the threshold cannot rely on divided attention of the Iranian military.

OK, now !②. More convoluted – requires more space.

Insertion of the whole force by rotor is really hard if the adversary has any significant air defences. (At the time that the US invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban couldn't even rely on regularly-updated satellite imagery to detect movements in US naval assets: now you can do that from your phone, and if you're a government you have drones).

With a sophisticated enemy it's so hard to insert large numbers of boots by rotor, that it can be ruled out.

So if you want to get boots on the ground without everyone having to traverse a mountain range (exposing flanks and supply lines), you a need to get reliable control over a big lump of land that has an airport on it capable of landing troop transports (or being converted to same).

(The passel of land has to be on the 'enemy' side of the mountains – I put that in because some readers went to US schools and geography is not a strong point.)

Controlling an air base would require a battalion on the ground on the bad-guy side of the hills. You sure as fuck don't want to fight your way over the hills and then try to control an airbase.

Trying to get a battalion-sized presence in by rotorcraft would mean using MH-47s, which are slow and ( ahem ) not very stealthy (actually, they're very not stealthy) and the US would require more than a battalion on the ground.

Airdrop? Same problem: if the incoming aircraft is detected, you know everything about manpower disposition (troop size and position) before the men hit the ground.

Iran has the capability to see airborne things coming; it also has a range of solutions to make airborne things lose their airborne-ness.

For mobile overwatch, Iran has AWACS – 3 old Orions and some retroftted An-140s for maritime, and a bunch of unarmed drones (they've been cranking out UAVs as fast as possible). They also have JY-14 medium-long range radar, which is handy because their range means that they can be lit up earlier than short-range AA radar.

And if you don't think that they have an intel-sharing arrangement with Russia, you're not thinking hard enough.

As far as making flying things stop flying, they have a fuckton of SAMs. A genuine fuckton – especially relative to what the US has faced in any engagement since Korea.

They have a similar fuckton of MANPADs: even primitive RPGs are bad news for helos, and MANPADs are much more worser think of how badly " Hind vs Stinger " played out in the 80s, and you are on roughly the right page

They also have a little over 1500 AA batteries (most of those will be dead on first contact, but they're still a nuisance).

The Iranian Air Force itself – forget it, it's irrelevant.

The first sign things are kicking off will be a bunch of TLAMs fucking up every airbase in Iran. (Plus the obligatory US/NATO SOP war crime of targeting civilian infrastructure for electricity generation, water treatment, sewage treatment, and telecommunications)

This is why Iran has fuck-all air-superiority assets: and a little over a hundred 1980s-level offensive aircraft (about 150 of them: F14; Fulcrum; Su22, 24 and 25).

They learned from the experience of Iraq's Air Force in 1991: it was much much larger than Iran's is now, but a shitload of it was destroyed on the ground due to the regime's appalling lack of preparedness.

So from all that

⑥ is a foregone conclusion.

Some things that play no part in the conclusion:
ⓐ that I despise US* hypocritical bromides about freedom and 'democracy';
ⓑ that the US military is a bloated set of boondoggles run by grifters,with the mindset of a 20-something NPC who just watched '300';
ⓒ that the US has had its arse kicked by several sets of raggedy-ass peasants from 1968 onwards and has underperformed in every peer engagement since 1789. (inb4 WWI and WWII they were on the winning side , but others – e.g., the Soviets – did the actual winning )

.

" Topography matters " doesn't mean that topography is all that matters. The gap between combatants has to be extremely wide in order for technology and manpower to overcome terrain.

In fact it's hard to know how wide the gap needs to be fortech/power to win, because all of the 'invade without properly considering terrain disadvantages " has resulted in strategic losses for the superior force at all times since WWII.

We can say that the gap has to be wider than " Viet Cong vs US " or " Mujahedin vs USSR " or USC/SNA vs US/UNOSOM " or " Taliban vs US/ISAF ".

.

People who are interested in how shit works in modern warfare need to read William Lind, or John Robb or Arreguín-Toft.

Start with the short-ish paper (which is now a book):

Arreguín-Toft (2001) " How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict " International Security , Vol. 26, No. 1 (Summer 2001), pp. 93–128

SeekerofthePresence , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:47 am GMT
What a US-Iran War Might Look Like

Skeptikal , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:50 am GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso that should be
"would have LED you to believe . . ."

present tense: lead
past tense: led
present perfect: has led

Skeptikal , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:59 am GMT
@Anonymous I wonder whether, as you suggest, Trump hasn't just walked into a trap.
And has just figured out that this time, he's the patsy.

If such is the case, his best option might be to address the American people directly as to what has gone down with this murder and sack Pompeo and Kushner. (Turn the former over to Iran???? Just kidding . . . but depriving him of security would accomplish the same thing.)

The problem is that the vipers are within his own family: Ivanka and Jared Kushner. Stupidest thing he could have done, having those two on his "diplomatic" and "advisory" staff.

Is Trump being hung out to dry?

Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 3:13 am GMT
@Rich No, because you're shamelessly whoring for Jewish interests. Thanks for confirming.
By-tor , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 3:34 am GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso Are they treated as Julian Assange is in the UK or as Maria Butina was for a year-and-a-half in a US jail forced to plead guilty for something she was not guilty of in the first place? Or as Manning is being held in solitary confinement because he will not lie for a get-out-of-jail card? Are the Koreans subjected to execution by black murderers while in their cells? Let us know when you have some evidence.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/inmates-escape-mississippi-penitentiary-amid-statewide-lockdown-prisoner/story?id=68069105&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com&dbr=1

Anonymous [375] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 3:52 am GMT
@the grand wazoo Also, there is a large faction within the Democratic party who will never go to war for Israel, because they simply don't like Jews. They may be fooled into hating Russia because they are white, but they'll side with an underdog Iran over a belligerent Israel every time.

If the Democrats get control, they will effectively control the USA indefinitely, because they seem perfectly happy to import all the Democratic voters they'll require to remain in power

The window for Jews to utilize the American state as their wrecking ball are limited. Trump might be the best chance they will ever get. America is on such shaky footing on so many levels, they may implode domestically before they can the job done.

Z-man , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:05 am GMT
@Kratoklastes

So I would guess that the appropriate tit-for-tat splash would be LtGen Scott Berrier (G2 – Intel).
Everyone's heard of that guy, right?

No I didn't know him but now we all do. Ok that would be tit for tat, but I would still go for a 4 Star. (Grin)

Plus, if they splashed Pompous, the resulting fatberg would burn for longer than the Springfield tyre fire. Nobody wants that.

LOL!!!
He is the most dispicable NEOCON stooge out there, even worse than 'Linda' Graham. Christian Zionists, the personification of OXY MORON .
Ok, not Plump'eo but we gotta give the Iranians one real Neo-cohen, to scare the be-Jesus out of them (the Jooz that is). (Grin)

animalogic , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 7:21 am GMT
@Desert Fox "Israel and the ZUS want a nuclear war with Russia "
A few years ago I would have LOL 'd at such a proposition. Today, I scratch my head.
Is the US so completely insane as to attack a peer or (indeed) stronger nuclear power such as Russia?
I don't think so but .
animalogic , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 7:59 am GMT
@UninformedButCurious Is Trump "disposable" ? Maybe. But unlikely.
Given that Tel Aviv is in charge (a synonym for "neocon") , & Trump has virtually tripped over his own tongue in his haste to lick their boots (& other bodily parts) it wouldn't appear that Trump has yet lost his value.
And in a more domestic sense -- Pence ! OMG, is there a political leader with less charisma? Pence makes Corbyn look like Ronald Reagan.(People greatly under rate charisma & other subjective leadership qualities)
So dumping Trump would have severe political repercussions.
animalogic , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:38 am GMT
@John Chuckman Iran will "carefully plan a response, and that response may not be clear and unambiguous, and it might be multi-faceted and done over time."
Agreed.
Hopefully Iran will respond largely through proxies. And also concentrate on non-military responses.
IE, putting maximum pressure on Iraq's parliament to force all US forces out of Iraq -- difficult, but that would be a huge win. Of course, they'll still get the blame -- but should a cat in Patagonia die in suspicious circumstances Iran would get the blame for that too .
As for any nuclear response by Iran, that truly would be "acting foolishly". Anything along nuclear lines would be a perfect provocative to Israel /the US.
Sean , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:55 am GMT
@Kratoklastes I think the Iranian leadership and populace would be more convinced of the effectiveness of the Iranian military if Soleimani had managed to keep himself alive.
BeenThereDunnit , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:13 am GMT
@SeekerofthePresence Not only that, he has even stated that among them are sites of great cultural importance. Do they want to attack mosques? Some of those Iranian mosques are not only holy sites as such, they are marvels of architecture. Attacking them would be a crime against the heritage of all mankind. That would be truly mad but we will see, sadly. It would enrage Muslims to a degree not seen in living memory. They might "just" attack sites commemorating the fallen of the war against Iraq. That would be nearly as bad.

Anyways, refraining from any more threats, as Trump has demanded, is a near impossibility. What is a threat and what not? Are red flags of revenge on display in Iran already a threat? The probability of war has to reckoned at near 100% now.

The Iranians should disperse their assets urgently. Nuclear assets that can be dispersed have to be at the top of the list. They should actually try to avoid making any more threats for now. Trump has conveniently laid out his strategy to them, allowing them to have the war started by the Americans at a point of time of their choosing. After a period of restraint, they should gradually start making slight threats again, placing the ball in the American court. The dust will have settled somewhat by then, world opinion will have realized how criminally the US have behaved by killing Iraqi and Iranian officials. The later the war starts, the better for the Iranians. That explains why the US are escalating so heavily right now.

If Iran really got hold of some Ukrainian nuclear warheads back when the Soviet Union dissolved, then the time for testing one of them would be now.

The big question has to be how China and Russia position themselves. The Americans and Israelis seem to think that Putin and Xi are weak enough internally to allow them to go through with it all. The true battlefield will be Russian and and Chinese public opinion. If Putin and Xi can convince their peoples that Iran has to be supported, then the equation would shift. They should at least start making weapon deliveries. Russia could even claim that it has to protect the nuclear site in Busher where Russians work, deploying S-400s manned by its own personnel. China could claim that war in the Persian Gulf would be too much of a threat to its economy. Both claims would be true.

anonymous [217] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:24 am GMT
@anonymous

Perhaps they'll be able to gin up some popular riots and demonstrations throughout the Muslim world.

That should be the best strategy for Iran to invoke the common heritage of the true monotheist faith we share, of which there is much.

On a personal level, even if I have reservations about Shi'sm, and what I see as clear deviancy, I, and I am sure many other true monotheist brothers, are still on the side of Iran, because my suspicion of Shi'sm is far less than my visceral hatred for Whitey/Joonist Imperialism. May the Almighty One's wrath befall the satanically evil pagan/godless Whitey/Joonist Imperialists, those avowed enemies of True Monotheism.

Iran should find ways to communicate with the Arab street directly using Whitey/Zionist Imperialist tools like Twitter and Facebook, as long as it will be allowed. The irony is not lost on me.

anonymous [217] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:50 am GMT
@Rich I don't know much about Soleimani, except for the bile spewed by western imperialist stooges in the fake media.

But, I know there has got to be some good and honourable in a person who fights satanic evil of Whitey & Joonist Imperialism.

May the Almighty One forgive his sins and grant him the rewards of a true monotheist martyr.

Priss Factor , says: Website Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:49 am GMT
@anonymous Long Live Iran. Death to America.
Priss Factor , says: Website Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:52 am GMT
@Anonymous

Also, there is a large faction within the Democratic party who will never go to war for Israel, because they simply don't like Jews.

They don't get to decide. The uppermost elites do. Lower-level Democrats are just rubber-stampers. They may not like Israel but must still serve it. Jewish Money and Media compel them to.

Tsar Nicholas , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 11:50 am GMT
@Nicolás Palacios Navarro

I believe a not insignificant amount -- perhaps even the majority -- of pro-war Americans know this to be true: That they and their progeny are mere cannon fodder for Zionist imperialism. But they simply don't care or are even proud of dying for so "worthy" a cause. Never underestimate the persistent and deeply-rooted hysterical adulation that Israel commands -- nor the utter foolishness of your average American.

This is so true. American Protestant Christianity – Evangelicalism in particular – has been warped and modified by Zionism. Whereas for 1800 years Christians believed and preached that God took on human form and that Jesus died for the sins of all humanity, the belief now seems to be that God is a real estate agent. I think that even if Evangelicals were to find out that the Talmud teaches that in the Millennium every Jew is to have 2,800 goyim as slaves, they would accept it.

Tsar Nicholas , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:01 pm GMT
@A123 Of course, the paid Iranian shills posting here will decry this simple and obvious truth. Fortunately, no one believes them.

I was out of work for forty seven years (due to my issues with women, and my extreme myopia, not to mention my body odour). So I was really happy to be offered a job as a cyber warrior by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command under their blessed leader General Qasem Soleimani at what I thought was a really good rate of pay.

Imagine my disillusion when I discovered how few pounds I could get for my Rials, thanks to the continuing US economic sanctions. So, with a heavy heart I realised that I had no alternative other than to go to work for Mossad to finance my sex offending.

EoinW , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:23 pm GMT
People need to realize that the dynamic has changed completely. For Iran, patience is no longer an option. Israel/USA will continue to attack. Seriously, look at Trump's 52 target tweet. It sounds like the ranting of Hitler during his last days in the bunker. Not fighting back is the worst thing Iran can now do.

Regarding the court of public opinion: Iran had the sympathy of the majority of people in the world long before the new year. It counts for nothing when it comes to avoiding war. All that matters is the western media and the brainwashed western public. Iran can never win that PR fight. In fact, if you polled Americans and gave them the option of ending the Iran problem by nuking them that the majority would support this action. A large number of Canadians would also support this. More importantly, after such a nuclear attack and 80 million dead Iranians the main thing westerners will care about is getting back to business as usual. America will resort to a nuclear attack because it believes it can get away with it. What does Iran have to lose?

I hope the following happens Monday:

1) the Houthis strike and shut down all Saudi oil production.

2) a cyber attack in the USA. Maybe take down the power grid. We know how much Americans love war when they can sit in front of their tv and cheer on the US military. How much will they love it, or the people who brought them this war, when they're stuck in their unheated homes in the middle of January?

I also hope they are seriously considering the following:

3) hitting every US military target in the region that could be used to bomb Iran.

4) Hizbollah and Syria launching attacks against Israel. The Israeli's are the real provocateurs. If they pay no price they will continue to push for further aggression.

No matter what is done by Iran or its allies the retaliation by the US will be greater than what we've seen so far. Even if nothing is done Israel/USA will create another incident for an excuse to attack again. The war has started. One sure way for Iran to lose it is to not participate.

KindKaiser , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:49 pm GMT
@Rich World War I – fought on behalf of ZIONISTS who influenced Jews in Woodrow Wilson's cabinet (the "brain trust", and a certain Jewish man, STEPHEN WISE, known as the 'Red Rabbi' for his affinity for Communism!). This deal was in exchange for Britain giving Palestine to the Zionist Jews (even though it wasn't even Britain's to give at the time)! Surely you have heard of the BALFOUR DECLARATION, right? Quit spinning this disingenuous pseudo-history!

World War II – Franklin Delano Roosevelt's cabinet was ALSO chock-full of Zionists, and a certain Jewish man, now in his older years but still very influential, STEPHEN WISE yet again, was also one of his closest advisors. And Churchill, who ALSO was bought and paid for by Zionist interests, was in on this as well read Pat Buchanan's "Hitler, Churchill, and the Unnecessary War" for a pretty mainstream take on this subject. But basically World War II was ALSO fought for Zionists, and what was the result?

Britain: LOST THEIR EMPIRE
Zionists: CREATED THE COLONIALIST SETTLER STATE OF ISRAEL BY EVICTING PALESTINIANS THROUGH TERRORIST GROUPS LIKE THE IRGUN

So WHO was that really done on behalf of???
You lot really need to quit spinning this nonsense here; it's just not going to work with anyone who's educated and intelligent enough to research for themselves and it makes you and your cause look very foolish.

KindKaiser , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:57 pm GMT
@Rich Why don't you go to Iran and tell the millions mourning in the streets there for this man who symbolised the resistance to the evil Zionist World Order how 'wrong' they are
Or are all of them just horribly misguided and confused? Or maybe they're just 'evil' people who ought to be destroyed? And we need to 'bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran'? How convenient!

For the record, some of those mourning Soleimani's death the most are the ethnic Christian communities whom he so bravely defended from ISIS (who we now know were supported by Israel and the 'rebel' forces that Zionists in the West helped fund). But I am guessing your kind doesn't support the continued existence of some of the oldest Christian communities in existence that are in the Middle East, because you probably cheered when their homes got bulldozed by the Zionists in the Naqba–many of them still have the keys to their houses, by the way.

KindKaiser , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:59 pm GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso I'm not a Muslim, nor am I inbred.
I honour Soleimani's sacrifice because he was one of the foremost defenders of Christians from ISIS, and the ancient Christian communities in the Middle East are some of those grieving his murder the most. Do you not care about them, or are you just that ignorant?
Hong Kong Hibernian , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:21 pm GMT
@anonymous "That should be the best strategy for Iran to invoke the common heritage of the true monotheist faith we share, of which there is much."

Yes! yes! This is the best strategem for the true monotheist brothers: invoke common heritage.

repeat it to yourself true brother: common heritage. common heritage. common heritage.

BTW, Iran can always use the cool new encrypted chat app. Do you know it? Islamachat. Very cool app.

There's only one problem my true monotheist brother allah used up 99 usernames as soon as he signed up.

But, you know, what can we do?

Momus , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:30 pm GMT
@Rich Spot on.

The Iranians have no good options.

If they attack US assets and kill personnel by missiling a base or sinking a warship Donny will destroy their nuclear program.

If they or their Hezbollah proxies missile Tel Aviv the Israelis will nuke them.

Momus , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:37 pm GMT
@animalogic Part of Trump's plan is to rid Iraq of it's Iranian influence. It will be the Iranians ejected not the US.

He has eliminated Soleimani, the leader of Iran's Iraqi proxy forces and killed, arrested or forced into hiding many other pro Iranian urgers.

The riots in the south of the country are largely about removing Iranian influence and the artificial Sunni/Shia sectarian differences. Expect this social movement to be energised in a pro US way.

Momus , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:43 pm GMT
@Alternate History What would hitting Israel with missile salvos achieve? Getting strategically nuked and your atomic program eliminated?
Quartermaster , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 3:58 pm GMT
More uninformed stupidity by Saker.

There will be no all out war in the middle east. No one in the ME is any position to deal in such a fashion with the US and it would be suicidal to try. Dear leader in Iran has only bad choices and even using proxies, he places his entire regime on a chopping block. Those 52 targets were selected in a way that Iran's economy will be crushed quickly.

So let the Imams go ahead and try to get their blood revenge. They are only digging their own graves.

By the by, Soleimani was not murdered. He was a terrorist leader and got what he had coming to him.

Commentator Mike , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 4:34 pm GMT
@Quartermaster No, it's not up to Iran if there will be a war, it is up to USA, and it wants the war, and there is nothing Iran can do to prevent it except make the yanks and their stooges in the region pay the biggest price possible given their own resources and resourcefulness. Did you people forget Iraq? After sanctions and years of the USAF bombing targets to enforce those "no fly" zones, one set up in the south specifically to protect the Shiites they're now turning on, they still went all out and invaded Iraq without Saddam having done anything to provoke them, and in fact being most cooperative and even allowing inspectors into the country to confirm that he had no WMDs. Unless of course you think Saddam brought down WTC on 911.
Jim Christian , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:02 pm GMT
Hey Saker!? You in touch with Andrei Martyanov to get a take? He's big on capabilities, be curious to hear his opinion on all this foolishness..
Rich , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:16 pm GMT
@Beefcake the Mighty You're supporting the policies of Nadler, Schiff and Schumer but I'm the cuck? Yeah right.
SeekerofthePresence , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:21 pm GMT
@BeenThereDunnit Persia, Russia, and China all have a gift for long-term survival (though Russia and China are capable of immediate and devastating action). As PCR has suggested, Russia will likely counsel Iran to bide it's time; why attack a dinosaur already frothing at the mouth and collapsing under its own weight?

And as you mention, there is much preparation Iran can do now. The battlespace has changed: Neocon Crazies (Pence, Pompeo) are now making command decisions (the Soleimani hit, decision on 52 major follow-up strikes) at the Pentagon.

Therefore Iran must be doubly cautious before moving. As Sun Tzu would say: If a stronger enemy goads you to fight, then hold back and wait for the proper moment. Never do what the enemy wants or expects.

Harbinger , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:22 pm GMT
@Z-man I found out about the talmud around 12 years ago now. I have to say I was shocked with what it stated within, but that was also because I was Jew ignorant. This opened up the door to Judaism and what it was all about.
I'm not religious. I do believe there was a man named Christ, a revolutionary and I struggle with the 'son of God' concept. The jury is out on that. However what annoyed me was the fact that this was the major teaching within Judaism and no one had ever heard about it. Were there anything remotely similar to this, about Jews or blacks, there'd be a public outcry and heads would roll, yet millions of Christians openly know about this and still support Judaism and see them as God's chosen. It just beggars belief.

"He confessed that the 'manual' was not too kind to gentiles."

There you go. From the very own horse's mouth. What more needs to be said? As stated, tell people to forget about the online talmuds. They've been conveniently changed to remove the 'bad parts' within. Jews doing what Jews do – deceive.

As for your former work colleague, who knows, he may end up becoming just like this former Jew.

turtle , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:52 pm GMT
@Kratoklastes I take it as axiomatic that the U.S. Military could not successfully occupy Iran, and is very well aware of that reality. Nor is there, as far as I can see, any overriding political reason to do so.
IMO, the primary objective of any U.S. attack on Iran would be:

To destroy Iran as a modern country, and foreclose, if possible, any chance Iran could become a modern country in the foreseeable future.

To that end, look for the destruction of civilian infrastructure and cultural monuments, as others here have postulated, and as was done in Iraq. The (unstated) aim would be to break the national will and destroy the cultural identity of the Iranian people, using the specious claim of "fighting terrorism."

Look for the Great Mosque of Isfahan:

to be high on the target list, along with the Iranian parliament building and countless other non-military objectives.

Is such an attack (by air power alone) likely to succeed?
A1. In the short term, yes.
A2. In the longer term, success is not guaranteed.
If experience in Europe, i.e. Germany, is any guide, I expect Iran could manage to rebuild itself in twenty years or so.

In the meantime, the U.S. will have completed its transformation to a full-on outlaw nation, having flagrantly violated the Nuremberg prohibition, which itself established, against "waging aggressive war," and become the groveling, depraved toady of a small, and otherwise insignificant, middle eastern "state" founded upon the theft of land and resources from the indigenous population by a thugocracy of European interlopers who claim some kind of "divine right of possession," or "land title from God," based on the assertion that some members of their tribe lived in that area thousands of years ago.

In short, the U.S is now the titular head of an Evil Empire.
Long live the Resistance.

Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 6:28 pm GMT
@Rich For amusement purposes, I'll ask: how am I supporting those guys?
Z-man , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 6:33 pm GMT
@Harbinger I too was uninformed of my Catholic religion and that's funny because I went to Catholic administered schools from grammar school to college. (Grin)

Were there anything remotely similar to this (The Talmud), about Jews or blacks, there'd be a public outcry and heads would roll, yet millions of Christians openly know about this and still support Judaism and see them as God's chosen. It just beggars belief.

Vatican II had a lot to do with this 'accepting' of Jews. Christian Zionists are the biggest culprits today.

forget about the online Talmuds. They've been conveniently changed to remove the 'bad parts' within. Jews doing what Jews do – deceive.

I'm sure.

I do believe there was a man named Christ, a revolutionary and I struggle with the 'son of God' concept.

You gotta have faith . See Brother Nathaniel, a converted Jew. A bit over the top when you first see him, on the net, but a man of faith and truth.

George , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 6:36 pm GMT
@Harbinger Alternative theory: Trump, like Nixon, is a genius.

Trump tweeted he wanted out of Syria. The military industrial complex said no. So Trump then said OK, I going to give the military industrial complex what it wants 'good and hard' to quote HL Mencken. This is kind of like how Nixon ended the US involvement in Vietnam, he forced to US military to confront North Vietnamese regular army and everybody, including the military industrial complex, involved objected to it, so the US had to leave.

Nixon takes all the fun out of being in the USAF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_II

Trump seems hell bent on getting the US tossed out of Iraq. Godspeed DJT.

Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 6:50 pm GMT
@Quartermaster Soleimani was fighting the terrorists who were created by the ZUS and Israel and Z-Britain and Z-NATO, these being AL CIADA aka ISIS aka ISIL aka Daesh etc..

The middle east wars were brought on by the joint attack on the WTC by Israel and the ZUS , to be blamed on the muslims , thus giving Israel and ZUS the excuse to destroy the middle east for the zionists greater Israel project.

Not Raul , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 7:05 pm GMT
@ivegotrythm Sure; but killing people slowly through pollution, radioactive or otherwise, generally hasn't started wars.

Nuclear fallout from the USA and Soviet Union has killed people in many countries over decades; but no country has gone to war over it.

Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 7:11 pm GMT
@Assad al-islam Iranians are hardly shrewd. They ripped themselves a permanent asshole with us Americans in 1979 (and no, I don't need a lecture on the Shah, since that doesn't magically make their actions shrewd). And they have continued ever since by calling us "the great Satan" and chanting "death to America." They did themselves no favors by shooting down our drone a few months ago, and they were tempting fate last week when they arrogantly boasted "You (we Americans) can't do anything." It's like Michael Ledeen is their chief adviser. None of that is shrewd. It is damned foolish.

And yes, I know that American foreign policy is damned foolish, too (yet another thing I don't need anyone here to lecture me about). And I know that Israel is the major cause of Middle East problems. But acknowledging all that doesn't mean that Iran is a noble, virtuous, innocent party in the entire affair. So many people have the absurd mindset that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Muslims are ever bit as supremacist as Jews are. And as long as that remains the case, people are not going to be persuaded to pressure the American government to stop reading from the Neocon script. Venerating Iran and lionizing the dead general is going to be a deal breaker for a lot of people, and a big part of that dynamic is Iran's fault.

bluedog , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:09 pm GMT
@Not Raul Lol now I didn't know that Russia was hundreds,thousands of mile away from Iran,thank for the heads up those damnable Iranians have upped and moved their border again,tsk,tsk,tsk.!!!
bluedog , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:38 pm GMT
@Colin Wright One think you should know is that you can't talk sense to a fool,they resent it>!!!
bluedog , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:49 pm GMT
@Rich For Gods sake quit posting it only makes you out the fool.Now Iran elected a leader by means that we use ourselves the ballot box,now what's wrong we that? then the democratic elected president states that Iran's oil belongs to Iran and its people,you boys are out.

Now Churchill gets his undies in a twist whining but wait England's industry runs on CHEAP Iranian oil (25 cent a barrel oil),so he calls up the M15 tells them to join their partners in the C.I.A. and over throw that asshole who thinks that their oil belong to them,and as they say the rest is history,I trust its the real history not the revised history you spout,!!

Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:54 pm GMT
'One think you should know is that you can't talk sense to a fool,they resent it!!!'

He's not necessarily a fool.

He's just attempting to defend the indefensible. That'll tend to make you sound foolish whether you are or not.

Rich , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:12 pm GMT
@Beefcake the Mighty They oppose the shooting of Soleimani, and so do you. If I'm a cuck because my support of killing terrorist Muslims also happens to be the same position as Bibi Netanyahu's , I guess following your logic, your support of the same position as the commie trio I named, makes you a cuck. In fact I guess you also kneel in front of AOC and that hijab wearing Ilhan Omar. Following your logic even further, you must be Al Sharpton's shoe shine boy and Maxine Waters wig washer, since they also opposed the shooting.

Or, could it be that we just have different viewpoints on an issue, and it's only a coincidence that some others share that opinion in this case? I don't check with the Israeli embassy before I make my mind up and I'm open to changing my mind if a convincing argument is made. Do you, since your opinion is exactly the same as theirs, check with the DNC before forming an opinion?

SeekerofthePresence , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:41 pm GMT
Epsteinistan murders the general,
Threatens we will pummel you with more strikes.
Pimps himself to glories ephemeral,
World domination the jackboot he licks.
Z-man , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:46 pm GMT
@George Lets hope you're right but the power of The Cabal is pervasive. (And perverse)
Passer by , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:58 pm GMT
@Quartermaster You are naive person. The US will have to fight the whole Shia world if it attacks Iran, including Iraq. You live in the past and never realised the decline of the US in the world. You were just kicked by Iraq. Legislation was accepted forcing the US to withdraw from Iraq and cease all kind of collaboration.

You can forget about US companies operating there too, China and Russia will move there instead. Its resources and arms market are lost to you. Americans are hated in the country and can't even leave the Embassy in safety.

We also learned today officialy from Iraq's Prime Minister Adil Abdul al Mahdi how Donald Trump uses diplomacy:

US asked Iraq to mediate with Iran. Iraq PM asks Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer of his mediation, Trump &co assassinate an envoy at the airport.

No options for Iran? Let's hope "someone" doesn't provide manpads to the Taliban. You lost aganist them too, and soon will be kicked out from Afghanistan in humiliation.

Do you know who Muqtada Al Sadr is? The most influential person in Iraq, a country with huge oil and gas reserves and young combat ready population rising fast. The man who kicked the arse of the US occupation of Iraq. Muqtada Al Sadr demands the total removal of not only US troops, but the of US embassy and all US diplomats in Iraq as well. And an Axis Of Resistance against the US by all Shia groups all around the world.

This will cut off supply lines to your remnants in Syria and put the few US soldiers there under siege, hated by almost all sides. They won't make it in Syria for long.

Meanwhile, you managed to make the Turks hate you too. Just keep doing that.

Iran's FM said something interesting yeasterday: The end of Malign US Influence in West Asia has begun. The US will be gradually kicked out from the region.

The 2020s will be a time of great power transition where the rest of the world rises and the US declines, being kicked out from many places. You made a big mistake, making more and more enemies everywhere in the world.

Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 12:10 am GMT
@Rich Wow. That was stupid even by your standards. Good job!
Scham , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 12:28 am GMT
Iran, Russia and China should attacked the Achilles Hell of the US which is Gold. China should sell its US$1.2 Trillion of US Treasury bonds and keep buying Gold. That will send the Gold price soaring to US$10,000 an oz. Interest rates will spike and Wall St and the US$1.5 quadrillion Derivatives market will collapse, bankrupting all major US banks.
annamaria , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 2:43 am GMT
@animalogic "Is the US so completely insane ?"

-- The visceral ethnic hatred of the real bosses and the fabled American incompetence of the profiteers-in–charge do not have a place for any rationality.

Smith , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 2:50 am GMT
With the recent development. I must admit I'm a fool for having a slight hope for Trump NOT being a neocon jew shill. It's out in the open now.

Hats off to Iran, they have won without (directly) fighting, these people have read Sun Tzu. Complete master.

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 3:00 am GMT
@KindKaiser Poor "Rich," it is intolerable for a zionist to face the facts of Jewish "affinity" for bolshevism: https://www.unz.com/pub/jhr__the-jewish-role-in-the-bolshevik-revolution-and-russias-early-soviet-regime/

"Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka," wrote Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro, "stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator."

In Ukraine, "Jews made up nearly 80 percent of the rank-and-file Cheka agents," reports W. Bruce Lincoln, an American professor of Russian history. Beginning as the Cheka, or Vecheka, the Soviet secret police was later known as the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD and KGB. [Remember Holodomor in Ukraine? Add to the Kaganovich fame of mass murderer the fame of Nuland-Kagan, the collaborator with Ukrainian neo-nazi and promotor of the ongoing civil war in eastern Ukraine].

In light of all this, it should not be surprising that Yakov M. Yurovksy, the leader of the Bolshevik squad that carried out the murder of the Tsar and his family, was Jewish, as was Sverdlov, the Soviet chief who co-signed Lenin's execution order.

NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 3:04 am GMT
@Rich Sadly, Ron Unz has been extremely negligent in omitting the inclusion of a MORON button. I really couldn't label you a TROLL as that would in fact be complimentary towards you.
annamaria , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 3:08 am GMT
@Momus Tel Aviv is home to zionist cowards who hide behind the US skirt while parasitizing on the body of the US. Your attempt at presenting yourself as a brave warrior is ridiculous. After shooting the civilians (including children of all ages) on the occupied territories, Israelis have got a delusional idea of being the brave soldiers and military geniuses. Relax. Yours is an Epstein nation of Israel.
Skeptikal , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 3:15 am GMT
@BeenThereDunnit "That explains why the US are escalating so heavily right now. "

The neocons probably want a spring war.
For themselves, and to do Bibi the most good.
Spring is the most convenient time for warmaking.
Nice weather.
If they are planning for this war, they are already well along in putting the logistics in place.
We are probably screwed.
I read somewhere fairly recently an analysis of why a spring war would "work" well for both the Dems and the Repugs. But I cannot recall the rationales.
So it seems like all sides are angling and wangling to move Trump in the direction of a spring attack on Iran.

As for ":Some of those Iranian mosques are not only holy sites as such, they are marvels of architecture. Attacking them would be a crime against the heritage of all mankind. That would be truly mad but we will see, sadly. It would enrage Muslims to a degree not seen in living memory."

It would make a LOT of people worldwide furious. Not just Muslims.
Bomb Isfahan? Shiraz? Tabriz? Our "leaders" are mad.

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 3:46 am GMT
@Quartermaster The gullible "Quartermaster" has sided with Nuland-Kagan and Banderites. Oops.

The gullible "Quartermaster" has sided with "white helmets." Oops.

The gullible "Quartermaster" has sided with Bibi. Ooops.

The gullible "Quartermaster" has been trusting wholeheartedly the presstitutes of MSM and even became the MSM's deputy on the Unz Forum to deliver the MSM lies. What's wrong with you?

Soleimani was extraordinarily effective when fighting the ISIS; hence the rabid hatred of Israelis and US war profiteers towards the honorable man.

Too many Oops on your part, gullible "Quartermaster"

Angel , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 3:49 am GMT
@ Rich

Most Jew won't admit it but their god is Lucifer. Read about the "Hidden Tyranny" below:

https://archive.org/stream/TheHiddenTyranny-HaroldWallaceRosenthal/TheHiddenTyranny-HaroldWallaceRosenthal_djvu.txt

Hibernian , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 3:58 am GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso Saddam Hussein had to station the Republican Guard in the rear to shoot deserters.
old farta , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 4:33 am GMT
If I thought that America was responsible for every dastardly dirty crime in the world, I would applaud the article. This article was written from the basis that America's involvement began with the death of a terrorist, where is the history propelling Trump to act?
old farta , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 4:37 am GMT
I smell a coward writing this article. What action would the author have recommended following the death of a American contractor, send the killers more cash?
old farta , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 4:41 am GMT
When Iran invaded the American embassy, did they not invade America? Are not embassies located of the soil of the occupying nation? Did any of the embassy employees attack Iran or it's citizens? Does an invasion constitute an act of war?
Smith , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 4:44 am GMT
@old farta Trump doesn't even act.

Jews tell him to push a button and he did, he doesn't know who he has killed and he doesn't care because jews run the show.

old farta , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 6:32 am GMT
@Smith Too say the "Jews" told him to do something without naming them is suspect. Support your argument with facts, like names, how communicated, when, and how you came by this info.
whattheduck , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 6:35 am GMT
@animalogic The zionists hate Christians more than they hate any other religious group. If by launching a nuclear war, it is guaranteed that Christians will cease to exist, you can be sure they will start a nuclear war. It's not just me talking about, it's in their scriptures.

Zionists hate for Russia is purely because it's predominantly white and Christian nation.

BeenThereDunnit , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 6:57 am GMT
@Skeptikal A spring war would give Iran plenty of time to prepare. It would also give Putin and Xi time to shore up public opinion and deploy assistance. The Russians could even send some of their super-quiet Diesel subs to the Gulf.

If this war goes through, Putin and Xi will come out very weak. Syria on a much grander scale but without Russia and China doing anything about it.

Momus , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 7:51 am GMT
@annamaria Your point?
Mike G , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 9:14 am GMT
It's all going to be a cakewalk, the Iranians will welcome the destruction of their country with open arms. The Iranians won't dare to confront the US or we'll just turn their country into glass. lol

What would Greta say? lol

Nero played his fiddle while Rome burned

Z-man , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 1:30 pm GMT
@whattheduck Good but the Jews won't want complete destruction of the European races because then, no one will protect them. Ideally they'll destroy Christianity while having a polyglot atheist white race serving them.
As I've said many times before the Jew power structure hates Russia, and specifically Putin, because he re-established Orthodox Christianity to the Motherland which they tried to destroy in the communist revolution.

PS. When I started reading on these sites, years ago, I found it almost amusing when people attacked Vatican II. After all, I was indoctrinated as a youth that V-II was the best thing since sliced bread, 'the Church had to become modern .' Needles to say I've become a fan of the SSPX and beyond, like the good Bishop Williamson who said before he was excommunicated, "[T]he people who hold world-wide power today over politics and the media are people who want the godless New World Order, and" "they have fabricated a hugely false version of World War Two history to go with a complete fabricated religion to replace Christianity."

n44bbo , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 1:55 pm GMT
@Rich " The Iranians could not defeat the ragtag forces of Saddam Hussein, but they can defeat the United States? Preposterous."

Actually, it is the other way around !
And .. Saddam, had the almighty USA behind him; so, I must assume that your initial paragraph and the entire comment, is pretty much a childish one.
By the way you articulated your comment, I wonder; what the heck are you reading these articles for, if you do not have neither the knowledge or the understanding of these geopolitical themes.
As a friendly advise, I would suggest, getting a hot water bottle, seat in your armchair and watch television.

Mike G , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 2:35 pm GMT
Quartermaster Baiter is a funny guy

[Jan 06, 2020] Trump's Cartoon Imperialism and War Crimes by Daniel Larrison

Notable quotes:
"... Such a move could be considered a war crime under international laws, but Mr. Trump said Sunday that he was undeterred. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

he Iraqi parliament approved a measure that called for an end to the U.S. military presence in Iraq. The prime minister spoke in favor of a departure of U.S. forces, and it seems very likely that U.S. forces will be required to leave the country in the near future. The president's response to this was in keeping with his cartoon imperialist attitudes about other countries:

Trump threatens Iraq with sanctions if they expel US troops: "If they do ask us to leave, if we don't do it in a very friendly basis. We will charge them sanctions like they've never seen before ever. It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame."

-- Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) January 6, 2020

Trump doesn't see other countries as genuinely sovereign, and he doesn't respect their decisions when they run counter to what he wants, so his first instinct when they choose something he dislikes is to punish them. Economic war has been his preferred method of punishment, and he has applied this in the form of tariffs or sanctions depending on the target. Iraq's government is sick of repeated U.S. violations of Iraqi sovereignty, and the U.S. strikes over the last week have strengthened the existing movement to remove U.S. forces from the country. One might think that Trump would jump at the chance to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and Syria that the Iraqi parliament's action gives him. It would have been better to leave of our own accord before destroying the relationship with Baghdad, but it might be the only good thing to come out of this disaster. It is telling that Trump's reaction to this news is not to seize the opportunity but to threaten Iraq instead. Needless to say, there is absolutely no legitimate basis for imposing sanctions on Iraq, and if Trump did this it would be one more example of how the U.S. is flagrantly abusing its power to bully and attack smaller states.

In another instance of the president's crude cartoon imperialism, he repeated his threat to target Iran's cultural heritage sites:

President Trump on Sunday evening doubled down on his claim that he would target Iranian cultural sites if Iran retaliated for the targeted killing of one of its top generals, breaking with his secretary of state over the issue.

Aboard Air Force One on his way back from his holiday trip to Florida, Mr. Trump reiterated to reporters traveling with him the spirit of a Twitter post on Saturday, when he said that the United States government had identified 52 sites for retaliation against Iran if there were a response to Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani's death. Some, he tweeted, were of "cultural" significance.

Such a move could be considered a war crime under international laws, but Mr. Trump said Sunday that he was undeterred.

OrthoAnabaptist • 19 hours ago

When o when will this man leave the stage? Who oh who will stand up against him and save the world from this man? God have mercy on us all and deliver us from this anti-christ.
Brandon Falusi • 18 hours ago
Trump really really enjoyed telling his "Black Jack Pershing's bullets dipped in pig's blood" fairy tales during the campaign, and so did the rallygoers. He loves reveling in the amoral gutter, and his base loves him unconditionally. Ailes, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, and now Trump: their aggresive, barbaric, venal leaders and spokesmen. Whaddayagonnado? They can't help it. They follow the guy who calls the opposition within his own party "human scum." Takes one to know one, right? That's right. Trump is a visceral hedonist, so yes, he likes aggression.
Clyde Schechter • 17 hours ago
Bravo, Mr. Larison! Well said!

As reactions are emerging around the world, it seems pretty clear that the US will be almost completely isolated in this situation. Europe may finally be growing a spine.

Most interesting is the reaction from the UK. Dominic Raab initially made some "balanced" remarks pointing out that Soleimani was a bad actor but counseling restraint. The next day, presumably under directions from Boris Johnson, he retracted that and said that the UK is on the same page as the US. This is a portent of things to come. I think that most people who voted for Brexit did so because they wanted to take back their sovereignty from Brussels. But this weekend is probably the first step in the UK's march towards becoming, in practical terms, a US colony. The UK's economy and other influence are simply not large enough to stand alone against those of the US, the EU, and China. They will be in something of a beggars can't be choosers position when negotiating trade deals with these larger entities. They can expect the EU to do them no favors given their chaotic dealings with them. China will probably take a pragmatic approach to them. Their best hope for favorable treatment is with the United States, and Johnson has fawned over Trump enough to have reason to believe it might happen. But it also entails that the UK will not be free to dissent from US foreign policy in the slightest way. In fact, if we end up in a conventional war with Iran, I suspect that the UK will be the only nation in the world that sends troops there with us. (The UAE, Israel and the Saudis will, of course, cheer us on, even goad us, but will not risk any of their own blood.) I wonder how Brexit supporters will feel about that. At least Brussels never dragged them into any stupid wars.

Remember this date. It marks the date the UK began its journey from the frying pan into the fire.

SFBay1949 • 15 hours ago
At this point the question is, can Trump have even a vaguely normal conversation about anything? Certainly not foreign policy. Just how much of this manure can he spew before the Republican Party responds? My guess is they've gone so far past the point of normal that there's no coming back This is both sad and frightening.
Begemot • 15 hours ago
One common response to Trump's threat to attack Iranian cultural sites is that the military would not carry out such obviously illegal orders

I wouldn't put any hope in the US military disobeying such orders. It's not what they are really trained for. They may pay lip service to having respect for laws of war but they won't actually pay any attention to them. Respect for culture? Remember Dresden? The crude barbarism of Sherman and Sheridan is the spirit of the US military.

Daniel (not Larrison) • 9 hours ago
As a conservative (not a Republican, but certainly not a Democrat) who cannot abide thinking of any of the democratic candidates as President, I would love to see impeachment. Mike Pence would be infinitely preferable as President to this little psychopathic bully.

Seriously, the last few days should principled non-interventionists know that Trump is empjatically not one of us. He'd gladly sabotage the future of the United States on the alter of his own ego.

K squared • 8 hours ago
Vandal
Fran Macadam • 7 hours ago
"He sees war only in the crudest terms of plunder and atrocity."

It's a blunt but true observation. We spend most of our time justifying wars as noble and moral, using euphemism to disguise the reality to ourselves and others. Two cheers for being truthful.

I also note that destroying cultural monuments is claimed to be a war crime, while inevitable civilian deaths are just acceptable collateral damage.

Let's not pretend that the long history of the imperial coveting of either Iraq's or Iran's resources has ever been much more than plunder, often making use of atrocity. What doesn't qualify as that, is great game imperialist jockeying for geostrategic advantage against commercial rivals.

Of course "things" would be sacrosanct, while human lives are not, in the wholly materialist calculus of warmongering.o

FL_Cottonmouth • 7 hours ago
Attacking cultural-heritage sites, Pres. Trump? Like what the Taliban did to the Buddhas of Bamyan? Or what ISIS did to ancient art, architecture, and artifacts in Mosul, Palmyra, Raqqa, and more? What a barbarian!
Fuzzy • 6 hours ago
I think he has finally crossed the line. There really IS something wrong with him and he should be removed from office.
kouroi • 6 hours ago
Will Congress dare to eliminate funds for the occupation of Iraq and for attacking Iran? Will all those that would vote for continuation of funding will be removed from office through elections, in the very gerrymandered locales, in a FPTP system, with no ability to leave work early to go to vote, with so many disenfranchised? The system is fully rigged to be a dictatorship all but in name...
Daniel (not Larrison) • 6 hours ago
Another thing: Trump's decrying of the Iraqi war was merely a way he could rail at the other Republican candidates. If the establishment was for it, he was against it. That's how he works.

Maybe he fools himself into thinking he's got principles. Maybe he even thinks he has a coherent foreign policy (or policy of any kind). But no, he's just narcissism and id all the way down.

There's still no border wall. Still troops in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Planned Parenthood is still funded.

Oh, but he waves the flag, doesn't he? That makes up for everything...right?

[Jan 06, 2020] Was Suleimani a diplomatic envoy at the time of his killing?

Notable quotes:
"... How do you think Soleimani organized, sustained and coordinated his Resistance Militias in different countries turning them into a formidable military offensive resistance strategy? With strategic military and diplomatic savvy. Soleimani was sent as an envoy to Russia by Iran's Supreme Leader at a critical time in the Syrian war and also at Putin's request. If Soleimani was lured by the U.S. and Saudis on a pretext of peace to be assassinated by a U.S. drone this proves just how depraved Trump is. This strategy is right out of the Zionist dirty tricks playbook and Trump has proven in every way he is all in with Zionists and is one of them. ..."
"... I take the Iraqi Prime Minister at his word, and reassert the need for Trump and his administration to be impeached on treasonous grounds. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Circe , Jan 5 2020 19:42 utc | 93

@78 Jackrabbit

Suleimani was not a diplomat... Really? I'd say he was a great military leader and just as great a diplomat to accomplish what he did.

Soleimani unfurled the Syria Russia strategy in Moscow

How do you think Soleimani organized, sustained and coordinated his Resistance Militias in different countries turning them into a formidable military offensive resistance strategy? With strategic military and diplomatic savvy. Soleimani was sent as an envoy to Russia by Iran's Supreme Leader at a critical time in the Syrian war and also at Putin's request. If Soleimani was lured by the U.S. and Saudis on a pretext of peace to be assassinated by a U.S. drone this proves just how depraved Trump is. This strategy is right out of the Zionist dirty tricks playbook and Trump has proven in every way he is all in with Zionists and is one of them.

albagen , Jan 5 2020 19:43 utc | 94

Iraqi PM said so
juliania , Jan 5 2020 19:53 utc | 96
As reported by krollchem @ 67 and by b in this and the following post, the involvement of Trump directly in premeditated murder cannot be absolved, and the circumstances are abhorrent to any patriotic American citizen. May God have mercy on the souls of the peace makers, for they shall be called the sons of God.

I take the Iraqi Prime Minister at his word, and reassert the need for Trump and his administration to be impeached on treasonous grounds.

Where that will lead in terms of the rest of the US government I cannot say but VP Pence is also impeachable here, so it is difficult to see who is least culpable in this. It may mean that there is need for a provisional government to be put in place - not party organized. If impeachment proceeds apace as it should, behind the scenes such a people's approved peaceful citizens coalition needs to be considered. This cannot stand as official US government policy. It is heinous.

I too, as forward @ 24 has done, sent prayers for the souls of the departed Iran general as well as his friend from Iraq and their companions this morning in my home chapel. It is the Sunday before Christmas, old calendar. May the Lord bring them and so many others before them to a place where the just repose.

[Jan 06, 2020] Anti-War Conservatives Join Protests Against Trump's Iran Confrontation by Hunter DeRensis

Notable quotes:
"... "I think the more people who are prepared to stand up and say it [the assassination] is completely, not only inappropriate, not only illegal, not only unjust, but an act of war to do something like this, the better," said Nicole Rousseau with the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which has been planning anti-war protests in D.C. since 2002. ..."
"... This is the moment, as Donald Trump embraces the neoconservative dream of war with Iran, that the Republican base must stand on their hind legs, lock arms with their progressive allies, and say no . ..."
"... Tucker Carlson Tonight ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Now is the time for Republicans of conviction to stand together.

t speaks to the state of American politics when for three years the continued defense of Donald Trump's record has been: "well, he hasn't started any new wars." Last week, however, that may have finally changed.

In the most flagrant tit-for-tat since the United States initiated its economic war against Iran in the spring of 2018, the Trump administration assassinated Major General Qasem Soleimani, who for more than 20 years has led the Iranian Quds Force. The strategic mind behind Iran's operations in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the rest of the Middle East, Soleimani's death via drone strike outside of Baghdad's airport is nothing short of a declaration of open warfare between American and Iranian-allied forces in Iraq.

While the world waits for the Islamic Republic's inevitable response, the reaction on the home front was organized in less than 36 hours. Saturday afternoon, almost 400 people gathered on the muddy grass outside the White House in Washington, D.C., joined in solidarity by simultaneous rallies in over 70 other U.S. cities.

The D.C. attendees and their co-demonstrators were expectedly progressive, but the organizers made clear they were happy to work across political barriers for the cause of peace.

"I think the more people who are prepared to stand up and say it [the assassination] is completely, not only inappropriate, not only illegal, not only unjust, but an act of war to do something like this, the better," said Nicole Rousseau with the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which has been planning anti-war protests in D.C. since 2002.

Code Pink's Leonardo Flores, when asked what politicians he believed were on the side of the peace movement, named Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders and Republican Senator Rand Paul. "I don't think peace should be a left and right issue," he said. "I think it's an issue we can all rally around. It's very clear too much of our money is going to foreign wars that don't benefit the American people and we could be using that money in many different ways, giving it back to the American people, whether it's investing in social spending or giving direct tax cuts."

This is the moment, as Donald Trump embraces the neoconservative dream of war with Iran, that the Republican base must stand on their hind legs, lock arms with their progressive allies, and say no .

It's happened before. In 2013, when the Obama administration was ready for regime change in Syria, Americans, both left and right, made clear they didn't want to see their sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters die so the American government could install the likes of Abu Mohammed al-Julani in Damascus.

Of course, it was much easier for Republicans to stand up to a Democratic president going to war. "It's been really unfortunate that so much of politics now is driven on a partisan basis," opined Eric Garris, director and co-founder of Antiwar.com, in an interview with TAC . "Whether you're for or against war and how strongly you might be against war is driven by partisan points of view."

When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, the movement that saw millions march against George W. Bush's war in Iraq disappeared overnight (excluding a handful of stalwart organizations like Code Pink). Non-interventionist Republicans can't repeat that mistake. They have to show that if an American president wants to start an unconstitutional, immoral war, it's the principle that matters, not the R or D next to their names.

Garris said the reason Antiwar.com was founded in 1995 was to bridge this partisan divide by putting people like Daniel Ellsberg and Pat Buchanan side by side for the same cause. "These coalitions are only effective if you try to bring in a broad coalition of people," he said. "I want to see rallies of thousands of people in Omaha, Nebraska, and things like that, where they're reaching out to middle America and to the people that are actually going to reach the unconverted."

The right is in the best position it's been in decades to accomplish this. "I don't know if you saw Tucker Carlson Tonight , but it was quite amazing to watch that kind of antiwar sentiment on Fox News," Garris said. "You would not have seen [that] in recent history. And certainly the emergence of The American Conservative magazine has been a really strong signal and leader in terms of bringing about the values of the Old Right like non-interventionism to a conservative audience."

This also includes the core antiwar members of Congress, all of whom are Republican , and new conservative veterans groups like Bring Our Troops Home .

It's the anti-war right, in the Republican tradition of La Follette, Taft, Paul, and Buchanan, that has the power to stop middle America from following Trump into a conflict with Iran. But it's both sides, working together as Americans, that can finally end the endless wars.

Hunter DeRensis is a reporter with The National Interest and a regular contributor to The American Conservative. Follow him on Twitter @HunterDeRensis .

[Jan 06, 2020] https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/national/iraq-strategic-framework-agreement.htm

Jan 06, 2020 | www.globalsecurity.org


I also recommend reading the SOFA with Iraq which is a masterpiece of semantic and legalistic deception- (and they have one year to actually get out after termination of the "agreement")

Talking about deception, James Corbett did a brilliant exposé of the "difficulties of crisis initiation" vs. Iran

https://www.corbettreport.com/iranfalseflag/

After watching this enlightening video, reading the transcript of the "special briefing on Iraq" by the State Dept. is like "stepping thru the looking glass" into a surreal world of self-delusion, ("believing six impossible things before breakfast"), here is an example: (SSD stands for senior state department official "One, Two or Three" (whose names apparently have to be kept secret )

QUESTION: Thank you. Could you take us through the – so you – could you take us through the diplomatic strategy for DE-ESCALATION? I mean, after the strike, what are the main elements of our diplomatic plan to --

SSD OFFICIAL ONE: [SSD official Three] can both talk about this.

SSD OFFICIAL THREE: Yeah, first of all, we're stressing that we want to stay on in Iraq. We have an important mission there, the coalition. We just spoke with most of the key coalition members this morning, making that message to them. They also took the – well, you need to de-escalate. We raised the point – and [SSD official One] can talk about this is more detail – that we are ready to talk with the Iranians. We've tried to do this in the past. That's on the table.

And again, the point I took with them, and I'll take it again here today: We cannot promise that we have BROKEN the circle of violence. What I can say from my experience with Qasem Soleimani is it is less likely that we will see this now than it was before, and if we do see an increase in violence, it probably will not be as devilishly ingenious. Other than Usama bin Ladin, he's the only guy – with Cafe Milano – a senior terrorist leader around the Middle East who has tried to seriously plot in detail a mass casualty event on American soil. Let him rest in peace.

(!)

https://www.state.gov/senior-state-department-officials-on-the-situation-in-iraq/

Is there a way to find out who this "official no. 3 is?

And finally regarding the "Big Picture" behind it all (from Vietnam to Iraq/Iran)

https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-america-spreads-global-chaos/5616345

"We did not wish to re-examine, condemn, and confront the violence in the extra-constitutional power structure that finally ascended to hegemony over our citizenry and over much of the world "

„I have never declared the covert actions of the U.S. intelligence agencies to be incompetent. They are almost invariably and unerringly competent in murdering, individually and massively, in defense of U.S. military dominance and empire."

(Vincent J. Salandria, author of The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes )

These days the murdering takes place in "overt" action a barbaric act sold to the world as "self-defense"

A Final thought:

Is there a more cowardly , dastardly act (by the "best military in the world") than to tear apart a renowned military commander who fought the real war "on terror" (against ruthless imperialism), with a drone??

Posted by: Antigone | Jan 6 2020 22:12 utc | 95

[Jan 06, 2020] Trump moves to unite the Middle East! (irony)

Jan 06, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Trump-Tax-Reform-Bonuses

Teevee coverage of the recent events in the ME has been predictable. Those who hated Trump continue to hate him, etc.

A few observations:

1. I had hoped that Trump's decision to kill an Iranian general engaged in a diplomatic mission (among other things) while the man was on the soil of a supposed ally of the US was something Trump pulled out of his fundament either inspired by war movies or on the recommendation of "our greatest ally" but I am informed that in fact some idiot in the DoD included this option in the list of possibilities that was briefed to the CinC in Florida. The decision process in such matters requires that when options are demanded by the CinC the JCS prepares a list supported for each option by fully formulated documentation that enables the president to approve one (or none) and then sign the required operational order. Trump himself chose the death option. I would hold General Milley (CJCS) personally responsible for not striking this option from the list before it reached the CinC.

2. The Iranians are a subtle people. IMO they will bide their time whilst working out the "bestest" way to inflict some injury on the US and/or Israel. When the retaliation comes it will be imaginative and painful.

3. Trump is now threatening the Iraqis with severe sanctions if they try to enforce their parliamentary decree against the future presence of foreign (US mostly) troops on their soil. IMO a refusal to leave risks a substantial Shia (at least) uprising against the US forces in Iraq. We have around 5,500 people there now spread across the country in little groups engaged in logistics, intelligence and training missions. They are extremely vulnerable. There are something like 150 marines in the embassy. There are also a small number of US combat forces in Syria east and north of the Euphrates river. These include a battalion of US Army National Guard mechanized troops "guarding" Syria's oil from Syria's own army and whatever devilment the Iranians might be able to arrange.

4. This is an untenable logistical situation. Supply and other functions require a major airfield close to Baghdad. We have Balad airbase and helicopter supply and air support from there into Baghdad is possible from there but may become hazardous. Iraq is a big country. It is a long and lonely drive from Kuwait for re-supply from there or evacuation through there. The same thing is true of the desert route to Jordan.

5. Trump's strategery appears to be based on the concept that the Iraqis will submit to our imperial demands. "We will see." pl

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-strike-live-updates/2020/01/06/3b5451f2-3024-11ea-9313-6cba89b1b9fb_story.html?rand=4

[Jan 06, 2020] Was assasination of Soleimani the USA attempt to derail Iran-Saudi reapproachment: what about Kushner, Netanyahu s agent in Oval Office? Or what about the siamesian creature Esper-Pompeo?

Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sasha , Jan 7 2020 1:07 utc | 149

@Posted by: Bruce | Jan 7 2020 0:50 utc | 144

What do you refer by FDD?

Apart from those you mention, what about Kushner, Netanyahu´s agent in Oval Office? Or what about the siamesian creature Esper-Pompeo? It seems Pompeo was bomabrding he Donald since months ago on Soleimani...One sees the face of Pompeo when graduating and WP and you immediately feel a chill in your spine...There it is a guy who will not stop at anything so as to go up...

Of course, I do not discard a master puppet behind him...but I would look for more in Herzliya of whatever the name is...I doubt the Rothschilds are beihn Pompeo, otherwise he would not look so ambitious, he already would show so calm and confident like Macron...

karlof1 , Jan 7 2020 1:09 utc | 150

Yes, it's Ben Norton and the Gray Zone providing more in-depth info about the peace mission Soleimani was conducting. Don't miss the NY Times extract provided at the linked tweet:

"Iraq's efforts at brokering peace talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran were going very smoothly... until the US empire blew it all to pieces by murdering a top Iranian general and Iraqi commander."

Very clearly to me at least, Iran's Hope proposal was beginning to be acted upon, and as I wrote two days ago, that couldn't be allowed to stand. Thus, how Iran responds is further complicated by the initial success of their initiative--provided the Saudi position was genuine and not a feint. Recall the HOPE proposal allowed for outside participation which back in September I wrote it would be wise for Trump to applaud and promote--IF--he genuinely desired Peace. Now the equation's been changed. The goal is now to completely oust the Evil Outlaw US Empire from the region, but that can still be accomplished through the HOPE proposal.

Now Zarif's been barred by the usual shitheads from attending the UNSC. IMO, the UNGA must reconsider Russia's request to relocate numerous UN activities as the Evil Outlaw US Empire has effectively ceded its position within the UN and clearly doesn't belong there.

[Jan 06, 2020] US Slams Russia, China For Blocking UN Statement On Baghdad Embassy Attack

Jan 06, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

US officials said the majority stood with Washington "in stark contrast to the United Nations Security Council's silence due to two permanent members – Russia and China – not allowing a statement to proceed."

This after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Secretary of State Mike Pompeo a day after Soleimani's death that the US had launched an "illegal power" move which should instead be based on dialogue with Tehran.

Forbes characterized Russian objections within the context of the UN further :

He [Lavrov] said that the actions of a UN member state to eliminate officials of another UN member state on the territory of a third sovereign state "flagrantly violate the principles of international law and deserve condemnation."

Similarly China has stood against Washington's unilateral military action, with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi saying the US must not "abuse force" and instead pursue mutual dialogue.

UN security council file image, via Irish Times.

"The dangerous US military operation violates the basic norms of international relations and will aggravate regional tensions and turbulence," Wang told Javad Zarif in a phone call days ago.

Diplomatically speaking, the US faces an uphill battle on the UN National Security Council, considering its already provoked the ire of two of its formidable members, who increasingly find themselves in close cooperation blocking US initiatives.

dogismycopilot , 6 minutes ago link

For ***** sake, didn't the US SEIZE two Russian Diplomatic buildings in the USA.

**** these guys at DoS have some chutzpah! Lavrov should have called them out on this ****.

bosoxfan1971 , 12 minutes ago link

Here's a nice find. Soleimani and the US fought side by side in 2001!! Oh, the irony. I wonder how Hasbara trolls can explain this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_uprising_in_Herat

veritas semper vinces , 15 minutes ago link

When the Donald entered by force in Russian Consulates in Seattle and San Francisco, and expelled 60 Russian diplomats bc of

" Skripal poisoning" was that in accordance with diplomatic rules?

What proofs do we have that US fortress was attacked by Iran?

Did US find an intact passport there?

Good for Russia and China.

They must be suffering from TDS, oy vey!

I suffer not only from TDS, but ODS( Obama), CDS( Clinton), BDS( Bush(s)) and of an acute case of PDS ( PentagonDS).

And I'm in the final stages of FuwtsalDS : Fed-up-with-the-system-and- lies DS.

bosoxfan1971 , 16 minutes ago link

Interesting. Look what Iranian General fought alongside the Americans when fighting the Taliban. More and more convinced Israel owns the US and our foreign policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_uprising_in_Herat

bosoxfan1971 , 13 minutes ago link

Hey jerkoff, look who a certain Iranian General fought alongside the US when fighting the Taliban. Your projection and deception have all the hallmarks of a dirty ***.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_uprising_in_Herat

Volkodav , 37 minutes ago link

Article: Trump was lied to

https://phibetaiota.net/2020/01/tehran-times-special-issue-on-assassination/

https://phibetaiota.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Tehran-Times-Special-Issue-on-Assassination.pdf

Robert David Steele PDF Page 11

believe or not guest Joel Skousen told same on Alex Jones last 15 min I am told, looking now

Trump is that weak gullible?

Alex Jones is getting educated after several days knee jerk as is normal. I am not fan.

Ruler , 23 minutes ago link

48 Laws of Power.

Mimir , 55 minutes ago link

blocking US initiatives.

Maybe, just maybe, China and Russia blocked the United Nations Security council statement because it accused Iran of having provoked the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad.

Of some reason or another ZH does not tell us what the declaration said.

enfield0916 , 58 minutes ago link

Never realized Iraq and Iran were part of the North American continent, well we have to spread Western values of peace and democracy there for sure!

Let's build an embassy that's larger than the Vatican and also send our troops to guard the oil fields and terrorize the locals.

DUMBEST ******* ideas that get implemented with no end in sight and at home people keep losing their civil liberties.

EternalAnusocracy , 1 hour ago link

What part of "We don't have the money to fight endless wars" doesn't the MIC understand?

Homeless people everywhere, bums outside every big box store parking lot, opiod epidemic in our towns, low wage "jobs" everywhere, schools where are children are sitting in trailers to study, tens of millions with no access to proper medication or health care, and the assholes traitors want to waste BILLIONS on useless chest thumping all over the word.

The situation is like an drunk, impotent man walking around threatening to rape ladies up and down the street.

Sad what has become of this one truly great nation.

Haboob , 50 minutes ago link

Haha kids are taught in portables

Homeless pan handling on every cross street

Americans working dead end jobs

Nationwide move to legalize cannabis to escape reality

Private and national debt soaring

Military ever growing

The bubble is about to burst!

schroedingersrat , 1 hour ago link

And the USA vetoes every Russian initiative. And know this: Russian initiatives are usually pretty good and balanced and would lead to peace.

The USA is always just interested in keeping the world in perpetual war and chaos.

Blanco Diablo , 1 hour ago link

The Neocons are not rational actors in any normal sense of the word. They would destroy and/or enslave every person on this planet if they thought they could pull it off and it would be to their benefit.

Moribundus , 1 hour ago link

It is exactly what Saker expected

https://www.unz.com/tsaker/soleimani-murder-what-could-happen-next/

[Jan 06, 2020] US justification for assassinating General Soleimani

Notable quotes:
"... According to the Western media, General Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' élite Al-Quods force, was preparing an operation intended to win back Iraqi public opinion ..."
"... The strategy attributed to General Soleimani is in no way consistent with his well-known modus operandi , nor with that of the Iranian secret services. Quite the contrary, it is strangely reminiscent of US Ambassador John Negroponte's rationale: foment an Iraqi civil war as a means of stifling the Iraqi Resistance. ..."
"... Other interpretations of the events are of course possible, starting with a US desire to seize on the mutual paralysis of the Iranian government forces and the Revolutionary Guards. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.voltairenet.org

According to the Western media, General Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' élite Al-Quods force, was preparing an operation intended to win back Iraqi public opinion. [ 1 ]

In the midst of the Shiite community's escalating protests against Iranian influence over the Iraqi political class, attacks have been allegedly carried out against US interests, triggering a US response against Iraqi protesters, which in turn ignited Iraqi nationalism to the detriment of the ongoing revolt.

It was, purportedly, in order to frustrate this plot that, on 2 January 2020, the United States assassinated Qasem Soleimani and his loyal supporter Abu Mehdi al-Mouhandis. [ 2 ] According to the US, Iran had been forewarned through a statement delivered by US Defense Secretary Mark Esper. [ 3 ]

This narrative, even if logical, is hardly credible. The strategy attributed to General Soleimani is in no way consistent with his well-known modus operandi , nor with that of the Iranian secret services. Quite the contrary, it is strangely reminiscent of US Ambassador John Negroponte's rationale: foment an Iraqi civil war as a means of stifling the Iraqi Resistance.

Other interpretations of the events are of course possible, starting with a US desire to seize on the mutual paralysis of the Iranian government forces and the Revolutionary Guards.

[Jan 06, 2020] Gratitude for cooperation, Trump way

Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Mischi , Jan 6 2020 19:25 utc | 3

In their descriptions of Qassem Soleimani U.S. media fail to mention that Soleimani and the U.S. fought on the same side. In 2001 Iran supported the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. It used its good relations with the Hazara Militia and the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, which both the CIA and Iran had supplied for years, to support the U.S. operation. The Wikipedia entry for the 2001 uprising in Herat lists U.S. General Tommy Franks and General Qassem Soleimani as allied commanders.

The collaboration ended in 2002 after George W. Bush named Iran as a member of his " Axis of Evil ".

In 2015 the U.S. and Iran again collaborated. This time to defeat ISIS in Iraq. During the battle to liberate Tikrit the U.S. air force flew in support of General Soleimani's ground forces. Newsweek reported at that time:

While western nations, including the U.S., were slow to react to ISIS's march across northern Iraq, Soleimani was quick to play a more public role in Tehran's efforts to tackle the terror group. For example, the commander was seen in pictures with militiamen in the northern Iraqi town of Amerli when it was recaptured from ISIS last September.
...
Top U.S. general Martin Dempsey has said that the involvement of Iran in the fight against ISIS in Iraq could be a positive step, as long as the situation does not descend into sectarianism, because of fears surrounding how Shia militias may treat the remaining Sunni population of Tikrit if it is recaptured. The military chief also claimed that almost two thirds of the 30,000 offensive were Iranian-backed militiamen, meaning that without Iranian assistance and Soleimani's guidance, the offensive on Tikrit may not have been possible.

Iran is not responsible for the U.S. casualties in Iraq. George W. Bush is. What made Soleimani "bad" in the eyes of the U.S. was his support for the resistance against the Zionist occupation of Palestine. It was Israel that wanted him 'removed'. The media explanations for Trump's decision fail to explain that point.

Elias Magnier also reported in his latest tweet that Soleimani encouraged Muqtada El Sadr to cooperate with the Americans in order to achieve stability in Iraq. And the Americans (on the orders of the Israelis) kill him in the most violent fashion possible.

[Jan 06, 2020] FNC's Geraldo Rivera to Brian Kilmeade Don't Cheer Iran Strike -- You 'Never Met a War You Didn't Like!' Breitbart

Jan 06, 2020 | www.breitbart.com

On Friday's broadcast of Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends," network contributor Geraldo Rivera clashed with show co-host Brian Kilmeade over Quds Force Supreme Commander Qasem Soleimani being killed in an airstrike directed by President Donald Trump.

"I fear the worst," Rivera said. "You're going to see the U.S. markets go crazy today. You're going to see the price of oil spiking today. This is a very, very big deal."

Kilmeade said, "I don't know if you heard. This isn't about his resumé of blood and death. It is about what was next. We stopped the next attack. That's what I think you're missing."

Rivera replied, "By what credible source can you predict what the next Iranian move would be?"

Kilmeade said, "The Secretary of State and American intelligence provided that material."

Rivera added, "Don't for a minute start cheering this on. What you have done, what we have done, we have unleashed -- "

Kilmeade insisted, "I will cheer it on. I will cheer it on. I am elated."

Rivera said, "Then you, like Lindsey Graham, have never met a war you didn't like!"

Kilmeade said, "That is not true. And don't even say that!"

[Jan 06, 2020] A statement broadcast on Iranian state TV said the country would no longer respect any limits laid down in the 2015 deal

Iraq will have to ask another country to provide air support. Iran can't do it. But Russia has those capabilities. I wonder if relations b/w Iran + Russia will warm in 2020.
Jan 06, 2020 | www.bbc.com

Iran has declared it will no longer abide by any of the restrictions imposed by the 2015 nuclear deal.

In a statement it said it would no longer observe limitations on its capacity for enrichment, the level of enrichment, the stock of enriched material, or research and development.

The statement came after a meeting of the Iranian cabinet in Tehran.

Tensions have been high over the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani by the US in Baghdad.

Reports from Baghdad say the US embassy compound there was targeted in an attack on Sunday evening. A source told the BBC that four rounds of "indirect fire " had been launched in the direction of the embassy. There are no reports of casualties.

Hundreds of thousands turned out in Iran on Sunday to give Soleimani a hero's welcome ahead of his funeral on Tuesday.

Under the 2015 accord, Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities and allow in international inspectors in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions.

US President Donald Trump abandoned it in 2018, saying he wanted to force Iran to negotiate a new deal that would place indefinite curbs on its nuclear programme and also halt its development of ballistic missiles.

Iran refused and had since been gradually rolling back its commitments under the agreement.

Earlier on Sunday, Iraqi MPs passed a non-binding resolution calling for foreign troops to leave the country after the killing of Soleimani in a drone strike at Baghdad airport on Friday.

About 5,000 US soldiers are in Iraq as part of the international coalition against the Islamic State (IS) group. The coalition paused operations against IS in Iraq just before Sunday's vote.

Mr Trump has again threatened Iran that the US will strike back in the event of retaliation for Soleimani's death, this time saying it could do so "perhaps in a disproportionate manner".

Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump: These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless! Image Copyright @realDonaldTrump @realDonaldTrump Report
<figure> <span> <img alt="Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump: These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly &amp; fully strike back, &amp; perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!" src="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/socialembed/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213919480574812160~/news/world-middle-east-51001167" width="465" height="279"> <span>Image Copyright @realDonaldTrump</span> <span aria-hidden="true">@realDonaldTrump</span> </span> <div><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/contact-us/editorial" aria-label="Report Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump">Report</a></div> </figure>
Presentational white space
Presentational grey line
Analysis box by Jonathan Marcus, defence correspondent

The 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, on life support ever since the Trump administration abandoned it in May 2018, may now be in its final death throes.

Donald Trump, throughout his presidential campaign and then as president, has never failed to rail against what he calls his predecessor President Barack Obama's "bad deal". But all of its other signatories - the UK, France, Russia, China, Germany and the EU - believe that it still has merit.

The agreement, known as the JCPOA, constrained Iran's nuclear programme for a set period in a largely verifiable way but its greatest significance - even more so given the current crisis - is that it helped to avert an imminent war. Before its signature there was mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear activities and every chance that Israel (or possibly Israel and the US in tandem) might attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

Since the US withdrawal, Iran has successively been breaching some of the key constraints of the JCPOA. Now it appears to be throwing these constraints over altogether. What matters now is precisely what it decides to do. Will it up its level of uranium enrichment, for example, to 20%? This would reduce significantly the time it would take Tehran to obtain suitable material for a bomb. Will it continue to abide by enhanced international inspection measures?

We are now at the destination the Trump administration clearly hoped for in May 2018 but the major powers, while deeply unhappy about Iran's breaches of the deal, are also shocked at the controversial decision by Mr Trump to kill the head of Iran's Quds Force, a decision that has again brought the US and Iran to the brink of war.

Presentational grey line
What did Iran say?

Iran had been expected to announce its latest stance on the nuclear agreement this weekend, before news of Soleimani's death.

A statement broadcast on state TV said the country would no longer respect any limits laid down in the 2015 deal.

"Iran will continue its nuclear enrichment with no limitations and based on its technical needs," the statement said.

Enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons.

The statement did not, however, say that Iran was withdrawing from the agreement and it added that Iran would continue to co-operate with the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

https://emp.bbc.com/emp/SMPj/2.29.5/iframe.html

'Nothing off limits for US' Hezbollah warns US Exit player
Media caption 'Nothing off limits for US' Hezbollah warns US

The statement added that Iran was ready to return to its commitments once it enjoyed the benefits of the agreement.

Correspondents say this is a reference to its inability to sell oil and have access to its income under US sanctions.

Iran has always insisted that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful.

Sanctions have caused Iran's oil exports to collapse and the value of its currency to plummet, and sent its inflation rate soaring.

How has the international community reacted?

The other parties to the 2015 deal - the UK, France, Germany, China and Russia - tried to keep the agreement alive after the US withdrew in 2018.

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has invited Iran's Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, to visit Brussels to discuss both the nuclear deal and how to defuse the crisis over the Soleimani assassination.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has agreed with French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to work towards de-escalation in the Middle East, a German government spokesman was quoted as saying by AFP news agency.

Mr Johnson said "we will not lament" the death of Soleimani , describing him as "a threat to all our interests".

[Jan 06, 2020] I am tired of giving Trump a free pass, just because Hillary would have been worse. Trump needs to go.

Highly recommended!
Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

TG , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:07 am GMT

To some extent it is not relevant if Trump was lying during his campaign, or has been corrupted/coopted/fooled/pressured/played for a chump by the establishment. He said one thing and is doing another: that's the bottom line.

However: I note that after Barack Obama got elected, he immediately fired all of his populist advisors and hired Wall Streeters even before being sworn in. Obama was clearly lying up front.

Trump, however, initially did start moving in the direction he said he would, he kept his populist/nationalist advisors, and really did make actual moves to carry out his campaign promises. And the establishment went total nut job, he was a Russian agent, his populist advisers were targeted for legal actions, they were replaced with establishment advisors who hate him Trump was strong on stage berating a political opponent, but against establishment pressure he has turned out to be weak, caving in to "the Blob" at every turn.

Though again, a secondary point.

Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:47 am GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso

Had she been elected, Hillary would already have started the neocon wet dream of a war with Iran.

While that may be true, I am tired of giving Trump a free pass, just because Hillary would have been worse. Being relatively less evil, or a different incarnation of evil, is still evil.

Frankly, impeachment was just a distraction to divert attention from the real play. The dagger at his throat is from far more malevolent foes who can wield both blackmail or death as the circumstances demand to get their way. The jewish mafia is far more dangerous than the Sicilian boys could ever hope to be. The latter learned from the former.

[Jan 06, 2020] How To Avoid Swallowing War Propaganda by Nathan J. Robinson

Highly recommended!
Jan 05, 2020 | www.currentaffairs.org
The Trump administration has assassinated Iran's top military leader, Qassim Suleimani, and with the possibility of a serious escalation in violent conflict, it's a good time to think about how propaganda works and train ourselves to avoid accidentally swallowing it.

The Iraq War, the bloodiest and costliest U.S. foreign policy calamity of the 21 st century, happened in part because the population of the United States was insufficiently cynical about its government and got caught up in a wave of nationalistic fervor. The same thing happened with World War I and the Vietnam War. Since a U.S./Iran war would be a disaster, it is vital that everyone make sure they do not accidentally end up repeating the kinds of talking points that make war more likely.

Let us bear in mind, then, some of the basic lessons about war propaganda.

Things are not true because a government official says them.

I do not mean to treat you as stupid by making such a basic point, but plenty of journalists and opposition party politicians do not understand this point's implications, so it needs to be said over and over. What happens in the leadup to war is that government officials make claims about the enemy, and then those claims appear in newspapers ("U.S. officials say Saddam poses an imminent threat") and then in the public consciousness, the "U.S. officials say" part disappears, so that the claim is taken for reality without ever really being scrutinized. This happens because newspapers are incredibly irresponsible and believe that so long as you attach "Experts say" or "President says" to a claim, you are off the hook when people end up believing it, because all you did was relay the fact that a person said a thing, you didn't say it was true. This is the approach the New York Times took to Bush administration allegations in the leadup to the Iraq War, and it meant that false claims could become headline news just because a high-ranking U.S. official said them. [UPDATE: here's an example from Vox, today, of a questionable government claim being magically transformed into a certain fact.]

In the context of Iran, let us consider some things Mike Pence tweeted about Qassim Suleimani:

"[Suleimani] assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats and military personnel. The world is a safer place today because Soleimani is gone."

It is possible, given these tweets, to publish the headline: "Suleimani plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats, says Pence." That headline is technically true. But you should not publish that headline unless Pence provides some supporting evidence, because what will happen in the discourse is that people will link to your news story to prove that Suleimani was plotting imminent attacks.

To see how unsubstantiated claims get spread, let's think about the Afghanistan hijackers bit. David Harsanyi of the National Review defends Pence's claim about Suleimani helping the hijackers. Harsanyi cites the 9/11 Commission report, saying that the 9/11 commission report concluded Iran aided the hijackers. The report does indeed say that Iran allowed free travel to some of the men who went on to carry out the 9/11 attacks. (The sentence cut off at the bottom of Harsanyi's screenshot, however, rather crucially says : "We have no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.") Harsanyi admits that the report says absolutely nothing about Suleimani. But he argues that Pence was "mostly right," pointing out that Pence did not say Iran knew these men would be the hijackers, merely that it allowed them passage.

Let's think about what is going on here. Pence is trying to convince us that Suleimani deserved to die, that it was necessary for the U.S. to kill him, which will also mean that if Iran retaliates violently, that violence will be because Iran is an aggressive power rather than because the U.S. just committed an unprovoked atrocity against one of its leaders, dropping a bomb on a popular Iranian leader. So Pence wants to link Suleimani in your mind with 9/11, in order to get you blood boiling the same way you might have felt in 2001 as you watched the Twin Towers fall.

There is no evidence that either Iran or Suleimani tried to help these men do 9/11. Harsanyi says that Pence does not technically allege this. But he doesn't have to! What impression are people going to get from helped the hijackers? Pence hopes you'll conflate Suleimani and Iran as one entity, then assume that if Iran ever aided these men in any way, it basically did 9/11 even if it didn't have any clue that was what they were going to do.

This brings us to #2:

Do not be bullied into accepting simple-minded sloganeering

Let's say that, long before Ted Kaczynski began sending bombs through the mail, you once rented him an apartment. This was pure coincidence. Back then he was just a Berkeley professor, you did not know he would turn out to be the Unabomber. It is, however, possible, for me to say, and claim I am not technically lying, that you "housed and materially aided the Unabomber." (A friend of mine once sold his house to the guy who turned out to be the Green River Killer, so this kind of situation does happen.)

Of course, it is incredibly dishonest of me to characterize what you did that way. You rented an apartment to a stranger, yet I'm implying that you intentionally helped the Unabomber knowing he was the Unabomber. In sane times, people would see me as the duplicitous one. But the leadup to war is often not a sane time, and these distinctions can get lost. In the Pence claim about Afghanistan, for it to have any relevance to Suleimani, it would be critical to know (assuming the 9/11 commission report is accurate) whether Iran actually could have known what the men it allowed to pass would ultimately do, and whether Suleimani was involved. But that would involve thinking, and War Fever thrives on emotion rather than thought.

There are all kinds of ways in which you can bully people into accepting idiocy. Consider, for example, the statement "Nathan Robinson thinks it's good to help terrorists who murder civilians." There is a way in which this is actually sort of true: I think lawyers who aid those accused of terrible crimes do important work. If we are simple-minded and manipulative, we can call that "thinking it's good to help terrorists," and during periods of War Fever, that's exactly what it will be called. There is a kind of cheap sophistry that becomes ubiquitous:

  • I don't think Osama bin Laden should have been killed without an attempt to apprehend him. -- > So you think it's good that Osama bin Laden was alive?
  • I think Iraqis were justified in resisting the U.S. invasion with force. -- > So you're saying it's good when U.S. soldiers die?
  • I do not believe killing other countries' generals during peacetime is acceptable. -- > So you believe terrorists should be allowed to operate with impunity.

I remember all this bullshit from my high school years. Opposing the invasion of Iraq meant loving Saddam Hussein and hating America. Thinking 9/11 was the predictable consequence of U.S. actions meant believing 9/11 was justified. Of course, rational discussion can expose these as completely unfair mischaracterizations, but every time war fever whips up, rational discussion becomes almost impossible. In World War I, if you opposed the draft you were undermining your country in a time of war. During Vietnam, if you believed the North Vietnamese had the more just case, you were a Communist traitor who endorsed every atrocity committed in the name of Ho Chi Minh, and if you thought John McCain shouldn't have been bombing civilians in the first place then clearly you believed he should have been tortured and you hated America.

"If you oppose assassinating Suleimani you must love terrorists" will be repeated on Fox News (and probably even on MSNBC). Nationalism advocate Yoram Hazony says there is something wrong with those who do not "feel shame when our country is shamed" -- presumably those who do not feel wounded pride when America is emasculated by our enemies are weak and pitiful. We should refuse to put up with these kind of cheap slurs, or even to let those who deploy them place the burden of proof on us to refute them. (In 2004, Democrats worried that they did appear unpatriotic, and so they ran a decorated war veteran, John Kerry, for president. That didn't work.)

Scrutinize the arguments

Here's Mike Pence again:

"[Suleimani] provided advanced deadly explosively formed projectiles, advanced weaponry, training, and guidance to Iraqi insurgents used to conduct attacks on U.S. and coalition forces; directly responsible for the death of 603 U.S. service members, along with thousands of wounded."

I am going to say something that is going to sound controversial if you buy into the kind of simple-minded logic we just discussed: Saying that someone was "responsible for the deaths of U.S. service members" does not, in and of itself, tell us anything about whether what they did was right or wrong. In order to believe it did, we would have to believe that the United States is automatically right, and that countries opposing the United States are automatically wrong. That is indeed the logic that many nationalists in this country follow; remember that when the U.S. shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, causing hundreds of deaths, George H.W. Bush said that he would never apologize for America, no matter what the facts were. What if America did something wrong? That was irrelevant, or rather impossible, because to Bush, a thing was right because America did it, even if that thing was the mass murder of Iranian civilians.

One of the major justifications for murdering Suleimani is that he "caused the deaths of U.S. soldiers." He was thus an aggressor, and could/should have been killed. That is where people like Pence want you to end your inquiry. But let us remember where those soldiers were. Were they in Miami? No. They were in Iraq. Why were they in Iraq? Because we illegally invaded and seized a country. Now, we can debate whether (1) there is actually sufficient evidence of Suleimani's direct involvement and (2) whether these acts of violence can be justified, but to say that Suleimani has "American blood on his hands" is to say nothing at all without an examination of whether the United States was in the right.

We have to think clearly in examining the arguments that are being made. Here 's the Atlantic 's George Packer on the execution:

"There was a case for killing Major General Qassem Soleimani. For two decades, as the commander of the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, he executed Iran's long game of strategic depth in the Middle East -- arming and guiding proxy militias in Lebanon and Iraq that became stronger than either state, giving Bashar al-Assad essential support to win the Syrian civil war at the cost of half a million lives, waging a proxy war in Yemen against the hated Saudis, and repeatedly testing America and its allies with military actions around the region for which Iran never seemed to pay a military price."

The article goes on to discuss whether this case is outweighed by the pragmatic case against killing him. But wait. Let's dwell on this. Does this constitute a case for killing him? He assisted Bashar al-Assad. Okay, but presumably then killing Assad would have been justified too? Is the rule here that our government is allowed unilaterally to execute the officials of other governments who are responsible for many deaths? Are we the only ones who can do this? Can any government claim the right?

He assisted Yemen in its fight against "the hated Saudis." But is Saudi Arabia being hated for good reason? It is not enough to say that someone committed violence without analyzing the underlying justice of the parties' relative claims.

Moreover, assumptions are made that if you can prove somebody committed a heinous act, what Trump did is justified. But that doesn't follow: Unless we throw all law out the window, and extrajudicial punishment is suddenly acceptable, showing that Suleimani was a war criminal doesn't prove that you can unilaterally kill him with a drone. Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. So is George W. Bush. But they should be captured and tried in a court, not bombed from the sky. The argument that Suleimani was planning imminent attacks is relevant to whether you can stop him with violence (and requires persuasive proof), but mere allegations of murderous past acts do not show that extrajudicial killings are legitimate.

It's very easy to come up with superficially persuasive arguments that can justify just about anything. The job of an intelligent populace is to see whether those arguments can actually withstand scrutiny.

Keep the focus on what matters

"The main question about the strike isn't moral or even legal -- it's strategic." -- The Atlantic

"The real question to ask about the American drone attack that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was not whether it was justified, but whether it was wise" -- The New York Times

"I think that the question that we ought to focus on is why now? Why not a month ago and why not a month from now?" -- Elizabeth Warren

They're going to try to define the debate for you. Leaving aside the moral questions, is this good strategy? And then you find yourself arguing on those terms: No, it was bad strategy, it will put "our personnel" in harms way, without noticing that you are implicitly accepting the sociopathic logic that says "America's interests" are the only ones in the world that matters. This is how debates about Vietnam went: They were rarely about whether our actions were good for Vietnamese people, but about whether they were good or bad for us , whether we were squandering U.S. resources and troops in a "fruitless" "mistake." The people of this country still do not understand the kind of carnage we inflicted on Vietnam because our debates tend to be about whether things we do are "strategically prudent" rather than whether they are just. The Atlantic calls the strike a "blunder," shifting the discussion to be about the wisdom of the killing rather than whether it is a choice our country is even permitted to make. "Blunder" essentially assumes that we are allowed to do these things and the only question is whether it's good for us.

There will be plenty of attempts to distract you with irrelevant issues. We will spent more time talking about whether Trump followed the right process for war, whether he handled the rollout correctly, and less about whether the underlying action itself is correct. People like Ben Shapiro will say things like :

"Barack Obama routinely droned terrorists abroad -- including American citizens -- who presented far less of a threat to Americans and American interests than Soleimani. So spare me the hysterics about 'assassination."

In order for this to have any bearing on anything, you have to be someone who defends what Obama did. If you are, on the other hand, someone who belives that Obama, too, assassinated people without due process (which he did), then Shapiro has proved exactly nothing about whether Trump's actions were legitimate. (Note, too, the presumption that threatening "America's interests" can get you killed, a standard we would not want any other country using but are happy to use ourselves.)

Emphasis matters

Consider three statements:

  • "The top priority of a Commander-in-Chief must be to protect Americans and our national security interests. There is no question that Qassim Suleimani was a threat to that safety and security, and that he masterminded threats and attacks on Americans and our allies, leading to hundreds of deaths. But there are serious questions about how this decision was made and whether we are prepared for the consequences."
  • "Suleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority must be to avoid another costly war."
  • "When I voted against the war in Iraq in 2002, I feared it would lead to greater destabilization of the country and the region. Today, 17 years later, that fear has unfortunately turned out to be true. The United States has lost approximately 4,500 brave troops, tens of thousands have been wounded, and we've spent trillions on this war. Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars. Trump promised to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one."

These are statements made by Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders, respectively. Note that each of them is consistent with believing Trump's decision was the wrong one, but their emphasis is different. Buttigieg says Suleimani was a "threat" but that there are "questions," Warren says Suleimani was a "murderer" but that this was "reckless," and Sanders says this was a "dangerous escalation." It could be that none of these three would have done the same thing themselves, but the emphasis is vastly different. Buttigieg and Warren lead with condemnation of the dead man, in ways that imply that there was nothing that unjust about what happened. Sanders does not dwell on Suleimani but instead talks about the dangers of new wars.

We have to be clear and emphatic in our messaging, because so much effort is made to make what should be clear issues appear murky. If, for example, you gave a speech in 2002 opposing the Iraq War, but the first half was simply a discussion of what a bad and threatening person Saddam Hussein was, people might actually get the opposite of the impression you want them to get. Buttigieg and Warren, while they appear to question the president, have the effect of making his action seem reasonable. After all, they admit that he got rid of a threatening murderer! Sanders admits nothing of the kind: The only thing he says is that Trump has made the world worse. He puts the emphasis where it matters.

I do not fully like Sanders' statement, because it still talks a bit more about what war means for our people , but it does mention destabilization and the total number of lives that can be lost. It is a far more morally clear and powerful antiwar statement. Buttigieg's is exactly what you'd expect of a Consultant President and it should give us absolutely no confidence that he would be a powerful voice against a war, should one happen. Warren confirms that she is not an effective advocate for peace. In a time when there will be pressure for a violent conflict, we need to make sure that our statements are not watery and do not make needless concessions to the hawks' propaganda.

Imagine how everything would sound if the other side said it.

If you're going to understand the world clearly, you have to kill your nationalistic emotions. An excellent way to do this is to try to imagine if all the facts were reversed. If Iraq had invaded the United States, and U.S. militias violently resisted, would it constitute "aggression" for those militias to kill Iraqi soldiers? If Britain funded those U.S. militias, and Iraq killed the head of the British military with a drone strike, would this constitute "stopping a terrorist"? Of course, in that situation, the Iraqi government would certainly spin it that way, because governments call everyone who opposes them terrorists. But rationality requires us not just to examine whether violence has been committed (e.g., whether Suleimani ordered attacks) but what the full historical context of that violence is, and who truly deserves the "terrorist" label.

Is there anything Suleimani did that hasn't also been done by the CIA? Remember that we actually engineered the overthrow of the Iranian government, within living people's lifetimes . Would an Iranian have been justified in assassinating the head of the CIA? I doubt there are many Americans who think they would. I think most Americans would consider this terrorism. But this is because terrorism is a word that, by definition, cannot apply to things we do, and only applies to the things others do. When you start to actually reverse the situations in your mind, and see how things look from the other side, you start to fully grasp just how crude and irrational so much propaganda is.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/hPOy-LutJQg?feature=oembed

Watch out for euphemisms

  • "It was not an assassination." -- Noah Rothman, conservative commentator
  • "That's an outrageous thing to say. Nobody that I know of would think that we did something wrong in getting the general." -- Michael Bloomberg, on Bernie Sanders' claim that this was an "assassination"

Our access to much of the world is through language alone. We only see our tiny sliver of the world with our own eyes, much of the rest of it has to be described in words or shown to us through images. That means it's very easy to manipulate our perceptions. If you control the flow of information, you can completely alter someone's understanding of the things that they can't see firsthand.

Euphemistic language is always used to cover atrocities. Even the Nazis did not say they were "mass murdering innocent civilians." They said they were defending themselves from subversive elements, guaranteeing sufficient living space for their people, purifying their culture, etc. When the United States commits murder, it does not say it is committing murder. It says it is engaging in a stabilization program and restoring democratic rule. We saw during the recent Bolivian coup how easy it is to portray the seizure of power as "democracy" and democracy as tyranny. Euphemistic language has been one of the key tools of murderous regimes. In fact, many of them probably believe their own language; their specialized vocabulary allows them to inhabit a world of their own invention where they are good people punishing evil.

Assassination sounds bad. It sounds like something illegitimate, something that would call into question the goodness of the United States, even if the person being assassinated can be argued to have "deserved it." Thus Rothman and Bloomberg will not even admit that what the U.S. did here was an assassination, even though we literally targeted a high official from a sovereign country and dropped a bomb on him. Instead, this is " neutralization ." (Read this fascinatingly feeble attempt by the Associated Press to explain why it isn't calling an obvious assassination an assassination, just as the media declined to call torture torture when Bush did it.)

Those of us who want to resist marches to war need to insist on calling things exactly what they are and refuse to allow the country to slide into the use of language that conceals the reality of our actions.

Remember what people were saying five minutes ago

Five minutes ago, hardly anybody was talking about Suleimani. Now they all speak as if he was Public Enemy #1. Remember how much you hated that guy? Remember how much damage he did? No, I do not remember, because people like Ben Shapiro only just discovered their hatred for Suleimani once they had to justify his murder.

During the buildup to a war there is a constant effort to make you forget what things were like a few minutes ago. Before World War I, Americans lived relatively harmoniously with Germans in their midst. The same thing with Japanese people before World War II. Then, immediately, they began to hate and fear people who had recently been their neighbors.

Let us say Iran responds to this extrajudicial murder with a colossal act of violent reprisal, after the killing unifies the country around a demand for vengeance. They kill a high-ranking American official, or wage an attack that kills our civilians. Perhaps it will attack some of the soldiers that are now being moved into the Middle East. The Trump administration will then want you to forget that it promised this assassination was to " stop a war ." It will then want you to focus solely on Iran's most recent act, to see that as the initial aggression. If the attack is particularly bad, with family members of victims crying on TV and begging for vengeance, you will be told to look into the face of Iranian evil, and those of us who are anti-war will be branded as not caring about the victims. Nobody wants you to remember the history of U.S./Iran relations, the civilians we killed of theirs or the time we destabilized their whole country and got rid of its democracy. They want you to have a two-second memory, to become a blind and unthinking patriot whose sole thought is the avenging of American blood. Resisting propaganda requires having a memory, looking back on how things were before and not accepting war as the "new normal."

Listen to the Chomsky on your shoulder.

"It is perfectly insane to suggest the U.S. was the aggressor here." -- Ben Shapiro

They are going to try to convince you that you are insane for asking questions, or for not accepting what the government tells you. They will put you in topsy-turvy land, where thinking that assassinating foreign officials is "aggression" is not just wrong, but sheer madness. You will have to try your best to remember what things are, because it is not easy, when everyone says the emperor has clothes, or that Line A is longer than Line B, or that shocking people to death is fine, to have confidence in your independent judgment.

This is why I keep a little imaginary Noam Chomsky sitting on my shoulder at all times. Chomsky helps keep me sane, by cutting through lies and euphemisms and showing things as they really are. I recommend reading his books, especially during times of war. He never swallowed Johnson's nonsense about Vietnam or Bush's nonsense about Iraq. And of course they called him insane, anti-American, terrorist-loving, anti-Semitic, blah blah blah.

What I really mean here though is: Listen to the dissidents. They will not appear on television. They will be smeared and treated as lunatics. But you need them if you are going to be able to resist the absolute barrage of misinformation, or to hear yourself think over the pounding war drums. Times of War Fever can be wearying, because there is just so much aggression against dissent that your resistance wears down. This is why a community is so necessary. You may watch people who previously seemed reasonable develop a pathological bloodlust (mild-mannered moderate types like Thomas Friedman and Brian Williams going suck on our missiles ). Find the people who see clearly and stick close to them.

Someday peace will prevail. If you enjoyed this article, please consider subscribing to our magnificent print edition or making a donation . Current Affairs is 100% reader-supported. Nathan J. Robinson

[Jan 06, 2020] Pompeo's Petty Decision to Bar Zarif

Jan 06, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Pompeo's Petty Decision to Bar Zarif European External Action Service/Flickr

January 6, 2020

|

8:43 pm

Daniel Larison Colum Lynch and Robbie Gramer report on the Trump administration's decision to refuse a visa to Iran's foreign minister. Barring Zarif from the U.S. is a blatant violation of U.S. obligations as the host of U.N. headquarters:

"Any foreign minister is entitled to address the Security Council at any time and the United States is obligated to provide access to the U.N. headquarters district," said Larry Johnson, a former U.N. assistant secretary-general. Under the terms of the U.S. agreement with the United Nations, "they are absolutely obligated to let him in."

Johnson, who currently serves as an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School, noted that the U.S. Congress, however, passed legislation in August 1947, the so-called Public Law 80-357, that granted the U.S. government the authority to bar foreign individuals invited by the United Nations to attend meetings at its New York City headquarters if they are deemed to pose a threat to U.S. national security. But Johnson said the U.S. law would require the individual be "expected to commit some act against the U.S. national security interest while here in the United States."

Refusing to admit Zarif is another foolish mistake on the administration's part. Preventing him from coming to the U.N. not only breaches our government's agreement with the U.N., but it also closes off a possible channel of communication and demonstrates to the world that the U.S. has no interest in a diplomatic resolution of the current crisis. Far from conveying the "toughness" that Pompeo imagines he is showing, keeping Zarif out reeks of weakness and insecurity. Zarif is a capable diplomat, but is the Trump administration really so afraid of what he would say while he is here that they would ignore U.S. obligations to block him?

By barring Zarif, the Trump administration has given him and his government another opportunity to score an easy propaganda win. They have squandered an opportunity to reduce tensions between the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. needs to find an off-ramp to avoid further conflict following the president's assassination order, but thanks to Pompeo's decision that off-ramp won't be found in New York.

[Jan 06, 2020] Putin's Hour Is At Hand - PaulCraigRoberts.org

Notable quotes:
"... Putin's Hour Is At Hand was published in the Russian press Monday morning, January 6, 2020. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.paulcraigroberts.org

Putin's Hour Is At Hand January 4, 2020 | Categories: Articles & Columns | Tags: | Print This Article Print This Article

Putin's Hour Is At Hand was published in the Russian press Monday morning, January 6, 2020.

Putin's Hour Is At Hand

Paul Craig Roberts

Vladimir Putin is the most impressive leader on the world stage. He survived and arose from a Russia corrupted by Washington and Israel during the Yeltsin years and reestablished Russia as a world power. He dealt successfully with American/Israeli aggression against South Ossetia and against Ukraine, incorporating at Crimea's request the Russian province back into Mother Russia. He has tolerated endless insults and provocations from Washington and its empire without responding in kind. He is conciliatory and a peacemaker from a position of strength.

He knows that the American empire based as it is on arrogance and lies is failing economically, socially, politically, and militarily. He understands that war serves no Russian interest.

Washington's murder of Qasem Soleimani, a great Iranian leader, indeed, one of the rare leaders in world history, has dimmed Trump's leadership and placed the limelight on Putin. The stage is set for Putin and Russia to assume the leadership of the world.

Washington's murder of Soleimani is a criminal act that could start World War 3 just as the Serbian murder of the Austrian Archduke set World War 1 in motion. Only Putin and Russia with China's help can stop this war that Washington has set in motion.

Putin understood that the Washington/Israeli intended destabilization of Syria was aimed at Russia. Without warning Russia intervened, defeated the Washington financed and armed proxy forces, and restored stability to Syria.

Defeated, Washington and Israel have decided to bypass Syria and take the attack on Russia directly to Iran. The destabilization of Iran serves both Washington and Israel. For Israel Iran's demise stops support for Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia that has twice defeated Israel's army and prevented Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon. For Washington Iran's demise allows CIA-supported jihadists to bring instability into the Russian Federation.

Unless Putin submits to American and Israeli will, he has no choice but to block any Washington/Israeli attack on Iran.

The easiest and cleanest way for Putin to do this is to announce that Iran is under Russia's protection. This protection should be formalized in a mutual defense treaty between Russia, China, and Iran, with perhaps India and Turkey as members. This is hard for Putin to do, because incompetent historians have convinced Putin that alliances are the cause of war. But an alliance such as this would prevent war. Not even the insane criminal Netanyahu and the crazed American neoconservatives would, even when completely drunk or deluded, declare war on Iran, Russia, China, and if included in the alliance India and Turkey. It would mean the death of America, Israel and any European country sufficiently stupid to participate.

If Putin is unable to free himself from the influence of incompetent historians, who in effect are serving Washington, not Russian, interests, he has other options. He can calm down Iran by giving Iran the best Russian air defense systems with Russian crews to train the Iranians and whose presence serve as a warning to Washington and Israel that an attack on Russian forces is an attack on Russia.

This done, Putin can then, not offer, but insist on mediating. This is Putin's role as there is no other with the power, influence and objectivity to mediate.

Putin's job is not so much to rescue Iran as to get Trump out of a losing war that would destroy Trump. Putin could set his own price. For example, Putin's price can be the revival of the INF/START treaty, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, the removal of NATO from Russian borders. In effect, Putin is positioned to demand whatever he wants.

Iranian missiles can sink any American vessels anywhere near Iran. Chinese missiles can sink any American fleets anywhere near China. Russian missiles can sink American fleets anywhere in the world. The ability of Washington to project power in the Middle East now that everyone, Shia and Sunni and Washington's former proxies such as ISIS, hates Americans with a passion is zero. The State Department has had to order Americans out of the Middle East. How does Washingon count as a force in the Middle East when no American is safe there?

Of course Washington is stupid in its arrogance, and Putin, China, and Iran must take this into consideration. A stupid government is capable of bringing ruin not only on itself but on others.

So there are risks for Putin. But there are also risks for Putin failing to take charge. If Washington and Israel attack Iran, which Israel will try to provoke by some false flag event as sinking an American warship and blaming Iran, Russia will be at war anyway. Better for the initiative to be in Putin's hands. And better for the world and life on Earth for Russia to be in charge.

[Jan 06, 2020] Mike Pompeo- Killing Qasem Soleimani disrupted an imminent attack

Looks like Pompeo a gifted liar...
Jan 06, 2020 | www.youtube.com

James Shaw , 2 days ago

THE PEOPLE OF BOTH COUNTRIES DO NOT WANT WAR...ITS THE LEADERS THAT WANT WAR, NOT THE PEOPLE

Moses Tekper , 2 days ago

The world is a safer place there but all American civilians should get out of the region. What a joke.

Fi Vongphachanh , 2 days ago

Trump screwed up that why need to move American people's.

Sidra Irfan , 1 day ago

Trump try to open door of third [world] war He is really sick man.

Bhai Log , 1 day ago

Shameless act by trump. World need peace but Donald trump doesn't want

WADA FAKA , 2 days ago

Now those who fought ISIS with blood and swear are systematically eliminated by the USA😎

Manny M , 2 days ago

Your asking the wrong people for the strikes, ask Israel 🇮🇱 you'll get little more then here!!

delonix regia , 1 day ago

Mike Pompeo? " We lie , cheat and steal " . That's all we have to know about this guy .

Fix News , 2 days ago

Done our level best under the direct guidance of the president. Oh boy.

Aldemar Delapuy , 2 days ago

Who wants a jeep ride with an Iranian general?

G.E. B. , 2 days ago

As soon as he opened his mouth he started to glorify Trump.....

Captain1 Jones , 1 day ago

What's different is that Trump got impeached.

A Warrior of Christ , 2 days ago

Puppet Pompeo, Trump's hand is behind his back and manipulating his lips!

Green Orange , 2 days ago

There is No justice, if there was , most of the USA politicians would be sentenced for War Crimes.

Sherry Osinga , 2 days ago

... you don't understand, we don't trust you.

Muntadher Alqrashie , 2 days ago

Think of us the Iraqi people before you start a war. We're tired from wars.. enough

Hadzra Hatta , 2 days ago

Does Mike Pompeo know what he's talking about?

Sandy Phelps , 1 day ago

Pompeo is a traitor and a liar. We are letting liars lead us into a terrible war.

Elizabeth Klimas , 2 days ago

have weapon of mass destruction being found yet other than CHEMTRAILS in the USA?????

BARTETMEDIA , 2 days ago

Trump stuck his right foot way up his a$$ this time. Now the left foot it's coming.

[Jan 06, 2020] Buttigieg on Soleimani strike- We need answers

Jan 06, 2020 | www.youtube.com

jason thomas , 3 hours ago

Don't trust the CIA


Aramai Jonassi , 9 hours ago

We have nothing to worry about with Jared Kushner being in charge of middle East peace, amiright?🙄

Deborah Lawson , 8 hours ago (edited)

More people at Mara Lago knew that General Suliemeni was going to be hit than congressmen and congresswomen? That tells me trump was bragging about how much power he has. He's so insecure and feeble that he has no business holding the most power office in the land!


light Archer , 10 hours ago

The main beneficiaries of Solimanies death are his arch enemies, Isis. Trump turned on both his field allies against Isis, the Kurds and Solimani's militia. Who are America's allies in the field, now?

Idin Azadipour , 5 hours ago

Let me tally this up for the wonderful viewers, an American backed coupe of a democratically elected prime minister who wanted to nationalize the oil fields of Iran which at time was owned by Britain. The shooting down of a plane with 290 people in it by an American Naval vessel. The backing of Saddam with chemical weapons and millions of dollars, to go to war with Iran leaving half a million dead. The installation of a dictator whose secret police force imprisoned, tortured and killed political dissidence. Learn your history.

Katherine Diaz , 20 minutes ago (edited)

All jokes aside but everyone this isnt a joke anymore becuase of our wreckless president making dumb distractions ive ever heard of trump is a sociopath he makes the rich richer, the poor poorer. Just remember this guy and his family are banned from having fun raisers in the state of new york becuase trump held a big fundraiser to help fight kids cancer he stole money from kids to search to find a cure for cancer. He nearly shut down the gouverment becuase Congress refused to give him the money for him to build the wall but not most of all 5 general from the us resigned becuase they didnt agree with his intensions. He doesnt care about anyone but himself and anyone with common sense can sse that and im done with the US government and this isnt the American that i grew up loving. All the hatred for eachother is disgusting and disturbing


TheFarmanimalfriend , 11 hours ago

The Iranian fiasco started in 1953 when America overthrew Iran's democratically elected government, so we could get their oil. The autocrat we installed had a nasty habit of torturing and murdering any who opposed him, but he did sell us oil. In 1979 the Iranians, united by their clergy, threw him out. We keep stirring the hornets nest we created and are surprised when we get stung? Now you too can have a front row seat at this foreign policy debacle! War? We don't need no stinking war. Trump is desperate to distract the American people from seeing how incompetent and stupid he really is.

[Jan 06, 2020] Elizabeth Warren on Qasem Soleimani killing- People are reasonably asking, why this moment

Warren kept her ground wonderfully in this exchange. Warren suggests that people are reasonable asking about timing. Also warmongering of Trump.
Jan 06, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Richie Beck , 6 hours ago (edited)

"When everyone else is losing their heads, it is important to keep yours." - Marie-Antoinette, Queen of France and Irony.

Bob Bart , 7 hours ago (edited)

" What is human warfare but just this; an effort to make the laws of God and nature take sides with one party. " ~ Henry David Thoreau

personal cooking , 4 hours ago

China is laughing.US pay attention in middel east now.

[Jan 06, 2020] Neocon Pompeo pushed Trump to kill Soleimani; Looks like West Point educated military contactor mafia to which Pompeo and Esper belongs controls the President, although Trump malleability and recklessness are inexcusable

Highly recommended!
So Trump instead of draining the swamp brought swamp creatures like Pompeo into his Administration; now he can pay the price.
Notable quotes:
"... The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo ..."
"... "We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President Trump undertook." ..."
"... On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said. ..."
"... One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida. ..."
"... Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations. ..."
"... On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact. ..."
"... "No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat. ..."
"... Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible." ..."
"... At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals. ..."
"... After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.washingtonpost.com

The secretary also spoke to President Trump multiple times every day last week, culminating in Trump's decision to approve the killing of Iran's top military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, at the urging of Pompeo and Vice President Pence, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Pompeo had lost a similar high-stakes deliberation last summer when Trump declined to retaliate militarily against Iran after it downed a U.S. surveillance drone, an outcome that left Pompeo "morose," according to one U.S. official. But recent changes to Trump's national security team and the whims of a president anxious about being viewed as hesitant in the face of Iranian aggression created an opening for Pompeo to press for the kind of action he had been advocating.

The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo, but it also carries multiple serious risks: another protracted regional war in the Middle East; retaliatory assassinations of U.S. personnel stationed around the world; an interruption in the battle against the Islamic State; the closure of diplomatic pathways to containing Iran's nuclear program; and a major backlash in Iraq, whose parliament voted on Sunday to expel all U.S. troops from the country.

For Pompeo, whose political ambitions are a source of constant speculation , the death of U.S. diplomats would be particularly damaging given his unyielding criticisms of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton following the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and other American personnel in Benghazi in 2012.

But none of those considerations stopped Pompeo from pushing for the targeted strike, U.S. officials said, underscoring a fixation on Iran that spans 10 years of government service from Congress to the CIA to the State Department.

"We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President Trump undertook."

Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Soleimani months ago, said a senior U.S. official, but neither the president nor Pentagon officials were willing to countenance such an operation.

For more than a year, defense officials warned that the administration's campaign of economic sanctions against Iran had increased tensions with Tehran, requiring a bigger and bigger share of military resources in the Middle East when many at the Pentagon wanted to redeploy their firepower to East Asia.

How the siege of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad unfolded On Jan. 1, the siege on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad appeared to come to an end after supporters of the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia retreated. (Liz Sly, Joyce Lee, Mustafa Salim/The Washington Post)

Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But that mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor and injuring service members.

On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.

Trump's decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon's long-standing concerns about escalation and the president's aversion to using military force against Iran.

One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.

"Taking out Soleimani would not have happened under [former secretary of defense Jim] Mattis," said a senior administration official who argued that the Mattis Pentagon was risk-averse. "Mattis was opposed to all of this. It's not a hit on Mattis, it's just his predisposition. Milley and Esper are different. Now you've got a cohesive national security team and you've got a secretary of state and defense secretary who've known each other their whole adult lives."

Mattis declined to comment.

In the days since the strike, Pompeo has become the voice of the administration on the matter, speaking to allies and making the public case for the operation. Trump chose Pompeo to appear on all of the Sunday news shows because he "sticks to the line" and "never gives an inch," an administration official said.

But critics inside and outside the administration have questioned Pompeo's justification for the strike based on his claims that "dozens if not hundreds" of American lives were at risk.

[ Trump faces Iran crisis with fewer experienced advisers and strained relations with allies ]

Lawmakers left classified briefings with U.S. intelligence officials on Friday saying they heard nothing to suggest that the threat posed by the proxy forces guided by Soleimani had changed substantially in recent months.

When repeatedly pressed on Sunday about the imminent nature of the threats, whether it was days or weeks away, or whether they had been foiled by the U.S. airstrike, Pompeo dismissed the questions.

"If you're an American in the region, days and weeks -- this is not something that's relevant," Pompeo told CNN.

Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations.

Critics have also questioned how an imminent attack would be foiled by killing Soleimani, who would not have carried out the strike himself.

"If the attack was going to take place when Soleimani was alive, it is difficult to comprehend why it wouldn't take place now that he is dead," said Robert Malley, the president of the International Crisis Group and a former Obama administration official.

Following the strike, Pompeo has held back-to-back phone calls with his counterparts around the globe but has received a chilly reception from European allies, many of whom fear that the attack puts their embassies in Iran and Iraq in jeopardy and has now eliminated the chance to keep a lid on Iran's nuclear program.

"We have woken up to a more dangerous world," said France's Europe minister, Amelie de Montchalin.

Two European diplomats familiar with the calls said Pompeo expected European leaders to champion the U.S. strike publicly even though they were never consulted on the decision.

"The U.S. has not helped the Iran situation, and now they want everyone to cheerlead this," one diplomat said.

"Our position over the past few years has been about defending the JCPOA," said the diplomat, referring to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact.

"No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat.

Pompeo has slapped back at U.S. allies, saying "the Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did -- what the Americans did -- saved lives in Europe as well," he told Fox News.

Israel has stood out in emphatically cheering the Soleimani operation, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praising Trump for "acting swiftly, forcefully and decisively."

"Israel stands with the United States in its just struggle for peace, security and self-defense," he said.

Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible."

Though Democrats have greeted the strike with skepticism, Republican leaders, who have long viewed Pompeo as a reassuring voice in the administration, uniformly praised the decision as the eradication of a terrorist who directed the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

"Soleimani made it his life's work to take the Iranian revolutionary call for death to America and death to Israel and turn them into action," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.

A critical moment for Pompeo is nearing as he faces growing questions about a potential Senate run, though some GOP insiders say that decision seems to have stalled. Pompeo has kept in touch with Ward Baker, a political consultant who would probably lead the operation, and others in McConnell's orbit, about a bid. But Pompeo hasn't committed one way or the other, people familiar with the conversations said.

Some people close to the secretary say he has mixed feelings about becoming a relatively junior senator from Kansas after leading the State Department and CIA, but there is little doubt in Pompeo's home state that he could win.

At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals.

After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target.

At the State Department, he is a voracious consumer of diplomatic notes and reporting on Iran, and he places the country far above other geopolitical and economic hot spots in the world. "If it's about Iran, he will read it," said one diplomat, referring to the massive flow of paper that crosses Pompeo's desk. "If it's not, good luck."

[Jan 06, 2020] Angry Bear " Killing Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis by Barkley Rosser

Notable quotes:
"... If the plan is/was to leave Syria and Iraq, it was not. In this case it was a screwed, albeit mafia-style, tactical move killing two birds with one stone. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | angrybearblog.com
Most of the attention in this recent attack by a US drone at the Baghdad Airport has been on it killing Iranian Quds Force commander, Qasim (Qassem) Solmaini (Suleimani), supposedly plotting an “imminent” attack on Americans as he flew a commercial airliner to Iraq at the invitation of its government and passed through passport control. But much less attention has been paid to the killing in that attack of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq and reportedly an officer in the Iraqi military, as well as being, according to Juan Cole, a Yazidi Kurd, although the PMF is identified as being a Shia militia allied with Iran.

The problem here is that supposedly US leaders approved this strike because there were no Iraqi officials in this group; it was supposedly “clean.” But there was al-Muhandis, with his PMF also allied to a political faction, the Fath, who hold 48 seats in the Iraqi parliament. The often anti-Iranian Shia leader, Moqtada al-Sadr, has now joined with Fath and other groups to demand a vote in the parliament to order a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

... ... ...

There is much more that can be said about this, but among less noticed responses I note that although Israeli PM Netanyahu made a strong statement supporting the attack, apparently he has ordered his aides not to talk about it further, and the Israelis are worried about possible escalation of this In KSA, “Bone-Saw” MbS has said nothing, although supposedly the Saudi had sought to kill Solemaini themselves.

Oh, and of course Mike Pompeo announced that this move has made Americans “safe” in the region, even as Americans have been urged to leave Iraq immediately. So, yeah, they will be more safe by getting the heck out.

likbez , January 6, 2020 3:22 am

@Terry, January 5, 2020 10:37 pm

it is not clear to me that killing Solemaini was a mistake.

If the plan is/was to leave Syria and Iraq, it was not. In this case it was a screwed, albeit mafia-style, tactical move killing two birds with one stone.

But a more plausible hypothesis is that it was spontaneous Trump-style overreaction on siege of the US embassy which now start backfiring in a spectacular and very dangerous way, because Iran views this as the declaration of war (and not without reasons, see below)

"Before the vote Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told the parliament that he was scheduled to meet with Soleimani a day after his arrival to receive a letter from Iran to Iraq in response to a de-escalation offer Saudi Arabia had made. The U.S. assassinated Soleimani before the letter could be delivered by him. Abdul-Mahdi also said that Trump had asked him to mediate between the U.S. and Iran. Did he do that to trap Soleimani? It is no wonder then that Abdul-Mahdi is fuming."

If this is true, the most close analogy I can think of is probably Lebanon, 1983. See overview of 1983 Beirut barracks bombings at https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2020/01/there-will-be-blood-by-larry-c-johnson.html

Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized .

He called for closure of the US embassy and forming united Shia paramilitary groups to fight occupation which he named "Resistance legions"

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/202001051077952584-iraqi-shiite-cleric-sadr-calls-for-international-resistance-legions-as-mps-vote-to-oust-us-troops/

More specifically, Sadr issues a statement with demands:
• close the US embassy
• end security deal immediately
• close US bases in a humiliating way
• protection of Iraq should be handed to the Resistance militias
• boycott of US products

[Jan 06, 2020] Tucker Carlson is livid with anger and frustration at Trump's actions .

Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

KA , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:57 pm GMT

@Just passing through https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/04/media/fox-news-iran-soleimani/index.html

Tucker Carlson is livid with anger and frustration at Trump's actions .

Death to America is a rallying point for Iran to emphasize the same aspect of American status .
They talk in future . Carlson is reminding that we are already there .

If people woke up with anger at Iran., they would find that the dead horse isn't able to do much but only can attract a lot of attention from far .

The reason Taliban didn't inform Mulla Omar's death was to let the rank and file continues to remain engaged without getting into internal feuding fight .
A trues state of US won't be televised until the horse starts rotting but then that would be quite late .

I don't recall any dissent until this assassination . Now 70 cities are witnessing protests and a few in Media are not happy at all .

There is a big unknown if and when Iran would strike back and at who. Persian is not like khasaogi murderer or Harri kidnapper .

[Jan 06, 2020] Wow the iraq PM office just stated that The US government had asked Iraq to invite Soleimani to iraq for face to face deescalation talks with the US then murdered in the airport.

Notable quotes:
"... In other blowbacks from the murder of Soleimani the Qatar leaders are fuming over the use of a Qatar based reaper drone to launch the missiles and were controlled remotely by operators at the US Air Force base in Creech, Nevada. https://www.arabnews.com/node/1608386/middle-east ..."
"... The picture of the meeting between the Qatar FM and the Iranian FM showed the Qatar flag with the red replaced by black in respect. https://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/04/01/2020/Qatar-Foreign-Minister-meets-Iranian-counterpart-in-Tehran ..."
"... It should be noted that Qatar owes a debt of honor to Iran for supplying need food goods to survive a blockade by KSA and the UAE. Likewise, Qatar has close ties with Turkey due to the presence of a couple thousand Turkish troops that prevented a KSA invasion and has been supplying a lot of LGN fuel to Turkey. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Kadath , Jan 5 2020 17:23 utc | 60

Wow the iraq PM office just stated that The US government had asked Iraq to invite Soleimani to iraq for face to face deescalation talks with the US then murdered in the airport. Even by outlaw empire standards this was insane they murdered a diplomat on talks they invited him to. US diplomacy has been on decline for decades but this is reckless terrorist diplomacy, with a single action the US has lost the middle east and killed the value of US assurances and diplomacy

paul , Jan 5 2020 17:27 utc | 63

The Soliemani assassination now looks even more abhorent. Now it looks like one of the oldest and most abhorent types of war acts: a fake parley turned into a murder zone. What the people who seem to have arranged this - presumably the US and Israel and maybe Saudi Arabia - apparently did not expect was that Soleimani was to become a martyr in the eyes of his people.

Mercouris suggests that Soleimani expected and planned on exactly this: that he would become a martyr and a unifying symbol in the end. Presumably he did not know when it would happen exactly, or perhaps he did have a sense. Several people here suggested as much and it doesn't seem so farfetched now. I'm reminded of Martin Luther King's death, though of course Soleimani was far from being a man of peace as MLK was. MLK seemed to know that he was soon to become a martyr and he seemed to accept this as a necessary thing, even as perhaps the best way for him to continue his work. Obi Wan Kenobi lol! ,

But there is a correlating thought I don't see anyone picking up on yet. If this was indeed an ambush, possibly, then it was preplanned. Trump's reported veiled references to people at his resort ('something huge is coming') also seem to point to this. In that case it seems even more likely that the initial rocket attack was itself a false flag operation.

Igor Bundy , Jan 5 2020 17:31 utc | 65
Ah the text book case from the British Empire..

They invited all the Tibetan leaders to attend the peace conference.. As a gesture of respect, everyone removed a single shot from their rifle which left the Tibetan security guards single shot muskets defenceless when the British opened fire and ended the tibetan political power and started drawing the new borders.. After a while the communists took over when the british left and a leaderless tibetan homeland as their own.. China is one third the Tibetan empire.. It was taken without any resistance at all.. China in 5000 years was never able to conquer Tibet.. But like the US helping exterminate christians world wide.. The british helps other cultures get destroyed..

BM , Jan 5 2020 17:33 utc | 66
3. If Saudi tricked Suleimani by getting Iraq to "mediate" (Iraq's prime minister was expecting a message by him on the mediation when he was assassinated), Saudi will get targeted.
Posted by: somebody | Jan 5 2020 16:52 utc | 44

More likely, Saudi will be pissed off at Israel enough to have a serious impact on their relations! All the more reason to patch up with Iran and go for the HOPE plan.

All the attention is focussed on how Trump has messed up so badly, which he has - but Israel has messed itself up even more badly.

krollchem , Jan 5 2020 17:39 utc | 67
Some background on the Iraqi vote:

Posted by Naijaa_Man at the Saker site on January 05, 2020 · at 9:58 am EST/EDT

"From Iraq Prime Minister's speech in Parliament, I gathered that:

(1) Trump told the Prime Minister that he will attack Iraqi PMU Militias, The Prime Minister objected and Trump ignored him

(2) After the US Embassy protests ended, Trump called the Prime Minister and thanked him for successfully persuading Iraqi PMU Militias to withdraw from Embassy grounds and Green Zone. Trump refused to apologize for defying the Prime Minister's request to respect Iraq Sovereignty and strike the PMU militias

(3) Trump asked Iraq to be a mediator between USA/Saudi axis and the Iranians. The Prime Minister agreed and communicated the message to Iran. The Prime Minister asked Americans to stop conducting helicopter overflights above PMU military bases, Trump ignored him

(4) With respect to the mediation issue, Qassem Solemani was in Iraq to deliver a personal message from Ayatollah Khamenei to the Prime Minister when the Americans assassinated him."

This has led to, 170 Iraqi lawmakers sign draft bill to expel US military forces from country
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2020/01/05/615421/Iraqi-lawmakers-draft-US-forces

Note : there is a process to be followed. The lawmakers will now seek parliamentary approval.
http://thesaker.is/soleimani-murder-sitrep-funeral-and-vote/

So technically, The Iraqi parliament voted to "ask" the Iraqi government to end the security agreement with the US, end the presence of foreign troops & the international coalition's mandate against ISIS, even in Iraqi air space "for whatever reason."

There will be a lot of negotiation required before any significant withdrawal of US troops. It is noteworthy that there were only 180 US troops in Iraq 2014.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq_(2014%E2%80%93present)

The surge in US forces only occurred following the 2014 defeat of ISIS in the battle for Latakia, Syria where the Obama Administration backed islamists (many imported from Libya) were relocated into Iraq and joined former Saddam military forces to roll back Iraqi Shia forces.
http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/ISIS_Governance.pdf

As discussed in the latest Grayzone 2 hour discussion it was Qassem Soleimani who was key to the defeat of the US/Israeli/KSA/UAE backed ISIS forces.

https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/03/us-war-iran-iraq-rania-khalek/

For more coverage see RANIA KHALEK'S twitter site:

https://twitter.com/RaniaKhalek?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

As reported in RT, "Iraqi parliament has voted to have foreign troops removed from the country, heeding to a call from its caretaker prime minister. The move comes after US assassination of a top Iranian general and a commander of Iraqi militia The resolution, which was passed anonymously, instructs the government to cancel a request for military assistance to th