The US airstrike ordered by Donald Trump killed Iran general Qasam Soleimani outside Baghdad airport in Iraq (Picture: Reuters/AFP) The phrase ‘World War 3’ began trending after the killing of the Iranian leader’s second in command in a US airstrike. Iranian general Qasem Soleimani was killed in a bombing ordered by President Donald Trump overnight at Baghdad Airport. After news of his death broke, the country’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei sparked fears of war after he promised ‘harsh vengeance’. Many of those tweeting about the airstrike used memes to bring light to the situation, joking about fears it could spark ‘World War 3’ – a phrase now trending on Twitter. Searches for ‘World War 3’ also spiked on Google within hours of the airstrike in Iraq overnight. Google Trends recorded ‘Iran’ as the second most searched term in the United States, with more than 500,000 searches for the topic. Though much of the comments online mock hysteria surrounding a ‘world war’, there are real fears of repercussions following Soleimani’s death. In a tweet, Iran’s leader Ayatollah Khomeinei said the ‘criminals’ responsible had ‘his [Soleimani] and other martyrs’ blood on their evil hands’. He added: ‘God willing, his work and his path will not be stopped.’ The dramatic attack came months of tensions between the US and Iran in which Tehran shot down an American military surveillance drone and seized oil tankers. This week, Mr Trump blamed Iran for a protest in Iraq which saw demonstrators break into the US embassy in Baghdad and torch the place. A destroyed vehicle on fire following a US strike on Baghdad Airport road in which top Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani was killed (Picture: AFP) Soleimani was Iran’s second most powerful man (Picture: AP) US airstrike kills top Iranian general in Iraq Donald Trump orders airstrike that kills General Qassem Soleimani of Iran Iran responds to Bahgdad airstrike that killed Qasem Soleimani ‘World War 3’ trends after Donald Trump airstrike kills Iran general Shia cleric reactivates powerful anti-US army after airstrike kills Iran general US citizens ordered to leave Iraq after airstrike kills Iranian general Who was Iranian general Qasem Soleimani who died in an airstrike ordered by Donald Trump? Donald Trump Twitter video slamming Obama over Iran hasn’t aged well People are split over Donald Trump’s Twitter response to deadly airstrike Dancing on the streets of Baghdad after killing of top Iranian general Assassination of Iran general ‘will have consequences even bigger than all-out war’ Britain calls for calm after US assassinates Iran’s top general in airstrike Donald Trump taunts Iran after killing top general Qasem Soleimani in drone strike How will Iran react to assassination of its top general? Iran promises to ‘turn day into night’ after Trump orders killing of general US airstrike on senior Iranian General ‘could put UK at risk’ World ‘prepares for war’ as tanks gather at borders in Middle East after US airstrike UK ‘knew nothing’ about Donald Trump’s plan to assassinate general Soleimani Pictures of the embassy’s burned out wreck later emerged, with Mr Trump declaring Iran ‘will pay a very big price’. The US also blames the country for a series of attacks targeting tankers, as well as a September assault on Saudi Arabia’s oil industry that temporarily halved its production. The tensions take root in Mr Trump’s decision in May 2018 to withdraw the US from Iran’s nuclear deal with world powers, struck under his predecessor, Barack Obama. Soleimani was the target of Friday’s US attack, which was conducted by an armed American drone, according to a US official. His vehicle was struck on an access road near the Baghdad airport, killing him and eight others. Donald Trump had blamed Iran for a demonstration at the US embassy in Iraq this week (Picture: Reuters) Vehicles engulfed in flames after U.S-airstrike at Baghdad airport Play Video Loaded: 0% 0:00Progress: 0% PlayMute Current Time0:00 / Duration Time0:41 Fullscreen U.S. kills Iran's most powerful general in Baghdad airstrike Play Video Loaded: 0% 0:00Progress: 0% PlayMute Current Time0:00 / Duration Time1:21 Fullscreen A senior Iraqi security official said the airstrike took place near the cargo area after Soleimani left his plane to be greeted by al-Muhandis and others. The official said the plane had arrived from either Lebanon or Syria. The US president was holidaying on his estate in Palm Beach, Florida, at the time of the strike, but sent out a tweet of an American flag.
In a previously undisclosed detail one observer described as "stunning," Mahdi said Soleimani was in Baghdad to meet with him about a Saudi request for dialogue to relieve tensions in the region—not, as the U.S. has claimed, to plan attacks against American forces.
"What happened was a political assassination. Iraq cannot accept this."
byJake Johnson, staff writer
102 Comments
Iraq's Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi speaks during afuneral ceremony in Baghdad on October 23, 2019. (Photo: Ahmad Al-Rubaye/AFP via Getty Images)
Update:
Iraq's parliament voted in an extraordinary session Sunday to expel all American troops from the country and file a United Nations complaint against the U.S. for violating Iraq's sovereignty with its assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad.
Ahead of the vote, chants of "No, no, America" rang out inside the hall.
"Iraq called on the U.N. Security Council to condemn the bombing and assassinations," Iraq's foreign ministry said in a statement following the vote.
As The National reported, the Iraqi parliament approved "a five-point action plan that would require the Iraqi government to end the presence of foreign troops in the country, and withdraw its request for assistance from the anti-ISIS global coalition."
"Parliament also called on the government to ban the use of Iraqi airspace by any foreign power," according to The National. The resolution still requires the approval of the Iraqi government.
The U.S. currently has around 5,000 troops stationed in Iraq.
Earlier:
Speaking before an extraordinary session of parliament Sunday, Iraq's outgoing Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi recommended that the nation's lawmakers approve a measure to end U.S. troop presence in "immediately" following the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad.
The prime minister's remarks came before Iraqi lawmakers are set to vote on a resolution to end permission for American troops to remain in Iraq.
Washington Post reporter Mustafa Salim summarized Mahdi's recommendations:
The U.S. assassination Soleimani on Iraqi soil was met with fierce condemnation from Iraq's foreign ministry and the prime minister, who called the drone strike a violation of the nation's sovereignty.
"What happened was a political assassination," Mahdi said. "Iraq cannot accept this."
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:11 am Post subject:
US created Daesh terror group & killed commander who defeated Daesh
05 Jan
https://urmedium.com/c/presstv/5696
For many people worldwide General Qassem Soleimani was an anti-terror hero. Soleimani played a key role in defeating Daesh in Iraq and Syria. But Donald Trump ordered his killing in an air strike last week.
The US has some 5,000 troops in Iraq
US Defence Secretary Mark Esper has denied US troops are pulling out of Iraq, after a letter from a US general there suggested a withdrawal.
The letter said the US would be "repositioning forces in the coming days and weeks" after Iraqi MPs had called for them to leave.
Mr Esper said there had been "no decision whatsoever to leave".
The confusion came amid threats to American forces after the US killed top Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani.
He died in a US drone strike in Baghdad on Friday on the orders of Mr Trump.
Who was Iran's Qasem Soleimani?
Trump under fire for threat to Iranian cultural sites
The killing has sharply increased regional tensions, with Iran threatening "severe revenge".
What was in the letter?
It appeared to have been sent by Brig Gen William H Seely, head of the US military's task force in Iraq, to Abdul Amir, the deputy director of Combined Joint Operations.
It starts: "Sir, in due deference to the sovereignty of the Republic of Iraq, and as requested by the Iraqi Parliament, and the Prime Minister, CJTF-OIR (Combined Joint Task Force - Operation Inherent Resolve) will be repositioning forces over the course of the coming days and weeks to prepare for onward movement."
The letter says certain measures, including increased air traffic, will be conducted "during hours of darkness" to "ensure the movement out of Iraq is conducted in a safe and efficient manner".
It would also "alleviate any perception that we may be bringing more Coalition Forces into the IZ (Green Zone in Baghdad)".
How has it been explained?
Mr Esper told reporters in Washington: "There's been no decision whatsoever to leave Iraq. I don't know what that letter is... We're trying to find out where that's coming from, what that is.
"But there's been no decision made to leave Iraq. Period."
The highest-ranking US soldier, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, then appeared at a briefing, saying the letter was "a mistake".
He said it was a draft which was poorly worded, had not been signed and should not have been released. It was being circulated for input, including from Iraqis.
"[The letter] was sent over to some key Iraqi military guys in order to get things co-ordinated for air movements, etc. Then it went from that guy's hands to another guy's hands and then it went to your hands. Now it's a kerfuffle."
Gen Milley reiterated that US troops were not leaving.
So what is happening?
Gen Milley said the issue was being "worked" with the Iraqis, but gave no details.
BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said he had been told by a coalition source that the letter was to let the Iraqis know the US was moving troops out of the Green Zone to provide protection elsewhere and did not mean a withdrawal.
Image Copyright @bealejonathan@BEALEJONATHAN
Report
This has been backed up by other coalition sources, telling separate reporters that the move was to "thin out" the Baghdad personnel.
What are the US and other forces doing in Iraq?
There are just over 5,000 US troops in Iraq, part of the Combined Joint Task Force - Operation Inherent Resolve, which was set up in 2014 to tackle the Islamic State group after it had captured a large swathe of Syria and Iraq.
There are about a dozen primary member countries, and scores more providing non-combat support.
The main focus of the task force is to train and equip Iraqi forces.
Media captionWho was Qasem Soleimani?
On Sunday, Iraqi MPs passed a non-binding resolution calling for foreign troops to leave in the wake of Soleimani's assassination.
President Trump then threatened severe sanctions against Iraq if US troops left.
As part of the incendiary and escalating crisis surrounding the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, there has come an explanation of why the Iranian commander was actually in Baghdad when he was targeted by a US missile strike.
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. It is possible that the president was unaware of the crucial role that Soleimani was playing in the attempted rapprochement with the Saudis. Or that he knew but did not care.
US airstrike kills Iran's Qassem Soleimani: Fallout in pictures
Show all 35
One may even say that it is not in the interest of a president who puts so much emphasis on American arms exports, and whose first official trip after coming to office was a weapons-selling trip to Saudi Arabia – during which he railed against Iran – to have peace break out between the Iranians and the kingdom. But that would be far too cynical a thought.
Abdul-Mahdi spoke of his disappointment that while Trump was expressing his gratitude over the mediation, he was also simultaneously planning an attack on Soleimani. That attack took place not long after the telephone call from the president.
There is also the possibility that the US military planners knew nothing about the conversations between Trump and Abdul-Mahdi, and took out Soleimani when the opportunity presented itself.
There may be credence to this, if one follows the narrative which is emerging from defence and intelligence officials in Washington: that the assassination option presented to Trump was bound to be refused, as it had been by his predecessors in the White House. And that there was a desperate scramble to track down Soleimani when, much to their shock, Trump ordered the hit.
Watch more
US actions in Iraq could plunge the country into crisis once again
Americans have been fed a simplified tale about Iran and Soleimani
Oil price ‘could double to $150 a barrel’ if US and Iran go to war
What does the Iran crisis mean for Trump’s impeachment?
The existence of the talks between the Saudi and the Iranians and, more importantly, the threat of impending violence, has meant reaction in Riyadh at the killing has been markedly muted.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, not a stranger to sabre rattling, has sent his younger brother, deputy defence minister Khalid bin Salman, to Washington to urge restraint.
The very real risk of the region becoming an arena for conflict has led to rare cooperation in the stand-off between the Saudi-led Gulf block and Qatar, whose foreign minister was dispatched to Tehran with a similar appeal for calm.
In Tehran, Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani met with Iranian president Hassan Rouhani to discuss “measures to maintain the security and stability of the region,” the state-run Qatar News Agency reported. While in the UAE the foreign minister, Anwar Gargash, called for “rational engagement”, tweeting: “wisdom and balance must prevail.”
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei weeps at Soleimani prayers
As well as being in danger of getting caught in the crossfire of a war between the US and Iran, the Arab states in the region are vulnerable to Tehran’s allied militias – in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Syria. There is concern whether the US, after unleashing a wave of missiles, would do anything when retribution is taken on its partner countries.
The Saudis learned only too clearly last summer that one cannot always depend on American commitment, when drone and missile attacks on oil-processing facilities in the kingdom halved oil production. Trump directly blamed Iran for the attacks but there was no American military response, just as there has not been to the many attacks on the kingdom from the Houthis in Yemen.
In the light of all this Khalid al-Dakhil, a Saudi political sociologist, pointed out: “Saudi Arabia and all the Gulf countries are just quiet. They don’t want to antagonise the Iranians, because the situation in the region is so delicate, so divided, so sensitive, that you don’t want to stir it up further.”
Robert Emerson, a British security analyst, said that it was clear why caution was prevailing. “You don’t know whether Trump will just light the blue touchpaper and then just disappear,” he said. “The Arab states are right to be wary. The talk about Iran and Saudi negotiations is intriguing, further details should be emerging.’’
Iran warns US allies not to retaliate to missile strikes and threatens to hit Israel and Dubai too
Iran warned that if there is retaliation for the two waves of attacks they launched their third wave will destroy Dubai in the UAE and the city of Haifa in northern Israel.
Iran warned that if there is retaliation for the two waves of attacks they launched their third wave will destroy Dubai in the UAE and the city of Haifa in northern Israel. Iran is warnings any bases home to US terrorists and allowing them to launch strikes from, against Iran will then become their targets. Lets hope Shannon Airport in Ireland does not allow America to use its base or Iran could quickly send missile's their way 😢
Iran is warning that if there is retaliation for the two waves of attacks they launched their 3rd wave will destroy Dubai and Haifa.#iran#Soleimani#war
Ben Gelblum by Ben Gelblum
January 8, 2020
in World News
Iran warns US allies not to retaliate to missile strikes and threatens to hit Israel and Dubai too
The US has confirmed that Iran has launched “more than a dozen ballistic missiles” at two targets hosting US military and coalition forces in Iraq. The Asad and Erbil bases were targeted by Iran in retaliation for the Donald Trump-ordered killing of a top Revolutionary Guards commander in Baghdad.
Defense Department spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said: “It is clear that these missiles were launched from Iran.”
He added that the attacks “targeted at least two Iraqi military bases” at Ain Assad and Irbil. Mr Hoffman said the US is “working on initial battle damage assessments.”
Iranian state TV said the attack was in revenge for the killing of Revolutionary Guard General Qassem Soleimani, whose funeral on Tuesday prompted angry calls to avenge his death.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard announced that a second wave of missiles had been launched then warned the US and its regional allies against retaliating. Iranian state media also reported Iranian fighter jets have entered Iraq airspace.
The Guard issued the warning via a statement carried by Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency.
“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,” the Guard said. It also threatened Israel.
Iran warned that if there is retaliation for the two waves of attacks they launched their third wave will destroy Dubai in the UAE and the city of Haifa in northern Israel.
Iran says it will stop attacks but escalate into regional conflict if US responds militarily
The Revolutionary Guard then insisted that if the US does not react with any further acts of aggression, that Iran’s retaliatory attacks would stop.
Though it made clear that if the US did respond militarily, the conflict would escalate with Iranian attacks on more bases in Iraq, as well as attacks on Dubai and Israel. Iranian proxy militias Hezbollah and shiite militias in Iraq could escalate the crisis into a regional war.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said Ayatollah Khamenei is in control centre cordinating attacks. The religious leader says he does not see any difference between America and Israel in this conflict.
Iran Soleimani
Meanwhile private Iranian Tasnim News Agency has quoted sources saying if the US retaliates to these missile attacks, Hezbollah will open fire on Israel.
MORE IN HOME
Ex-heroin addict turns life around by becoming NHS nurse
Ex-heroin addict turns life around by becoming NHS nurse
Mum of murdered teen slams prison service after killer posts video saying ‘it could be worse, I could be dead’
Mum of murdered teen slams prison service after killer posts video saying ‘it could be worse, I could be dead’
Hospital is first in UK to introduce disposable sterile hijabs for Muslim doctor
Hospital is first in UK to introduce disposable sterile hijabs for Muslim doctor
Young boy saves up his pocket money to buy Christmas gifts for pensioners
Young boy saves up his pocket money to buy Christmas gifts for pensioners
School serves 800 Xmas dinners to underprivileged youngsters – after realising they wouldn’t get one at home
School serves 800 Xmas dinners to underprivileged youngsters – after realising they wouldn’t get one at home
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said the White House is aware of the reported missile attacks.
“The President has been briefed and is monitoring the situation closely and consulting with his national security team,” she said.
Ain Assad air base is in Iraq’s western Anbar province. It was first used by American forces after the 2003 US-led invasion that toppled dictator Saddam Hussein. It later saw American troops stationed there amid the fight against the so-called Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria.
Hossein Soleimani, the editor in chief of Mashregh, the main Revolutionary Guards news website, said that more than 30 ballistic missiles had been fired at the American base at Asad, in Anbar Province, in western Iraq.
An American base in Erbil, in northern Iraq, was also attacked.
It still remains unclear if there were any casualties or major damage at either base. “We are working on initial battle damage assessments,” a Pentagon statement said.
Iranian State TV said the operation’s name was Marytr Soleimani. It said the Guard’s aerospace division, which controls Iran’s missile program, launched the attack.
Footage was aired by the Iranian FARS news agency appearing to show missiles fired at one of the US bases.
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish)
Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi urged caution, insisting the world could ill afford a war between the US and Iran.
“Closely monitoring the situation following bombings targeting U.S. troops in Iraq. We must ensure the safety of our servicemembers, including ending needless provocations from the Administration and demanding that Iran cease its violence. America & world cannot afford war,” she tweeted.
Earlier on Tuesday evening Donald Trump appeared to backtrack on threats to hit back at Iranian cultural targets as he said this would be apparently unlawful under international law.
The US has no alternative and must pull its troops out of Iraq, or else face an impending crisis, the country’s outgoing prime minister insisted earlier.
But President Donald Trump said that it is not the right time for a pullout and that it would be the worst thing that could happen to Iraq.
Mr Trump said a US pullout would allow Iran to gain a stronger foothold in Iraq.
“The people of Iraq do not want to see Iran running the country, that I can tell you,” Mr Trump said from the White House.
Adel Abdul-Mahdi, who resigned in November amid mass anti-government protests, said Iraq wants a US troop withdrawal to avoid further escalation as tensions soar between American and Iran.
Soleimani was a monster Trump insisted, as pressure grows to disclose his intelligence
US President Donald Trump earlier insisted that his decision to order the killing of top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani has saved a lot of lives, calling General Soleimani “a monster”.
Mr Trump and his top advisers are under pressure however to disclose more detail about the intelligence that led to the killing, which has greatly heightened tension with Tehran.
Mr Trump said Tuesday that his decision saved American lives and that members of Congress will be briefed on the reasons for the US attack.
“We saved a lot of lives,” he said. “They were planning something.”
So far, Mr Trump and top national security officials have justified the air strike with such general statements about the threat posted by Gen Soleimani, who commanded proxy forces outside Iran and was responsible for the deaths of American troops in Iraq.
But the details have been scarce.
Mr Trump said: “He’s been called a monster, and he was a monster, and he’s no longer a monster, he’s dead.
Donald Trump
“And that’s a good thing for a lot of countries. He was planning a very big attack, and a very bad attack for us and other people, and we stopped him and I don’t think anybody can complain about it.”
Gen Soleimani was targeted while he was at an airport in Baghdad with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a veteran Iraqi militant who also was killed.
The Iraqi Prime Minister said that the Iranian General had arrived in Iraq to deliver Iran’s response to a regional peace plan suggested by Saudi Arabia.
However Trump on Tuesday evening said that he was not in Baghdad to discuss holiday plans or visit a “’nice resort”, but was there to talk over “’bad business”.
The lack of detail does not sit well with Democrats, who recall how President George W. Bush justified his invasion of Iraq by accusing Saddam Hussein of having non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
Lawmakers in recent days have been pressing for more detail to explain why Mr Trump ordered the killing – a decision that previous administrations passed up because of fears it would unleash even more violence.
Iran Soleimani
Mourners attend a funeral ceremony for Qassem Soleimani in Kerman, Iran (Erfan Kouchari/Tasnim News Agency/AP)
Gen Soleimani travelled frequently and relatively openly, with visits to Baghdad more frequent in recent months. He also often showed up in Syria, including along the border between Iraq and Syria.
Secretary of state Mike Pompeo said it was clear that Gen Soleimani was continuing his efforts to build a network of activities “that were going to lead potentially to the death of many more Americans”.
Defence secretary Mark Esper told reporters that Iranian threats against Americans were “’days away” from being executed.
Democratic lawmakers are not convinced.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the Senate foreign relations committee, called on Mr Trump to declassify the written notification the president sent to Congress after the fatal strike on Gen Soleimani.
The notification was required under the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973, which requires the president to report to Congress when American forces are sent into hostile or imminently hostile situations.
“It is critical that national security matters of such import be shared with the American people in a timely manner,” the senators wrote.
“An entirely classified notification is simply not appropriate in a democratic society, and there appears to be no legitimate justification for classifying this notification.” _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
“We’re going to war, bro” — declared a young US soldier from the US Army's celebrated 82nd Airborne Division. He gave reporters a confident two thumbs up as his unit moved out on its largest “fast deployment” in a decade at a moment Iran has promised to inflict a "historic nightmare" on the US in retaliation for the killing of Qasem Soleimani.
Reuters provided a detailed account of the uneasy yet somewhat jovial calm before the storm atmosphere that prevailed on the airport tarmac at Fort Bragg, North Carolina as 600 soldiers and many hundreds more support crew flew out.
While Kuwait is expected to be the first stop for most of the some 3,500 total paratroopers ordered to the region, the final destination is classified, and the Army is concerned over information leaks. For this reason the US Army confiscated the cell phones and any personal communication devices of those deploying on the transport planes.
82nd Airborne rolled out Sunday, Jan.5. Image source: Spc. Hubert Delany III/U.S. Army via AP
The departing soldiers, with the older generation described by Reuters as more somber and aware of the reality of entering conflict, were keenly aware that war is potentially on the horizon:
The older soldiers, in their 30s and 40s, were visibly more somber, having the experience of seeing comrades come home from past deployments learning to walk on one leg or in flag-draped coffins.
“This is the mission, man,” said Brian Knight, retired Army veteran who has been on five combat deployments to the Middle East...
“They’re answering America’s 911 call,” Knight said. “They’re stoked to go. The president called for the 82nd.”
“The guys are excited to go but none of us know how long they’ll be gone,” Army spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Mike Burns said. “That’s the toughest part,” he added.
Reuters described that for each infantry combat fighter, there are seven support crew deploying, including cooks, medics, mechanics, transport personnel, and chaplains — with the only ones not carrying a rifle among them being the chaplains.
US Army via AP
Despite war rhetoric between the US and Iran dominating the news cycle over the prior days, many were surprised to receive the call over the weekend to muster and depart Sunday. The Reuters report related the following:
“I was just watching the news, seeing how things were going over there,” said the 27-year-old, one of several soldiers Reuters was allowed to interview on condition they not be named. “Then I got a text message from my sergeant saying ‘don’t go anywhere.’ And that was it.”
Risks seemed to be pushed to the back of the minds of the younger soldiers, though many packed the base chapel after a breakfast of eggs, waffles, oatmeal, sausages and 1,000 doughnuts.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Your email...
Another soldier interviewed was actually on an authorized vacation the moment he got the call, and turned around from a trip to Daytona Beach.
“We just got there and I got the call to turn right around and head back to base,” he said. “My wife knows the drill. I had to go. We drove right back.”
Army spokesman Lt. Col. Burns commented, “We’re an infantry brigade. Our primary mission is ground fighting. This is as real as it gets.”
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:15 pm Post subject:
TIMELINE
Sept. 19-23 2019 - Iraqi PM Adil Abdul-Mahdi visits China to sign infrastructure deal - Trump calls him on his return, threatens to foment demonstrations in Baghdad, kill him and defence minister Najah al-Shammari unless he cancels China deal
Fri 27 Dec 2019 PMF attack on US K1 military base in Kirkuk kills one Iraqi (not US) translator Nawres Hamid who worked for Valiant Integrated Services
Sun 29 Dec - US Air Strike kills 25 injures 51 at five Popular Mobilization Force (PMF) facilities all over Iraq
Tue 31 Dec - US embassy besieged - US ambassador and team leave Baghdad
Fri 3 Jan 2020 Just after midnight - Soleimani plus three Iraqis assassinated claim he was planning to blow up the US embassy
Sat 4 Jan - Trump threatens to hit 52 Iran sites including UNESCO cultural sites
Sat 4 Jan - five killed in Israeli attack on Popular Mobilization Force (PMF) at Taj stadium Baghdad
Mon 6 Jan - Iraqi parliament votes for all US forces to leave Iraq
Tue 7 Jan 2230 GMT - Al Asad and Erbil US bases hit by 20 Iranian missiles
Wed 8 Jan 0100 GMT - NBC Tehran bureau chief Ali Arouzi says if the US retaliates Iran will launch strikes against Dubai, UAE and Haifa, Israel
Wed 8 Jan 0245 GMT - Ukraine Airlines PS752 737 Tehran crash
Thu 9 Jan 0900 GMT - Ukraine NSC announces PS752 may have been shot down by Russian missile
Thu 9 Jan - Trump says Iran appears to be standing down
Fri 10 Jan - Israeli attack on PMF kills six on Syria Iraq border
US politicians rejoiced over Soleimani's assassination while Iranians mourned him as a national hero. We sum up key events in the days and moments following the attack on Iran's most powerful military general.
Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Iranian Quds Force. (picture-alliance/dpa/Leaders Official Website)
January 3
The first hours:
Shortly after midnight local time, airstrikes hit Baghdad International Airport. Iraq's military-run media agency, the Security Media Cell, was the first to report the attack. In their initial statement, they said that some people were injured, and shared photos of burnt vehicles.
Irak Bagdad Airport Luftschlag US-Streitkräfte auf General Qassem Soleimani (AFP/Iraqi Military)
A picture published by the media office of the Iraqi military's joint operations forces shows a burnt vehicle following a US strike on January 3.
Air traffic around Baghdad International Airport is suspended around 2 a.m. local time.
Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) issue a statement saying that "five members and two guests" were killed in the strikes. Shortly after, they say that Qassem Soleimani, as well as Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of the PMF, also known as Hashed al-Shaabi, and Mohammed Reza al-Jaberi, the protocol officer and the head of public relations for the group, were killed.
Read more: Al-Hashd al-Shaabi and Hezbollah: Iran's allies in Iraq and Lebanon
Iraqi state TV confirms the killings. Iranian State TV follows that confirmation, citing a Revolutionary Guard statement.
The US Department of Defense issues a statement confirming Soleimani's death in a US drone strike.
"At the direction of the President, the US military has taken decisive defensive action to protect US personnel by killing Qassem Soleimani. 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," the statement read.
Watch video01:17
Who was Qassem Soleimani?
Immediate reactions:
Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif condemns the assassination on Twitter saying that the US "bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism."
Javad Zarif
✔
@JZarif
The US' act of international terrorism, targeting & assassinating General Soleimani—THE most effective force fighting Daesh (ISIS), Al Nusrah, Al Qaeda et al—is extremely dangerous & a foolish escalation.
The US bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism.
39K
3:58 AM - Jan 3, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
22.6K people are talking about this
Populist Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr mourns Soleimani's killing and says that his militias are ready to protect Iraq.
Watch video00:24
Syrians from Azaz express joy over Soleimani death
Israel's Defense Ministry raises its alert level, amid fears of retaliation strikes initiated by Hezbollah and Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Lebanon's Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah says the group will continue to work towards Soleimani's goals, according to Lebanese broadcaster Al-Manar.
US State Department issues travel warning for Americans in Iraq, urging them to leave the country immediately. American workers employed by foreign oil companies in the southern Iraqi oil city of Basra begin to leave.
Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appoints Brigadier General Esmail Qaani to replace Soleimani.
Khamenei.ir
@khamenei_ir
Brigadier General Qa’ani has been appointed new Commander of IRGC Quds Force. The strategy of the Quds Force will be identical to that during the time of Martyr General Soleimani
View image on Twitter
7,423
1:40 PM - Jan 3, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
2,753 people are talking about this
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo meets with German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas to discuss the situation.
US President Donald Trump says Soleimani was behind "thousands" of deaths.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
General Qassem Soleimani has killed or badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill many more...but got caught! He was directly and indirectly responsible for the death of millions of people, including the recent large number....
246K
1:54 PM - Jan 3, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
81.6K people are talking about this
The United States announces that it would send 3,000 additional troops to the Middle East amid rising tensions in the region.
Watch video02:34
Iran promises 'harsh retaliation'
Saturday, January 4
Thousands gather for the funeral processionin Baghdad. The procession passed through the city's fortified Green Zone.
The United Kingdom issues a travel warning for Iraq.
Top Hezbollah official Mohamed Raad says the US "made an error" in killing Soleimani, and that the military faction will be decisive in its response.
Revolutionary Guards General Gholamali Abuhamzeh said Iran will punish Americans wherever they are within reach of the Islamic Republic, according to Tasnim news agency.
"The Strait of Hormuz is a vital point for the West and a large number of American destroyers and warships cross there ... vital American targets in the region have been identified by Iran since long time ago ... some 35 US targets in the region as well as Tel Aviv are within our reach," he said.
Read more: US, Iran on precipice of unpredictable Middle East war
NATO suspends training missions in Iraq, citing security concerns. The Iraqi mission employs hundreds of staff members from allied nations and non-NATO countries.
Oana Lungescu
✔
@NATOpress
“At our meeting today, Allies expressed their strong support for the fight against ISIS and for the #NATO mission in #Iraq. In everything that we do, the safety of our personnel is paramount. As such, we have temporarily suspended our training on the ground,” - @jensstoltenberg
View image on Twitter
396
4:19 PM - Jan 6, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
395 people are talking about this
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian speaks with German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi about tensions in the Middle East.
Wang and Zarif discuss rising tensions over the phone. Beijing subsequently publishes a press release outlining the minister's comments urging the US not to "abuse force."
China Mohammed Dschawad Sarif, Außenminister Iran mit Wang Yi, Außenminister (Reuters/T. Peter)
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi meets Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Beijing, in 2018.
More rockets fall in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone.
The United Kingdom announces that navy warships HMS Montrose and HMS Defender will escort ships sailing under the British flag through the Strait of Hormuz.
The White House sends Congress formal notice of Friday's strike. The notification was sent under the 1973 War Powers Act, which stipulates that the administration formally inform Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action.
Trump tweets that the US has "targeted 52 Iranian sites" it could hit "very fast and very hard" in the case of retaliation from Iran.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
· Jan 4, 2020
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
....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.....
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
....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!
274K
10:52 PM - Jan 4, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
127K people are talking about this
Sunday, January 5
Soleimani's body is returned to Iran and sent to the city of Ahvaz, according to the state-run IRIB news agency. Thousands began gathering in the city to mourn the general.
Zarif hits back at Trump's threat that US retaliation could hit Iranian cultural sites, saying that would constitute a war crime.
Javad Zarif
✔
@JZarif
-Having committed grave breaches of int'l law in Friday's cowardly assassinations, @realdonaldtrump threatens to commit again new breaches of JUS COGENS;
-Targeting cultural sites is a WAR CRIME;
-Whether kicking or screaming, end of US malign presence in West Asia has begun.
13.7K
8:43 AM - Jan 5, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
5,978 people are talking about this
Read more: Trump condemned for threats to Iranian cultural sites
Soleimani's and al-Muhandis' remains are sent back to Iran for tests. After the tests, authorities planned to take Soleimani's body to his hometown for burial, while al Muhandis' remains were set to be brought back to Iraq to be buried in Najaf.
Tens of thousands continue to gather in Ahvaz to mourn Soleimani. Authorities also planned to take his body to Tehran and the holy cities of Qom and Mashhad.
Iran summons various diplomats, including those from Germany, Switzerland and the US, either over the attacks or their government's subsequent comments.
European Union invites Zarif to Brussels to discuss de-escalation
Protests kick off at the US consulate in Turkey over Soleimani's killing
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah says the assassination marks a new era for the Middle East
Iraq's al-Sadr calls for US and other foreign troops to leave
Iran announces it will continue to roll back commitments under its 2015 nuclear deal with six major powers.
Watch video02:29
Iran suspends 2015 nuclear deal commitments
Monday, January 6
Iraq's United Nations Ambassador Mohammed Hussein Bahr Aluloom urges the UN to condemn Friday's attack
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson call on "all parties to exercise utmost restraint" as tensions continue to rise in the Middle East.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warns that tensions are at their "highest level this century," in an address. "The New Year has begun with our world in turmoil," he wrote on Twitter.
António Guterres
✔
@antonioguterres
The New Year has begun with our world in turmoil.
My message is clear:
Stop escalation.
Exercise maximum restraint.
Re-start dialogue.
Renew international cooperation.
Let us not forget the terrible human suffering caused by war. It is our common duty to avoid it.
Embedded video
13.2K
7:15 PM - Jan 6, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
6,728 people are talking about this
Saudi Arabia's Deputy Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo meet in the US.
Khalid bin Salman خالد بن سلمان
✔
@kbsalsaud
I had the pleasure of meeting @SecPompeo. We discussed recent events in the region, and efforts to maintain regional and international peace and stability.
View image on Twitter
2,400
9:49 PM - Jan 6, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
1,585 people are talking about this
Defense Secretary Mark Esper says the US has no plans to pull its troops out of Iraq. The statement contradicted a letter sent earlier that day from the head of the US military's Task Force Iraq outlining efforts to "reposition forces over the course of the coming days and weeks to prepare for onward movement."
Pakistan's foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi says that Pakistan won't take sides in the conflict. The country has been a key ally to the US and Saudi Arabia, while maintaining a border with Iran.
Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin set a January 11 meeting to discuss the tension.
Hundreds of thousands flood Tehran's streets to mourn Soleimani while Khamenei led prayers at the funeral. The leader of Hamas was also in attendance.
German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas decries US sanctions threat on Iran as "not very helpful."
The coffin of slain general Qassem Soleimani is passed among the crowds in Tehran (AFP/Office of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei)
IRAN: QASSEM SOLEIMANI FUNERAL — IN PICTURES
Coffin passed through the crowd
The coffin of slain general Qassem Soleimani was passed among the crowd in Tehran, allowing them a chance to touch the sarcophagus. The remains of the general, killed by US airstrikes in Baghdad, were flown back to Tehran on Monday. Crowds chanted "Death to America!" and "Revenge! Revenge!"
1234567
Tuesday, January 7
US denies Zarif a visa that would allow him to attend a United Nations meeting in New York on Thursday.
More than 50 people are reported dead, and over 200 injured after a stampede at Soleimani's funeral in his home city of Kerman. Over a million people were estimated to be in attendance, in what would be Iran's largest funeral procession since the 1989 funeral of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Germany, Canada and NATO announce the movement and withdrawal of some of their troops stationed in Iraq, particularly those in and around the capital helping to train Iraqi security forces.
Soleimani's burial is postponed after the deadly stampede.
Wednesday, January 8
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 bs. 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.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:19 am Post subject:
TonyGosling wrote:
TIMELINE
Sept. 19-23 2019 - Iraqi PM Adil Abdul-Mahdi visits China to sign infrastructure deal - Trump calls him on his return, threatens to foment demonstrations in Baghdad, kill him and defence minister Najah al-Shammari unless he cancels China deal
Fri 27 Dec 2019 PMF attack on US K1 military base in Kirkuk kills one Iraqi (not US) translator Nawres Hamid who worked for Valiant Integrated Services
Sun 29 Dec - US Air Strike kills 25 injures 51 at five Popular Mobilization Force (PMF) facilities all over Iraq
Tue 31 Dec - US embassy besieged - US ambassador and team leave Baghdad
Fri 3 Jan 2020 Just after midnight - Soleimani plus three Iraqis assassinated claim he was planning to blow up the US embassy
Sat 4 Jan - Trump threatens to hit 52 Iran sites including UNESCO cultural sites
Sat 4 Jan - five killed in Israeli attack on Popular Mobilization Force (PMF) at Taj stadium Baghdad
Mon 6 Jan - Iraqi parliament votes for all US forces to leave Iraq
Tue 7 Jan 2230 GMT - Al Asad and Erbil US bases hit by 20 Iranian missiles
Wed 8 Jan 0100 GMT - NBC Tehran bureau chief Ali Arouzi says if the US retaliates Iran will launch strikes against Dubai, UAE and Haifa, Israel
Wed 8 Jan 0245 GMT - Ukraine Airlines PS752 737 Tehran crash
Thu 9 Jan 0900 GMT - Ukraine NSC announces PS752 may have been shot down by Russian missile
Thu 9 Jan - Trump says Iran appears to be standing down
Fri 10 Jan - Israeli attack on PMF kills six on Syria Iraq border
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 U.S. 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 U.S. operation:
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia was not consulted regarding the U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. dollar.
The petrodollar is what ensures that the U.S. dollar retains its status as the global reserve currency, granting the U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. dollar.
Soleimani’s death is the result of a convergence of U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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.
As we breathe a sigh of relief that, for the moment, a massive escalation of regional tensions in the Middle East has been averted, it is important to raise some simple (though disturbing) questions about the assassination of Iran’s Major General Qassem Soleimani.
Pepe Escobar, a widely respected geopolitical writer, has stated (Jan. 6):
“The bombshell facts were delivered by caretaker Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi, during an extraordinary, historic parliamentary session in Baghdad on Sunday [Jan. 5]. Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani had flown into Baghdad on a normal carrier flight, carrying a diplomatic passport. He had been sent by Tehran to deliver, in person, a reply to a message from Riyadh on de-escalation across the Middle East. Those negotiations had been requested by the Trump administration[my emphasis].” [1]
Escobar further explained,
“So Baghdad was officially mediating between Tehran and Riyadh, at the behest of Trump. And Soleimani was a messenger. Adhil Abdul-Mahdi was supposed to meet Soleimani at 8:30 a.m. Baghdad time, last Friday [Jan. 3]. But a few hours before the appointed time, Soleimani died as the object of a targeted assassination at Baghdad airport. Let that sink in – for the annals of 21st century diplomacy.” [2]
So Soleimani was in Iraq on a diplomatic mission to discuss peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia – talks that had been requested by the Trump administration. He was killed by a U.S. pre-dawn air raid on Jan. 3 that also killed Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.
Escobar emphasized,
“Now, the fact is that the United States government – on foreign soil, as a guest nation – has assassinated a diplomatic envoy who was on an official mission that had been requested by the United States government itself.” [3]
According to Andre Damon and David North of World Socialist Web Site [Jan. 7], Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul-Mahdi further told the Iraqi Parliament that
“Trump had personally thanked him for his diplomatic efforts, giving the impression that Suleimani was not threatened with harm. And yet, within hours, the Iranian general was dead in what Abdul-Mahdi condemned as a grave violation of Iraqi sovereignty.” [4]
It’s hard not to arrive at the conclusion that the Trump administration set a trap for Soleimani in order to conduct a targeted assassination of him in Iraq. Indeed, that it is the stark possibility that news outlet South Front published on Jan. 5, stating with regard to the planned de-escalation talks that “the US supposedly used this initiative to set a trap for the Iranian military commander and assassinate him.” Trump’s phone call thanking the Iraqi Prime Minister for the impending de-escalation talks was made “on December 31, after demonstrators stormed the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.” [5]
Financial N-Option Will Settle Trump’s Oil War
Rather than address this issue, the Trump administration has attempted to deflect from it in a variety of ways. For example, US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper told CNN (Jan. 7) that “Soleimani was caught red-handed … one terrorist leader of a terrorist organization meeting with another terrorist leader to synchronize and plan additional attacks on American diplomats, forces or facilities.” [6]
Given that the talks that brought Soleimani to Iraq were intended to focus on de-escalation, such spin seems particularly virulent. But then Esper topped his own spin by further telling CNN,
“What we would like to see is the situation de-escalated and for Tehran to sit down with us and begin a discussion about a better way ahead.” [7]
On January 8, Truthout published an op-ed by Noam Chomsky, Richard Falk and Daniel Ellsberg, who called the assassination of Suleimani “unlawful and provocative.” [8]
However, their op-ed also included this paragraph:
“From all that we now know, General Suleimani had come to Iraq without stealth on a commercial plane. He came to Iraq on a diplomatic peacemaking mission at the invitation of the Baghdad government, and with a meeting scheduled on the following day with the prime minister that was part of an ongoing effort to seek a lessening of tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. In reaction to major violations of its sovereignty, the Iraqi Parliament has voted to expel U.S. troops from their country. In place of what seemed a promising regional initiative, the assassination of General Suleimani has resulted in an intensification of conflict…” [9]
Why would Chomsky, Falk and Ellsberg ignore reported indications of a trap having been set by the U.S.? If they do not believe what the Iraqi Prime Minister reportedly told the Iraqi Parliament, they should have stated that and explained why not.
Instead, they appear to be manufacturing consent for the Trump administration’s spin on the assassination, even as they question its legality and deplore its repercussions.
Arguably, given that everything seems to be on hair-trigger alert, this is the time for more honesty, not less. After all, what country – having been designated an “enemy” by the Trump administration – would want to send any delegates for negotiations somewhere, knowing they might be targeted for assassination?
*
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.
Notes
[1] Pepe Escobar, “The Economic Risks of Trump’s Reckless Assassination,” Asia Times, January 6, 2020; republished in Consortium News, January 6, 2020.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Andre Damon and David North, “The US propaganda machine justifies the assassination of Qassem Suleimani,” World Socialist Web Site, January 7, 2020.
[5] “Was Soleimani Framed by Trump? In Baghdad to Receive US Supported ‘De-escalation Proposal’ from Saudi Arabia,” South Front, January 5, 2020; republished in Global Research, January 6, 2020.
[6] Quoted in Zachary Cohan, “Esper says US isn’t looking ‘to start a war with Iran, but we are prepared to finish one’,” CNN, January 7, 2020.
[7] Quoted in Julian Borger and Patrick Wintour, “Iran crisis: missiles launched against US airbases in Iraq,” The Guardian, January 8, 2020.
[8] Noam Chomsky, Richard Falk and Daniel Ellsberg, “Congress Must Forcibly Limit Trump’s Power to Attack Iran,” Truthout, January 8, 2020.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 3:07 am Post subject:
Time line of events around US Soleimani assassination war crime/WWIII provocation.
Sept. 19-23 2019 - Iraqi PM Adil Abdul-Mahdi visits China to sign infrastructure deal - Trump calls him on his return, threatens to foment demonstrations in Baghdad, kill him and defence minister Najah al-Shammari unless he cancels China deal
Fri 27 Dec 2019 PMF attack on US K1 military base in Kirkuk kills one Iraqi (not US) translator Nawres Hamid who worked for Valiant Integrated Services
Sun 29 Dec - US Air Strike kills 25 injures 51 at five Popular Mobilization Force (PMF) facilities all over Iraq
Tue 31 Dec - US embassy besieged - US ambassador and team leave Baghdad
Fri 3 Jan 2020 Just after midnight - General Soleimani plus three Iraqis assassinated. US claim he was 'about to blow up the US embassy' so claim legal defence of “pre-emptive self-defence” against “imminent” attack - turns out Soleimani was in Iraq on a diplomatic mission to discuss peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia – talks that had been requested by the Trump administration.
Sat 4 Jan - Trump threatens to hit 52 Iran sites including UNESCO cultural sites if Iran retaliates
Sat 4 Jan - five killed in Israeli attack on Popular Mobilization Force (PMF) at Taj stadium Baghdad
Mon 6 Jan - Iraqi parliament votes for all US forces to leave Iraq in heated emergency session
Tue 7 Jan 2230 GMT - Al Asad and Erbil US bases hit by 20 Iranian missiles
Wed 8 Jan 0100 GMT - NBC Tehran bureau chief Ali Arouzi says if the US retaliates Iran will launch strikes against Dubai, UAE and Haifa, Israel
Wed 8 Jan 0245 GMT - Ukraine Airlines PS752 737 crashes in Tehran
Thu 9 Jan 0900 GMT - Ukraine National Security Council secretary Oleksiy Danilov announces PS752 may have been shot down by Russian missile
Thu 9 Jan - Trump says Iran appears to be standing down
Fri 10 Jan - Israeli attack on PMF kills six on Syria Iraq border
It is has now become pretty clear that Iran took several steps to make sure that the US would know when and where the strike would happen. Specifically, Iran warned the Iraqi government and the Swiss diplomats who represent US interests in Iran.
Yet, at the same time, Iran issued the strongest threat it could possibly issue: it told the US that *any* counter-strike aimed at Iran would result in a strong Iranian attack on Israel.
The US quite clearly took the decision not to retaliate and to “forget” Trump’s promise to strike at 54 Iranian targets. I want to stress here that this was the correct decision under these circumstances.
It also appears that the Iranians were able to somehow retrofit some kind of terminal guidance capability on missiles which originally lacked it.
The level or precision of the strikes was absolutely superb and quite amazing.
Trump declared that Iran decided to step down and that the US had prevailed. This notion is, of course, prima facie ridiculous, but not for folks getting their news from the corporate media.
The Iranians declared that this specific strike was now over, but immediately added that this was only a first measure and that other would follow.
Next, I want to share a few interesting photos with you.
First, here is a photo of the base following the strikes sent to me by a friend:
Here is what my friend added: The key idea is really simple and understandable for anybody who has thought about statistics (even in an everyday context). In number terms, it’s almost like rolling a dice and getting a 6 three times in a row, because the probability of rolling a 6 with an ideal dice is 16.67% (and the probability to roll 3 sixes in a row is less than 1%) as opposed to roughly 18% probability for a hit on a building within the map area in the CNN screenshot (if we assume the missiles to be unguided within this area). To be even more precise, the probability for hitting 3 *different* buildings 3 times in a row is actually even slightly lower than 0.62%, as one would have to substract the area being hit from the total area covered by buildings (I ignored that for simplicity). A less than 1% probability for a one-off event like this means that it is really highly UNlikely – to use the British Skripal case expression in its inverted state – to have happened randomly, as we assumed in our hypothesis. Which means that the missiles were, indeed, guided, and guided very accurately, striking targets of less than ~50m size with a high degree of reliability (in this particular area 3/3, in others probably 1/1 as in the runway case, etc). Perhaps, some of them, not covered by the satellite images, missed the target, but it does not substantially change the high degree of accuracy that potential Iranian opponents within reach of these missiles will have to assume from now on. The people most interested in this were probably the Israelis, as they are probably the main potential target for this type of missile in the case of a future escalation.
Please note that neither my friend nor I are professional imagery analysts and that this is just something my friend shared with me in a private email and which I now want to share with you.
If any professional imagery analyst could either confirm/refute my friend’s conclusions, I would be most grateful.
Next, I want to share with you the following image which shows Iranian IRGC General Ali Amir Hajizadeh reviews results of recent Iranian missile strikes on Ain al-Assad airbase in Iraq during a press conference:
Clearly, the Iranians are very proud of their capability to conduct true precision strikes with an accuracy every bit as good as any Russian and/or US missile.
Finally, check out this image of the Iranian general making a press conference in front of a very interesting row of flags:
These flags include the following: The Iranian flag, the IRGC flag, the flag of IRGC’s Aerospace Force, the flag of the Lebanese Hezbollah, the Yemeni Houthi Ansarullah flag, the flag of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), the Palestinian Hamas, the Afghan Liwa Fatemiyoun and the Pakistani Liwa Zainebiyoun
I find this very interesting: when Trump (or any other US politician) makes a solemn pronouncement, he typically has a number of aides, advisors, generals, Congressmen or Senators, etc. This is supposed the show the determination, resolve and unity of Uncle Shmuel, especially when Uncle Shmuel does something illegal or immoral.
The Iranian show of unity does not show more Iranians, they show the unity of all the forces in the Middle-East who have now officially united and whose goal is clear and very official: kick Uncle Shmuel out of the Middle-East.
You tell me which you find more impressive!
Next, the issue of casualties. Frankly, and while this is only my best guess, I do not believe the Iranian official casualty figures. Why? Well, first the Iranians did not try to maximize casualties (more about that option below), and they informed the US by several back-channels. But even if they had not, while the performance of the Patriot missile is pretty awful, the US does have a lot of top of the line technical intelligence means which would allow them to first detect the launch of the missiles from Iran and then to calculate their ballistic trajectory. As far as I know, now I might be wrong here, Iranian missiles do not have terminal maneuvering capability (which is different from terminal guidance). I can’t image why US commanders could not announce a incoming missile alert and then get all the local personnel into shelters. Again, I might be missing something, so if any reader can correct me, I would be grateful.
So what happened, really?
Here are a few of my current working hypotheses:
1) BOTH the USA and Iran don’t want a fullscale war. But for VERY different reasons:
The US probably understands that it cannot win a war against Iran
The Iranians definitely understand that while the US cannot “win”, it most definitely can kill Iranians by the thousands and inflict immense damage upon the Iranian society
2) What just took place was the single most dangerous moment since 14 April 2018 when Russia and the US came very, very close to a full-scale war. In the current situation, the US and Iran also came very, very close to a full scale war. The only reason I rank this latest crisis lower than the April 14th is that in one case we risked a planetary nuclear war whereas in this case we “only” risked a regional war which, by the way, could have seen nukes used by the US and Israel.
3) There STILL is a risk of full-scale war between the US and Iran, however, and barring a major unforeseen event, I will lower it now down from 80% to a much more tolerable 50%. Why 50%? Because Israel and the Israel Lobby will continue to push for a US attack on Iran and because while I trust the Iranians to keep their anti-US operations right below the threshold of “plausible deniability”, I cannot be sure that all Iranian allies will show similar restraint. Finally, the chances of an Israeli false flag as still sky high.
4) I expect anti-US operations to continue and even expand throughout the Middle-East. I don’t expect that these operations will be executed from Iran and I don’t expect Iranian forces to be involved, at least not officially. The Iranians know that the US has lost every single counter-insurgency war it was involved in and they know that their best chance is now to engage in all forms of asymmetrical operations.
Finally, I want to spell out what we could call the new Iranian threat.
We have to assume that Iran now has terminal guidance capability on many (most?) of its ballistic and cruise missiles and that they can destroy one specific building amongst many more buildings. Now, remember the Iranian reply that it had 35 US bases within missile range? Now imagine this first one:
Iran fires 10-12 missile on each and every one of the 35 US bases listed and targets barracks, fuel and ammo dumps, key command posts, etc. How many casualties do you think that such a strike would result in?
Next, let’s try the same thing with Israel:
Iran fires 2-3 missiles but carefully aims them as Israeli air force bases, personnel barracks, industrial sites (including chemical and nuclear sites, not even necessarily military ones! Dimona anybody?), the Knesset or even Bibi’s personal residence. Can you imagine the panic in Israel?
How about the KSA?
Iran fires a large amount of missiles aimed at *truly* crippling the Saudi oil installations, National Guard barracks, airfields, etc. We already know what the Houthis could do with their very limited resources. Just imagine what Iran could do to the KSA (or the UAE and Kuwait) if it wanted to!
I think that the bottom line is clear: Iran can inflict unacceptable damage upon any party attacking it. Furthermore, and unlike having “a few” nukes, Iran has hundreds (or even thousands) of cruise missile and ballistic missiles, and you can bet that they are well distributed and well protected,as shown by this short video released by the IRGC and posted by the FARS news agency:
and that means that a disarming first strike against Iran is not possible.
There are two basic ways to respond to an attack: denial and punishment. In the first case, you have the means to deny your enemy his attack, this is what happened with the Syrians intercepted almost all the cruise missiles fired by the US. Punishment is when you cannot prevent an enemy attack, but you do have the means to inflict unacceptable damage in retaliation.
The key notion here is “unacceptable damage”.
What do you think constitutes “unacceptable damage” to the (terminally hedonistic) Israelis?
What do you think would be “unacceptable damage” to the KSA, or the world markets (especially oil)?
What about “unacceptable damage” in terms of losses for CENTCOM?
And, finally, what do you think “unacceptable damage” means to the Iranians?
There is such a huge asymmetry in how the parties to this conflict see “unacceptable damage” that is largely compensates for the asymmetry in force. Yes, sure, the US+Israel are more powerful than Iran (well, not Israel really, but Israel hiding behind the back of the US forces) but Iran is far more capable of absorbing devastating attacks than either the US or Israel.
Finally, in my last post I offered a definition of what constitutes success or failure for Iran: “anything which makes it easier for the US to remain in the Middle-East is a victory for the Empire and anything which makes it harder for the US to remain in the Middle-East is a victory for the rest of the planet.”
At this point my personal opinion is that the way the Iranians conducted their first anti-Empire operation is nothing short of brilliant: they achieved a truly phenomenal result with very little means and, most importantly, without forcing the Empire to counter-attack.
Has the US-Iran war really begun? Yes, I think so. In fact, it began in 1979, but now it has reached a qualitatively new level. The outcome of that war is absolutely evident to me. The cost, however, is not.
This have relatively cooled down, but that is an illusion and we should most definitely not take our eyes of the situation in the Middle-East: expect the initiation of asymmetrical anti-US operations very soon.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2020 1:50 am Post subject:
Lisa Button • 4 days ago
The AGENDAS:
#1. Install small cap controlled central bank.
#2. Cull and maim (mostly Caucasian) military personnel.
#3. Carry out ritual blood sacrifice to Baal/Moloch.
#4. Abduct children during battle chaos.
#5. Lastly, install an "Alternitive lifestyle, gender-non-comformity society" to destroy the traditional family unit.
NOTHING to do with impeachment, as these agendas are decades old!
TonyGosling wrote:
U.S. WWIII provocation: General Soleimani funeral- PressTV rolling news Syed Abbas, Tony Gosling
On January 8, 2020 Donald Trump addressed the world. I will be forced to listen to this man's speech so I can counter his lies with the truth. I have never sat through a Trump speech since he became President. But then I never do listen to presidents of the United States as they have very little real power.
No Americans were harmed by Iranian missiles. Others say many were killed and injured. I will let that one go. He did say there was a warning and a dispersal of forces. Iran told Iraq the missiles were coming. Iraq informed the US. Iran showed restraint by not using fuel air explosives which would have killed thousands.
I believe the US did not use their Patriot Missile defense system because it is embarrassingly bad.
He implied that Iran had been seeking nuclear weapons. Iran has no nuclear weapons program even if Israel has been claiming Iran is months away from making its first nuclear weapon ever since the early 1980s. Israel lies a lot.
Iran is not the leading sponsor of terrorism. The troika of the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia is number one in the field of terrorism. The Iranians tried to send freighters of food to Yemen even allowing UN and US inspections. But the world's leading terrorist nation, the US, said No food. Below is a photo of 1 of the 5 million Yemeni children at risk of starvation because the Saudi royal family wants Yemen's oil.
Qasem Soleimani was not the world's leading terrorist. The Mossad and the CIA (Cocaine Importing Agency) far outranked the Iranian general. Seymour Hersh won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting the My Lai massacre. Hersh said the US is training, arming and funding ISIS and Al Qaeda. The US hired Jihadists to attack Syria beginning in 2011. They gouged out the eyes of Christians and beheaded them. There are Syrian churches that can trace their origin back to 50 and 60 AD. American taxpayers are paying Jihadists to desecrate Christian churches and to kill and maim Christians.
Trump blamed Soleimani for IEDs killing and wounding American soldiers. He does not mention that these soldiers were invading foreign countries and should expect resistance. Soleimani had a diplomatic passport and had been invited to Iraq by their Prime Minister to broker a peace deal with the Saudis. Killing a diplomat brokering a peaceful resolution to a war is terrorism.
He claimed that Soleimani was responsible for the death of an American contractor at a base where Popular Militia men had been protesting against the bombing of volunteer soldiers fighting ISIS. The is a whopper of a lie. The US has been air dropping supplies to ISIS for years. The US has repeatedly used helicopters to rescue ISIS commanders from locals who were angry the Jihadist mercenaries had committed so many atrocities.
This goes back to the Obama administration. In 2014 Secretary of State John Kerry gave 400 Toyota trucks that met US Special Forces specifications to Al Qaeda of Syria (Al Nusra.) Al Nusra gave the trucks to Al Qaeda of Iraq (ISIS). Then ISIS drove down the highway into Iraq's Anbar province and took Mosul. ISIS had to know that no jets would stop them because they drove in broad daylight. Obama had refused to deliver the planes Iraq had paid for. Obama refused to let the USAF and Navy use their jets to stop the ISIS invasion. Soon after American Mideast experts talked of dividing Iraq into three parts. This was originally suggested in 1982 by Oded Yinon the Israeli journalist and spy who was a good friend of Ariel Sharon. Obama had Greenlit the ISIS invasion of Iraq.
The Iraqi Foreign Minister said that Trump killed Soleimani because he was so effective at stopping ISIS.
Trump said that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Not true in my book. They defeated Israel in the 2006 Lebanon war. Hezbollah came to the aid of Syria and helped to rescue Syrians from America's Jihadist mercenaries. If you believe the lie that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda did 911, then all that aid given to Al Qaeda and ISIS makes Americans in the CIA and the military guilty of treason (giving aid to the enemy.) But I never did believe that Osama called up New York Bankers late in the evening on September 10, 2001 to warn them to move a billion dollars in gold and silver out of the Vaults at the World Trade Center.
Trump claims to have read Soleimani's mind and said he was planning new attacks on American targets. Nonsense. I already explained that he was on a diplomatic peace mission.
He promises more sanctions of Iran. The US made agreements with European powers which Iran accepted and observed. The US lied. They broke the treaties. They claimed that because Iran agreed to not make nuclear weapons that this also meant they should not have missiles capable of defending themselves. That does not follow. If Iran did not have Mach 14 IRBMs (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles) and 2.5 million men in military reserves, the US and Israel would have invaded long ago.
Trump claimed that Iran seized and attacked ships in the Persian Gulf. Japanese crew members disputed claims made by the US media. Yemen did send some missiles towards the Saudis. They might have had assistance from Iran but look at the photo of the starving child above. The US and the Saudis started this fight.
Iran has the right to shoot down drones. But speaking of shooting down intruders in the sky, why didn't the US scramble jets to counter Iranian F-14s which flew over southern Iraq? Was it because the Iranians had permission to be there?
He claimed that after the JCPOA nuclear agreement of 2013 that Iran was given $150 billion and $1.8 billion in cash. Nonsense. This was money seized from overseas Iranian Bank and Investment accounts in 1979 which was returned.
He claimed Iran created hell in Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq. Wait a minute. The US invaded Afghanistan presumably because the Afghanis refused to extradite Osama for the crime of 911. No. They simply demanded proof he was guilty of the crime. The US had no proof so they invaded the nation. The US invaded Iraq and then let ISIS invade in 2014. And it was the US that hired Jihadists to invade Syria in 2011.
Trump claimed Iran killed 1,500 people at protests over the sanctions. I doubt that number.
Trump claimed that Iran must end its nuclear ambitions but it has none. And must end its support for Terrorism to have sanctions lifted. More Nonsense. The US, Israel and Saudi Arabia are the leading sponsors of terrorism.
Energy independence. Another false claim. In 2018, the United States imported about 9.94 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum from nearly 90 countries.
Best economy ever? Stacy Herbert went through 40 economic metrics that ought to be related to how well the stock market is doing. No correlations. The stock market is up because the Federal Reserve prints money. Americans had a better standard of living in 1970. America was just beginning to feel the effects of over population. But we had the world's reserve currency so we printed trillions of I Owe You Nothing Federal Reserve Notes to buy free stuff from overseas so Americans would believe the lie that they lived in a wealthy nation. They printed trillions more dollars to hire 31 million federal, state and local government workers (counting contractors) and to fund huge subsidies to healthcare and education just so the voters would believe the economy was creating jobs. And they printed even more dollars to pay for the government pensions of those who had retired.
Definitely not true that we have the best economy ever. We have more debt than anytime in the past 500 years. A Depression is a period in time when Unpayable Debts are cancelled en masse. That means we are headed to the worst Depression in five centuries. In the 20th century we cancelled debts in 1923 Germany through hyperinflation. In 1933 America we cancelled debts through foreclosures and discharge in bankruptcy courts. Three million Americans starved to death. The kings of ancient Sumer and Babylon stopped Depressions by Debt Cancellation. The US can print dollars by the trillions but until it cancels Debts we will have a very poor economy outside the stock market.
Trump claims to have rebuilt the American military at a cost of $2.5 trillion. He claims to have good missiles now and faster ones in the future. Iranian missiles are twice as fast as America's. And Russian missiles are 5 times faster than Trump's. Russia can sink American ships anywhere in the world by firing ballistic missiles that come down so fast that we our ships are defenseless.
Trump did not mention Dr Mark Skidmore who found from government sources that $21 trillion had gone missing from 1998 to 2015.
Trump claims that he does not want to use our military. So why did he send 20,000 more troops to the Mideast since May?
So let him prove his peaceful intentions by getting out of Afghanistan. Let him prove that by allowing foreign nations to send food and medical assistance to the 5 million Yemeni children on the brink of death by starvation. And he could end the occupation of Syria's oil fields and the theft of their oil. He could cut off all aid to Al Qaeda and its various fronts. Ditto for Boko Haram which recently beheaded 11 Christian girls in Nigeria.
Another whopper. Trump claims he ended the ISIS Caliphate. The US funded it. Russia, Syria, Iran and Hezbollah stopped ISIS. Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi was a Jewish Mossad agent who Trump claimed to have killed. Problem is that the US had claimed to have killed him several times before. Trump said Bagdahdi was a monster but he worked for the Mossad and the CIA. All those beheadings were on them not Iran. Trump claimed tens thousands of ISIS fighters were killed or captured during his administration. Nonsense. That was Iran and its allies. And also Turkey who took some ISIS fighters off the streets and sent them back out as mercenaries for them.
He offered to work with Iran to fight ISIS. But the US had been bombing soldiers fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Just more lies.
He closed by offering peace and prosperity to Iran. What lies. Sanctions cripple their economy. And sanctions for what? Fighting ISIS? For a nuclear program that never existed? Or for having far superior missiles? Or protecting Lebanon from another Israeli invasion? Or defending Syria from American and Israeli Jihadist mercenaries?
Related Articles:
Senator, Why Do You Want to Cut Our Wages and Pensions 50%?
Trump’s defense secretary admits he ‘didn’t see’ evidence about Soleimani planning attacks against US embassies
Defense Secretary Esper arrives to brief U.S. Senate at the U.S. Capitol in
President Donald Trump warned that Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani was planning “imminent” attacks against Americans, but his own defense secretary seems to be unable to back this claim.
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper revealed in a Sunday interview with ‘Face the Nation’ on CBS that he “didn’t see” specific evidence that supported the president’s claim that Soleimani was planning attacks on four US embassies, which Trump touted in a Friday interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham.
“The president said that he believed that there probably could have been attacks against additional embassies,” Esper said to host Margaret Brennan. “I shared that view. I know other members of the national security team shared that view.”
“‘Probably and could have been,’ that is — that sounds more like an assessment than a specific tangible threat with a decisive piece of intelligence,” Brennan replied.
“Well, the president didn’t say there was a tangible — he didn’t cite a specific piece of evidence,” Esper said.
Asked if there was any specific evidence, Esper then replied, “I didn’t see one with regard to four embassies. What I’m saying is I shared the president’s view that probably, my expectation is they were going to go after our embassies.”
Esper later told CNN’s Jake Tapper that the president never claimed to have “specific evidence” of the imminent attacks he has warned Americans about.
ALSO ON RT.COM
Evidence? What evidence? Pompeo shows no proof of ‘imminent’ Soleimani attacks
The administration’s shaky reasoning for Soleimani’s assassination has earned them plenty of heat, with some saying they can’t “keep their story straight.”
“The public justification for this action has been all over the place from the beginning. They cannot keep their story straight. They’re just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Admitting it was an ideological revenge killing would be much more honest,” journalist Mike Tracey tweeted in response to Esper’s ‘Face the Nation’ interview.
Michael Tracey
✔
@mtracey
The public justification for this action has been all over the place from the beginning. They cannot keep their story straight. They’re just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Admitting it was an ideological revenge killing would be much more honest. https://twitter.com/facethenation/status/1216359717607481350 …
Face The Nation
✔
@FaceTheNation
NEWS: @EsperDod tells @margbrennan he "didn't see" specific evidence showing Iran planned to strike 4 U.S. embassies, despite @realDonaldTrump saying an attack at multiple embassies was “imminent." Watch more of Esper's interview on @FacetheNation today.
Embedded video
218
2:23 PM - Jan 12, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
86 people are talking about this
Utah Senator Mike Lee similarly criticized the administration in a CNN interview where he said it’s “frustrating” to have the president warn of “imminent” attacks, but to get “no details” about said attacks or the evidence behind the claims.
State of the Union
✔
@CNNSotu
“I believe that the briefers and the President believe that they had a basis for concluding that there was an imminent attack... It’s just frustrating to be told that and not get the details behind it.” - GOP @SenMikeLee about intel on the strike against Soleimani. #CNNSOTU
Embedded video
184
2:43 PM - Jan 12, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
178 people are talking about this
Others saw it as the latest example of Trump lying.
Aaron Rupar
✔
@atrupar
Replying to @atrupar
Mark Esper on CBS: I didn't see the intelligence about Iran posing an imminent threat to 4 US embassies, but I believe President Trump when he says there was one
Embedded video
24.1K
2:47 PM - Jan 12, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
9,045 people are talking about this
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also recently failed to provide any concrete evidence about the potential danger of Soleimani when he spoke to the press. Pompeo insisted Trump was given “multiple pieces of information” in regard to “imminent” dangers against the US, but he failed to detail what that information was.
Despite struggling to explain the “imminence” of the situation, Pompeo insisted “we got it right” with the assassination. He also insisted that, “If you’re looking for imminence, you needn’t look no further than the days that lead up to the strike.”
Joshua Potash
@JoshuaPotash
A reporter just asked Pompeo if he can provide specific evidence of the imminent threat that led to Soleimani’s assassination.
IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER WRITES TO TRUMP,
Dear President Trump,
In a recent Tweet, you claimed that “Iranians never won a war, but never lost a negotiation.” As a world citizen and a veteran of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, I have firsthand experience with the bitterness of war, and I have a few suggestions and responses for you.
First, I would advise you against using the words win and winning to describe war, especially from a US perspective. American history is filled with bitter experiences of losing wars. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and even the engagement in Yemen—none of these horrifying interventions has ever reached their goals.
Mr. President, in our lexicon, the one who starts a war is the only loser. The one who plans to steal the happiness, life, and wellbeing of others is the real loser. You should recognize that the first step in any combat is understanding your adversary. As an experienced Iranian war veteran, I strongly suggest you study the culture and history of an old civilization like Iran. Iranians, those you label as living in a “terrorist nation,” are proud that in the past 250 years we have never initiated a war. We are proud that we have never invaded, intruded and oppressed other nations, neither in our neighborhood nor even in response to our foes.
Nonetheless, there is a delicacy in the sophisticated culture of Iran that separates us from you and your hawkish #Bteam —Bolton, Bin Salman and Bibi Netanyahu. The major difference is the view we each have toward war. For us, war is not an option; we never choose to go to war; we only respond to war.
In 1915, during WWI, Rais Ali Delvary, a young man from a tiny village near the Persian Gulf, gathered a group together to defend the country from the British invaders. They stopped the intruders who violated Iran’s neutrality during the war. Rais Ali’s slogan at the time is still applicable today. “We are in this war not to win over the invaders’ capital and assets; we are in this war to save our capital and assets from loss.” That is how we define losing and winning in a war. Rais Ali and his people won that war, as his disciples did almost a century later, and will do it again if they have to.
Mr. President, Iran has never initiated a war. Iran has never seized other nations’ resources to gain wealth and benefit for itself but Iran, of course, has and will vigorously defend its belongings, resources, life, and identity. Iran has done that throughout its four thousand years of history and will do it again if necessary. Rais Ali and his team did it in 1915. People in my generation did it in 1980-88 when the whole world stood behind Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussain and helped him throughout those terrible eight years of war. We Iranians sacrificed everything to defend our nation.
Under the world’s watch, Saddam Hussain dropped bombs and used chemical weapons on civilians. In the end, he was not able to seize even an inch of our homeland. Iranians became one body in defense of our homes and families.
We lost hundreds of thousands of precious lives. To this day, Iranians, despite our differences, are all proud of the eight years we spent defending our country. Losing so many lives was a terrible tragedy and the nation still mourns the lives lost during those eight years. However, we stood firm and saved our homeland. Iran is still Iran; we did not lose an inch of terrain.
Mr. President, in our lexicon, the one who starts a war is the only loser. The one who plans to steal the happiness, life, and wellbeing of others is the real loser.
War is not our business, but negotiations and diplomacy are. War is not our purpose. Peace is our mission. Peace is our philosophy in life, and you are right, diplomacy is our art.
Iran has proven its mastery in the art of diplomacy. Diplomacy, forbearance and patience are inclinations that cannot be achieved by billions of dollars of weapons. The United States’ allies in the region, including Saudi’s Bin-Salman and Israel’s Bibi Netanhayu, can testify to that. They have spent many billions of dollars in arms sales but have not been able to dominate Iran.
Just be aware, Mr. President, that your friends on the #Bteam are pushing you into the same quagmire they created with Iraq. In desperation, they have now tied the hands of our master of diplomacy, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, by imposing sanctions on him. They should have learned their lesson by now—they might be able to ties the hands of our master chessplayers, but we will find other ways to move the pawns and horses. And a final word of advice: Don’t play checkers with the grandmasters of chess.
Sincerely,
Habib Ahmadzadeh
Minister for Foreign affairs Iran _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 1:03 am Post subject:
Iran crisis: Value of top arms firms rises by £14bn as US-Iran standoff fuels expectation of bumper weaponry orders
Global arms sales rose by five per cent to $420bn in 2018 — a near 50 per cent rise since 2002
Two low-flying Eurofighter Typhoons take off from RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire. The state-of-the art jet, made companies including Britain’s BAE Systems, has secured export deals to countries including Saudi Arabia, Oman and Qatar (Photo: Getty)
Two low-flying Eurofighter Typhoons take off from RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire. The state-of-the art jet, made companies including Britain’s BAE Systems, has secured export deals to countries including Saudi Arabia, Oman and Qatar (Photo: Getty)
The world’s largest arms manufacturers have seen their value rise by nearly £14bn in the wake of the assassination of Qassem Soleimani as the confrontation between the United States and Iran fuels expectations of lucrative new defence equipment orders.
While the world has collectively held its breath since the drone attack which killed Iran’s de facto military leader, investors have been betting the defence sector is set to see a boom in sales.
Analysis by i shows that in the 24 hours after the assassination ordered by President Donald Trump, the stock market value of the world’s nine largest listed arms companies rose by $13bn (£10bn). By the afternoon that increase had risen further to $17.9bn (£13.7bn).
The i newsletter cut through the noise
Enter your email
Lockheed Martin, the American conglomerate which is by far the world’s largest arms producer with showcase weaponry such as the F-35 fighter jet, saw its value reach an all-time high last Friday, increasing by $4.2bn in a single day to $116bn.
BAE Systems, Britain’s largest defence company and currently ranked as the sixth biggest in the world with the help of its key role in the Eurofighter Typhoon, saw its value rise by £256m (Photo: Peter Byrne/PA Wire)
BAE Systems, Britain’s largest defence company and currently ranked as the sixth biggest in the world with the help of its key role in the Eurofighter Typhoon, saw its value rise by £256m (Photo: Peter Byrne/PA Wire)
Embargo lists
BAE Systems, Britain’s largest defence company and currently ranked as the sixth biggest in the world with the help of its key role in the Eurofighter Typhoon, saw its value rise by £256m in the hours after the Iranian general’s death - a figure which has reached nearly £1bn.
Among the companies benefiting will be Almaz-Antey, Russia’s biggest arms producer whose state-of-the-art S-400 air defence system has long been at the top of Iran’s weaponry shopping list. In 2018, the company saw its sales jump by 18 per cent to $9.6bn and it is gaining an increasing share of global arms sales as Moscow promotes sales countries that include some on Western arms embargo lists.
As publicly listed companies, US and European manufacturers have little control over market sentiment which drives peaks - and troughs - in their share price and market value.
Regional dominance
But the dash by investors to grab defence stocks reflects a long term upward trend in weaponry sales around the world, with countries in the Arabian Gulf in particular wanting to acquire the latest capabilities.
Justin Bronk, a defence specialist at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank, told i: “There are still a large number of unknowable variables at play in terms of how this situation plays out. However, it is certainly likely to lead to [Gulf] states and possibly Israel to calculate on a more potentially belligerent Iranian threat in the coming year or two which tends to lead to great orders for high-end defence equipment.”
The sort of weaponry likely to be sought includes air defence systems, high-tech munitions and missiles, and advanced fighter aircraft, as well as counter-insurgency and cyber security technology used to try to cancel out Iran’s preferred tactics of so-called “asymmetric” warfare aimed at throwing better-equipped foes off balance.
Russian S-400 Triumph medium-range and long-range surface-to-air missile systems ride through Red Square (Photo: NATALIA KOLESNIKOVA/AFP/Getty)
Russian S-400 Triumph medium-range and long-range surface-to-air missile systems ride through Red Square (Photo: NATALIA KOLESNIKOVA/AFP/Getty)
'Insecurity'
One City defence analyst said: “This is not a straightforward ‘I’ve got bigger and better bombs and jets than you have’ equation. Iran is proving itself adept at wrongfooting its regional rivals, and the west, by its use of proxies and to some extent cyber tactics. It all adds to a sense of insecurity which sees countries like Saudi Arabia seeking the capability to respond across the whole spectrum. Fortunately for the UK, we are very much in the space of being able to meet that demand. This is not about profiting from misery, it’s about having the ability to deter and prevent a wider conflict.”
Defence and security remains a key part of Britain’s manufacturing sector, employing 374,000 people and contributing £78bn to GDP, with 88 per cent of export earnings coming from aviation technology.
Britain is among the world’s biggest defence exporters and according to Government figures some 60 per cent of all sales – worth some £49bn – over the last decade going to the Middle East, a figure which in 2018 grew to 80 per cent.
Yemen
At the heart of this is Britain’s close relationship with Saudi Arabia, by far the world’s largest weaponry importer (between 2009 and 2013 alone its arms purchases grew by 192 per cent).
Britain has supplied arms worth £6.2bn to the desert kingdom and its allies in their ongoing air campaign in Yemen to defeat Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in a conflict which is estimated to have directly cost 8,000 civilian lives. The United Nations has described the situation as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.
But it is a weaponry supply chain which at least in part is currently on hold after campaigners won a legal ruling last year that UK arms sales to Riyadh had been unlawful after ministers failed to adequately assess the risk that the weaponry would be used against civilians.
Read More
Iran crisis latest: Warships put on standby for evacuation of UK nationals in Iraq
57 export applications on hold
As a result there is a ban in place on all new weapons deals with Saudi Arabia, a move which the i understands involves at least 57 new applications to export defence equipment to the country currently being on hold
Campaigners said it remained to be seen to what extent the existing ban, which the Government will this year seek to overturn by proving in court that it is now complying with all rules, will prevent UK companies from missing out on fresh sales.
Andrew Smith, of Campaign Against Arms Trade, said: “We are always being told how rigorous and robust the arms export control system is. But the billions of pounds worth of arms sales that are approved to authoritarian regimes every year tell a different story.
“There is no such thing as arms control in a conflict zone, and we don’t know when these weapons will be used or who they will be used against.”
'Bombs, bullets and bugs'
What is beyond question is that on a global scale, weaponry sales are extremely buoyant in a world increasingly defined by geo-political muscle as leading military powers such as the United States, China and Russia ramp up their defence spending.
A report last month by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), a respected security think-tank, found that sales by the world’s top 100 defence companies in 2018 grew by nearly five per cent year on year to $420bn - a 47 per cent increase since 2002. The share of that total taken by America’s arms manufacturers was 59 per cent.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:45 pm Post subject:
Iran crisis: Void left by Qassem Soleimani’s death risks engulfing region in devastating war, former SAS leader warns
Exclusive: Iranian general’s judgement ‘made him perversely a moderating force who may prove to be missed now he is gone’, says Major General Jonathan Shaw
A former head of the SAS has warned that the targeted US killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani threatens to engulf the Middle East in a devastating new war.
Major General Jonathan Shaw, who was the commander of UK forces in Iraq when Iranian-backed militias carried out lethal attacks against British and American troops, writes in The Independent that Soleimani “may be missed now that he is gone,” with the risk of uncontrolled violence erupting in the void he leaves behind.
Maj Gen Shaw led the forces based in Basra during some of the most violent times following the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. Militias in the region, such as the Badr brigade and the Mahdi army, carried out a sustained and bloody bombing campaign, with Iranian support from across the border.
Major General Soleimani, head of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, was viewed as Maj Gen Shaw’s direct opponent during the vicious strife that defined the period.
Donald Trump’s decision to order the killing will not eliminate the potency of the forces he had created but will become the catalyst for a wider conflict, Maj Gen Shaw believes.
“The one thing this assassination will not be is ‘decisive’ in the sense of being the conclusion to anything,” Maj Gen Shaw said. “The fear is that it will be decisive in marking a turning point, an escalation of conflict into open war that no one in the region, or Trump himself, for electoral reasons, wants.’’
Qassem Soleimani: Mourners fill Iran streets for funeral
Show all 24
Kerman - Final stage of funeral processions
Tehran
Kerman - Final stage of funeral processions
Kerman - Final stage of funeral processions
The former Director Special Forces continues: “One of the dangers of the focus on ... Qassem Soleimani, is that it obscures the deeper truth that he was the embodiment of an ideology rather than the ideology itself; killing Soleimani will not kill his cause.
“His death had been expected and prepared for; Supreme Leader Khamenei referred to Soleimani, when alive, as a ‘living martyr’ and as he said while announcing [Soleimani’s] successor, the plans of the Quds Force will remain exactly the same.’’
Giving examples from the fighting and negotiations in Iraq, Maj Gen Shaw pointed out that the Iranian commander primarily used combat for political ends and his killing may remove that constraint.
“I would judge him as notable for the judgement shown in his use of military action for political purposes,” said the former head of the SAS. “This strategic judgement on tactical action made him perversely a moderating force who may prove to be missed now he is gone.”
Watch more
The world will miss Soleimani if his judgement is replaced by emotion
His comments contradict the UK government’s reaction to Soleimani’s death.
While calling for de-escalation, foreign secretary Dominic Raab said that the UK “understands the position the US found themselves in” before Soleimani’s killing – an attack the US said was carried out based on unspecified intelligence that the Iranian general was plotting attacks against American interests.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:03 am Post subject:
Everyone has heard by now that Soleimani was responsible for 600 American deaths… but where does this oddly specific number come from? Today on “Questions For Corbett,” James finds the answer at the bottom of a barrel of neocon lies.
Did Soleimani Kill 600 Americans? — Questions For Corbett
US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) (L) talks with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a rally with fellow Democrats before voting on H.R. 1, or the People Act, on the East Steps of the US Capitol on March 08, 2019 in Washington, DC. (AFP photo)
Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi
Iran says US threat to assassinate the new commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC)’s Quds Force is in fact an official publicizing of state terrorism.
The reaction came after Brian Hook, the US special representative for Iran, said Thursday General Esmail Qa'ani could face the fate of his predecessor, General Qassem Soleimani, who was assassinated on January 3.
"The remarks by this State Department official are an official publicizing and blatant unveiling of targeted and state terrorism by the United States," Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said.
“Now, after the Zionist regime [of Israel], the US is the second regime to officially announce that it has employed the resources of its government and armed forces for terrorist acts and that it will continue them in the future,” he added.
Hook made the threat in an interview with the Saudi-owned newspaper Asharq al-Awsat on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland.
On January 3, General Soleimani was assassinated in a US drone strike in the vicinity of Baghdad International Airport under the direct order of President Donald Trump.
elsewhere in his remarks, Mousavi said Washington’s recourse to terrorist acts is a clear sign of "weakness, desperation, and confusion" among the officials of the American regime.
He condemned "brazen remarks and terrorist acts" by US leaders, calling on the international community to also condemn them, "because the continuation of this trend would sooner or later befall everyone."
US threatens to assassinate new chief of elite Quds Force of IRGC
US threatens to assassinate new chief of elite Quds Force of IRGC
The US special representative for Iran says the successor to the IRGC Quds Force Commander Lieutenant General Soleimani, who was assassinated in a US drone strike, will face the same fate if he follows in the same path.
Soleimani earned a reputation as the Middle East's most prominent anti-terror commander due to his indispensable contribution to defeating terrorist outfits such as the Daesh terrorist group across the region.
In a message addressed to Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Khamenei on January 9, Gen. Qa'ani vowed to continue the path pursued by General Soleimani “with might.” He said the goal was to drive American forces out of the region.
Iran dealt US a first slap: Gen. Soleimani’s successor
Iran dealt US a first slap: Gen. Soleimani’s successor
The newly-appointed head of the IRGC’s Quds Force says Iran deal the US “a first slap” by striking two American bases in Iraq in retaliation for the assassination of Lieutenant General Soleimani.
The IRGC retaliated against the assassination by firing a volley of ballistic missiles at two US air bases in Iraq, which Ayatollah Khamenei described just a "slap".
TEHRAN: Iranian media outlets claim “many CIA” officers were killed in a plane crash in Afghanistan on Monday. The Taliban initially asserted large numbers of Americans were killed, and Russian media and Iranian media then said a senior CIA officer responsible for killing IRGC Gen. Qasem Soleimani was on board.
The claim has been greeted with skepticism. Michael D’Andrea’s name began to appear in Farsi media in the wake of the Soleimani killing when articles at Mehr News and Radio Farda claimed he was involved in planning the US operation. Later, on January 27, his name appeared again in rumors after the plane crash, reported foreign media on Wednesday. There are many who might have an interest in spreading conspiracies about the Taliban downing high-ranking US intelligence officers. Nevertheless, Iran’s News Agency ran with the story, quoting Russian sources that said the “assassin of Soleimani was on the plane and [was] killed in the crash.” It claims that D’Andrea “is the most prominent figure in the US CIA in the Middle East. He has been in charge of operations in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.”
The Taliban was quoted as saying it had shot down the plane. Iranian news agency refers to D’Andrea as “Ayatollah Mike” and “the Prince of Darkness,” relying on old US newspaper clippings. Press TV of Iran has also included the report, claiming top CIA officers were killed and repeating rumors about D’Andrea. But the original reports from the Taliban only spoke of a plane being shot down and some CIA members allegedly being on it. The US says an American E-11A plane was shot down in Ghazni province, around 900km from the Iranian border. Linking its downing to the Soleimani killing would be a major development and appear to show that Iran is active in Afghanistan with the Taliban, a claim that has been made in the past. Iran watches US movements in Afghanistan carefully and has met with the Taliban recently. Iran has also tried to down US drones that stray near Iran’s border.
The US has dropped a record number of bombs on the Taliban in the last year, as it also tried to push it toward the peace table. Many social media users are interested in the claim that D’Andrea may have been on the plane. One of the first users to report the claim noted that D’Andrea “masterminded the murder of Imad Mughniyeh, former Hezbollah chief of staff, back in 2008.” However, others have pointed out that while this could be big news, it could be disinformation, or designed merely to create the appearance that Iran had responded to the Soleimani killing. Iran has promised “hard revenge” against the US. Some Iranians on social media who support the regime in Tehran have been celebrating the downing of the plane.
The U.S. strike that killed Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani flouted both national and international law, according to a former lawyer who helped prosecute Nazi leaders at the post-World War II Nuremberg trials.
Benjamin B. Ferencz, 99, wrote to The New York Times this week expressing his opposition to the drone strike that killed Soleimani and several others outside Baghdad International Airport earlier this month.
In a letter to the Times, Ferencz—who arrived in the U.S. as a child immigrant from Romanian-occupied Hungary in 1921—said he "cannot remain silent" on Soleimani's "immoral" assassination.
"I have felt obliged to repay the United States for the opportunities given to me," he explained. "I was an American combat soldier in World War II, and was proud to serve my country as the chief prosecutor in a war crimes trial at Nuremberg against Nazi leaders who murdered millions of innocent men, women and children."
But he suggested the current administration is undermining, rather than upholding, international law. "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," he wrote.
"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 killing touched off a week of high tensions between Washington and Tehran, during which time Iran launched ballistic missiles against American troops in Iraq, accidentally shot down a passenger jet outside Tehran and announced it would no longer abide by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—also known as the Iran nuclear deal.
Trump's 'Ignorance' About International Law Is 'Extreme: ExpertREAD MORE
Soleimani was the head of Iran's Quds Force, a unit within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps responsible for foreign and covert operations.
He was credited with developing Iran's military strategy abroad for two decades, helping extend its influence across the Middle East and direct Tehran's involvement in the wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
Close to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Soleimani was considered the second most powerful man in Iran.
President Donald Trump and his senior aides argued that the assassination was necessary to stop imminent attacks on Americans in the Middle East. The president said last week that Soleimani was plotting attacks on four American embassies, but neither Trump nor his senior officials have provided any evidence to support the assertion.
On Sunday, Trump even appeared to dismiss any legal requirement to explain his actions, writing on Twitter that the justification "doesn't really matter because of his horrible past!"
Experts have said the Iran crisis shows Trump's disdain for—or understanding of—international law. Indeed, as the U.S. awaited Iranian retaliation, the president even threatened to attack Iranian cultural sites and respond in a "disproportionate manner" to any provocation, both of which would be war crimes.
"The public is entitled to know the truth," Ferencz wrote to the Times. "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."
A senior administration official told Newsweek, "As commander in chief, the president has the constitutional authority to use force to protect and defend our nation and our forces."
"The strike against Soleimani was authorized by the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), under which the president may use force to defend against threats emanating from Iraq."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
