“The strategy session, which has not been previously reported, came as mass protests against Iran’s growing influence in Iraq were gaining momentum, putting the Islamic Republic in an unwelcome spotlight. Soleimani’s plans to attack U.S. forces aimed to provoke a military response that would redirect that rising anger toward the United States, according to the sources briefed on the gathering, Iraqi Shi’ite politicians, and government officials close to Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi.”
This is a Reuters report, not the work of some right-wing spin machine. I notice the that liberal American press has almost totally ignored this, or buried it on the back pages.
It’s hard to believe they couldn’t have picked a better spot to do it than in Iraq and at the Baghdad Airport to boot. Rubbed Iraq’s nose in it bigtime.
There’s been a lot of forgetting that they were getting pissed at Iran. And then Trump’s blathering about really big sanctions over an airbase we expanded for our own purposes.
Of course we know the Orange buffoon is not going to be sending his buddy Vlad any kind of demand for back rent on account of their (USSR’s) navy’s use of Cam Rahn Bay.
Say that FDR learned about Japan’s plan for Pearl Harbor in 1941. Would it have been a good thing for him to have the head of the Imperial Japanese Navy murdered based on that information? Or should he have put the defenses of Pearl Harbor on a war footing, gotten the fleet out of the harbor, and so on – preparing our defenses without, actually, you know, starting a war? Or should he have gone to Congress and tried to get it to declare war, based on his information, because we did not let Presidents start wars all by themselves back then? (Weren’t we silly?)
Yep, this Iranian guy was planning attacks on the US of various kinds. Does that make what Trump did a good idea? I am open to persuasion, I hope, but right now I don’t see how it was a good thing to do, let alone the best. But I am not real shrewd.
War by assassination is typically not effective. Who here thinks the Civil War would habe turned out differently if the South had assassinated Grant?
If the Confederates had assassinated Grant and Sherman?
That may well have been a different ballgame.
You’re a poor student of history if you believe that,
Pearl Harbor is a far stretch being one of the primary instigators of the biggest war in human history with vague information that embassies could have been attacked by militias.
Supposedly Iraq had WMD’s they were going to use in some manner. That turned out to be a crock of shit, so we’re just rerolling the classics from the Iraq War. I know pulling out of the nuclear deal provoked response, and the assassination proved even more that will now end in more casualties than any other option and why it was clearly an idiotic decision.
I don’t understand your first sentence, Indy. I am not saying it is badly written, just that I don’t get it.
And for your second paragraph, are you saying the reports of planned Iranian attacks are probably false, and that is why what Scoopy calls the liberal American press has ignored it, or relegated it to the back pages?
My point is just that this shadow proxy war on random targets have been going on quite a while with many different nations. Its very small change compared to the massive Pearl Harbor attack that brought the US into WW2.
In Kenya, the US embassy was attacked the last few days by a different group, which caused three Americans to die and its barely even news anymore. If Iran caused it, we would be looking down the barrel of a gigantic war.
So no, I really don’t trust US Intelligence sources on the ‘justification of war’ front. Pompeo provided no evidence, and him and pretty much everyone in the Trump administration are liars. This isn’t even taking in account the lies exposed over the decades with the Pentagon Papers, the Reagan Iran hostage crisis treason to get elected by delaying release, Saudi involvement in 9-11, false WMD accusations in Iraq, Snowden leaks, among others.
There’s a long standing policy of suppressing information then lying to the public about the justification already in US history. Throw this insane regime on top of that, and I don’t buy into the whole ‘we saved lives’ narrative.
Thanks for your explanation, Indy. I guess I was concerned that Trump’s action would lead to a big war with Iraq. I hope it does not.
As with you, I agree that Bush the Younger lied about Iraq, and I think it is very likely that Trump is lying about Iran. He needs a war to save himself, and he will start one if he has to.
i respect your comment. If we are unable to mutually accept the facts, we cannot debate the logic and morality of the reaction to those facts. Now that we have set the ground rules, i would certainly choose to have the head of the Japanese navy murdered based on the information provided. The purpose of the government is to protect the citizenry.
Would you actually make a case for that course of action, Steve, instead of just stating it as your opinion? That is, would you connect it up to protecting the US citizenry somehow, and doing it better than the other courses of action I mentioned?
I do not think it would be advantageous in any sense. It would forfeit our taking the Japanese attack force by surprise, for instance, while giving the Japanese a legitimate cause for war, while shocking American opinion for killing someone for something he was going to do but had not yet done. (We were, as I said, silly about such things back then.) But I am willing for you to prove me wrong.
Your remark about mutually accepting facts is interesting too. I quite agree that we cannot agree whether a given course of action is good or bad, advantageous or disadvantageous, or morally right or wrong, unless we agree on what the facts are.
One of the great problems we have today is that as a nation we cannot agree on what is true any more. How do you rate the truthfulness of Trump, Steve? Because that seems to be a key divide. Practically all the divisiveness on great issues, like impeachment, seems to flow from that.
BTW, Steve, didn’t you once say that it was standard operating procedure for US corporations to rent large blocks of hotel rooms (at Trump hotels, for instance) and then not use them? You never explained why they would do that, and I would still like to know.
Thanks!
After today, is it still necessary to explain my position? I’m in favor of any act that saves American lives. It’s not about patriotism, it’s about responsibility. The sole purpose of our government and nation is to the protect the citizenry and create opportunity for its residents. Taking emotion out of the equation, we removed a leading thinker, strategist, leader. That weakens Iran’s ability to hurt Americans. They are a less dangerous country today than they were yesterday because their terror mastermind is gone.
To answer your question, at the time of your hypothetical scenario, Pearl Harbor had yet to happen. Removing their mastermind from the equation before an attack would have neutered Japan’s capabilities. It may have played out differently but I like the odds better with the inspirational, experienced, strategic leaders on the sidelines.
I don’t like trump, I don’t respect trump, and I think he’s a liar. I still prefer that over the modern day democrat party. AOC said it best, “if we were in any other country joe Biden and I would not be in the same party”. From my perspective, the “squad”, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren are far more dangerous to the fundamental fabric of our society than a buffoon who lowers taxes and protects its citizens. All thighs being equal, I’d vote for Bloomberg. I’m a New Yorker and loved him as mayor.
I don’t know what you’re referring to with regards to blocks of hotel rooms. I’ve seen another Steve commenting.
Lets hear about the ‘Butcher of Benghazi’ again GOP and Trump supporters. Tonight we just got involved in a war that Trump himself provoked by unilaterally placing sanctions and pulling out of the nuclear deal that prevented ALL of this, just because he couldn’t stand Obama and the deals he made.
Congrats you idiotic Trump voters. Any US soldiers and innocent citizens deaths are on your hands.
Bingo!
Damn right. I don’t say this gladly, but we’d be better off right now with President Hilary. Or Pence. Or Pelosi. Or Romney. Or Scoopy. Any non-total shithead, really (not that you’re a partial shithead, Scoop…for any other name on that list I do not qualify my characterization).
Of course none of them would have gotten us into this fine mess, either. But now we’ve got O’Donnell cutting into my local news to say Iranian missiles are raining on Our Bases. And we’ve got a bald dipshit with a Napoleon complex getting ready to push all the buttons in a giggling fit.
Yeah, thanks Republicans. Way to go.
Yes. All of that is accurate. For years, the community of nations has been trying to ease Iran out of its 7th century theocracy and into the modern, civilized world. The nuclear deal at least made some progress in that direction, and Trump chose confrontation over diplomacy.
And yes, there are consequences to killing Soleimani, but there would also have been consequences to NOT killing him, and we frankly don’t know which choice was worse. If Soleimani had masterminded that rocket strike Reuters reported, Trump’s enemies (and even some conservatives) would be saying, “Trump had the chance to kill him and didn’t. That blood is on his hands.”
Trump has an out here to not respond as it looks like the strikes did not cause casualties. If this doesn’t go any further, everyone got very lucky.
The damage is still done for years to come however, as the guerrilla proxy attacks and hostility will only increase. This situation was put on the backburner after the nuclear deal, which all international partners agreed that Iran was abiding to, and Trump decided to pull the rug out for no reason other than Obama wrote it.
This is what happens when an ignorant unqualified sociopath comes into power. You’ll get apathy at these sorts of multi-national agreements from the general public, but set a spark for months and years down the line for the issue to escalate into something much bigger.
This stuff doesn’t just happen out of the air, votes and actions have consequences. The ‘who cares I’m doing fine financially’ attitude towards these things can go up in smoke very quickly.
We’ll see if Trump takes the out here and at least prevents all out war. He’s already screwed up two decisions, breaking the agreement and killing the general. If he strikes back militarily without casualties, is will be one of the dumbest decisions in US history to start a conflict.
Everyone didn’t get “very lucky”. Iran chose to shoot at a base that our troops had already cleared out of. This was Iran’s “out” – not Trump’s. They get to save a little face by shooting 10 or 15 missiles at an empty Iraqi base. Hell, Trump most likely told them where it’s okay to shoot, and we won’t retaliate.
I promise you that if Iran wanted to (or had the balls to) shoot at a fully populated U.S. base, they could have.
There is a lot of bluster on both sides, and I still think it will all lead to a sit-down where we work out a deal that doesn’t put millions of dollars in ex-politician’s pockets.
I do wonder how the possible Iranian shoot-down last night of a Ukranian plane with 170 people plays into all of this. It’s really odd that it was Ukranian.
That’s the most optimistic scenario. Unfortunately, history is full of miscalculations.
No, it will just go to Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman like it usually does with the war-for-profit Republicans.
The nuclear deal contained the situation, and has international partners. Lets be real, that was removed because Trump is fucking moron who just removed deals because he has a hard on for breaking whatever deals Obama made.
Breaking the agreement with the subsequent assassination has put every soldier abroad at risk. Compare their safety now to 2015 and you have your answer on how idiotic Trump’s moves were. At best, it hasn’t seemed to escalate to higher levels immediately, at worse 160+ are dead from the fog of war this shitshow that should have never started to begin with.
I don’t think the nuclear deal was doing anything to lift Iran out of it’s theocracy. I believe that deal was deeply flawed for numerous reasons including not addressing Iran’s exporting of terrorism. But the single biggest flaw was that even if Iran fully adhered to the terms of the deal (despite the lack of inspections) all it would have done was delay it’s nuclear program for 5 years after which it would have been free to resume development of a nuclear bomb. But because Iran had gotten most of it’s incentives (sanctions relief and more than $1 Billion in cash) up front, there was a strong argument for not pulling out of the deal. But the sanctions the US put in place do seem to be putting a great deal of pressure on the regime. If Iran fully pulls out, hopefully sanctions will be even more effective as European allies put theirs back into effect.
The Obama administration could have submitted the nuclear deal to the Senate for ratification as a treaty, but they didn’t because it couldn’t get majority support, much less the required 2/3. Chuck Schumer voted against the deal, not that you would get that from how he talks about it today.
You’re incorrect on the delay for the nuclear program. “According to details of the deal published by the US government, Iran’s uranium stockpile will be reduced by 98% to 300 kg (660 lbs) for 15 years.”
So the Iranian missile attack killed exactly zero Americans? 50+ of theirs died in a stampede. Now they’ve shot down a Ukranian plane, full of Iranians. On top of all that, 2 earthquakes in a day.
Not a good day for Iran.
Worst revenge. Ever.
Do we know that the plane was shot down? if so, do we know who did it or why?
There is video on Twitter of a fireball falling out of the sky. Multiple outlets are reporting this is the doomed plane, and Al Hadath News agency out of Jordan is suggesting it was caused by a missile fired by Iran. Iran is only saying it was technical difficulties.
Also, Iran had just fired off 15 missiles about 2 hours prior to the crash.
So, no official confirmation yet…but I will not be surprised to find out it was a missile. If that’s the case, I hope it wasn’t us who fired it
Does Trump’s slurring speech count? Or does he need to snort some more crushed up Adderall to function?
Glad we have such a ‘stable genius’ running this whole operation. Obviously we can just put this all behind us, nothing will ever happen with that steady hand on the wheel.
I guess we will toleriaeaet his accomplismishaysents.
Ummm….that meeting occurred in mid October…duh. And Reuters isn’t infallible…it has a corporate agenda. Given the lies told about Afghanistan (see the WaPo expose), WMD in Iraq etc. any statements by US officials on background are highly suspect. For those with memory problems, the statements about WMD in Iraq largely originated from Scooter Libby…Judith Miller’s anonymous source.
Since we are clearly planning military action against Iran, I assume from your commentary that you’d find nothing wrong if the Iranians assassinated the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, right?
Correct. If the Chairman were on Saudi soil, conducting military actions against Iran.
Mission ironically accomplished. By giving that shitbird a martyr’s death, there’s your re-directed anger right there.
Well, they deferred a few deaths to a later date.
I would not call it a martyr’s death. Lord only knows why the press has latched onto that Iranian spin with sympathy. They should be condemning that outrage over the death of a known terrorist (so designated for more than a decade).
Suleimani was not a holy man killed at prayer. He was a general (and again, terrorist), who died planning a military action in ANOTHER country, not his own, an action against American forces. When generals go to another country to engage in military operations, they can usually expect one of two results – death or victory. If they are planning that action against America, the American President should offer them death rather than victory if he can.
I would like to see some real reporters go to Iran and say “WHY are you upset by Suleimani’s death? What is it about Suleimani you love?” (Likely answer: Death to America.) Unfortunately, America has no real reporters, just those with pre-conceptions.
I agree, he’s not an actual martyr. But Muslims will be speaking of him in reverent whispers long after “Trump” is relegated to being rattled off among the ex-presidents, much like Gerald Ford today.
Well, yes we designated him a terrorist. They just designated our Pentagon a terrorist organization. Doesn’t make it so. “Terrorists” used to have to have demands. Now the word has been re-jiggered to mean “someone we don’t like”.
That’s not the point, though, is it? Sure, Suleimani probably deserved what he got. But he was trying to provoke America into an action that would make America unpopular, and he succeeded. Suleimani is dead, but Iraq’s government and people have now turned against America and towards Iran. So he got both death and victory.
The US president should protect American interests, which means winning against Iran, not against a particular person.
As to your lastest point – if Iran openly assassinated an American politican or general, there would be outrage throughout America, including by many people who never heard about him before or who hated him while he was alive. I’m not fan of Mike Pence, but if he was killed by an Irani Drone, I’d be shocked and furious. I don’t see why you’d expect any different from the Iranians.
You’ve stated that comparison apples-to-oranges. If Mike Pence were killed by an Irani drone while in the USA, I would be shocked and furious. But if he were killed by an Irani drone while in Saudi Arabia, conducting a military strike against Iran, I would consider it the consequence of his actions.
Again, this is a general in a country not his own for the purpose of (among other things) planning military actions against the United States, so it should not be surprising to anyone that the US took him out.
But he wasn’t in Iraq to fight the US. He was in Iraq fighting ISIS, which is an enemy of both the US and Iran. According to the Reuters article, while there, he was also organising provocations against the US to try to get them to retaliate and then get thrown out of Iraq. But do you think Iranians on the street know this?
You seem to be making a moral argument here. But that’s not what’s important. Iran was America’s enemy last year and it’s America’s enemy now. What’s important is managing the conflict in a way that favours America’s goals rather than Iran’s. And it seems that, based on the developments so far. the US handed Iran what it wanted, albeit not in the way it wanted.
Your first sentence is factually incorrect.
He WAS in Iraq for, among other reasons, planning attacks against Americans or America’s interests.
I agree with you that his motivations were complex, but his motivations are not really relevant.
America had to make a call.
If you know what he’s doing and don’t take him out, Americans die, and your critics excoriate you for not getting him when you had a chance.
If you do take him out, Americans die in retaliatory strikes, and your critics excoriate you for overreacting.
Being the American president often presents dilemmas with no good resolution, where nobody is happy with your decision.
Did Trump choose right? I don’t know. Perhaps not.
But he had no good option. And he did show Iran that America is not going to tolerate its interference in other nations when it has the option.
Nobody really knows which choice would produce the lesser loss of American lives, but so far no Americans have been injured, and Trump is going to respond with sanctions instead of violence, so the situation seems contained for now.
Ignored in all of this is assuming that his planning wasn’t just passed on to someone else. This general was just a cog in the machine, it most likely didn’t change a damn thing.
Also the point of these attacks and wars always turn out to be irrelevant. Third world theocracies combined with vigilante militias turn out to be a game of trying to pick a side among factions at conflict with one another, and NONE are good and have their own enemies.
In the 80s the United States funded Bin Laden and the Taliban against Russia. Also Sadaam Hussein was funded against Iran, and worked with CIA operatives to overturn the government. Hell there’s a picture of Donald Rumsfield shaking Sadaam’s hand in the 80s.
People are just SICK of this game. Kill one official, two more takes it’s place. Destroy Iraq, ISIS rises to take its place. The Shah’s monarchy ended over 40 years ago now, and we’re still in the area playing bullshit chess games over the middle east with the same tired playbook of rationale again and again.
And this just in: Iranian forces have launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles against two military bases in Iraq, the Pentagon said Tuesday evening, marking the most significant Iranian attack in the growing conflict between Iran and the United States.