Did Donald Trump Light the Fuse on a New Middle East War? by Larry C Johnson

What is the end game with Iran? That is the question that Donald Trump and his advisors should have answered before giving the green light to kill the head of Iran's Quds force, Qassem Soleimani, and the head of Iraq's Poplar Mobilization Forces, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. But instead of worrying about the long term objective, the Trump Administration opted for the quick hit.

Let's be clear about what we just did--we assassinated two key military and political leaders on the sovereign territory of Iraq without the permission of the Iraqi Government. We justify this attack because of prior Shia terrorist attacks during the 2003-2008 period in Iraq that killed U.S. troops. There is no evidence or valid intelligence that shows Soleimani directing Iraqi Shia militias to attack and kill US troops. None. But those facts do not matter. Judging from the media reaction on cable news, there is a lot of whooping and celebrating the death of Soleimani as a decisive blow against terrorism. Boy we showed those Iranians who is boss. But that is not how the Iranians see it and that is not how a significant portion of the Iraqi Shia population see it. From their perspective this is the equivalent of the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor. It is an unjustified act of war. I am not arguing that they are right. I am simply pointing how the Iranian leadership likely views this act.

I fear that this action will unleash series of retaliatory strikes that are likely to escalate and get out of control. I pray for the sake of our nation and military personnel that I am wrong.

Despite the perpetual drumbeat in this country hyping the Iranian terrorist threat, Iran has engaged in very little terrorism over the past decade. (The facts are posted here).They shifted their actions to more conventional military operations and shied away from directly attacking U.S. forces. The attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion were carried out by Iraqi Shia militias acting on their own. They were not carrying out attacks at the behest of the Iranian regime because the Mullahs realized that the U.S. policy in Iraq was paving the way for Iranian control/dominance.

 

The Trump Administration's decision to carry out this attack is going to elicit a reaction from Iran that is likely to involve Saudi Arabia, Israel and U.S. military, diplomatic and economic targets. I do not rule out the possibility that Iran will content itself with filing protests and opting for a policy of restraint. But I think that is the least likely option.

More likely is that Iran will get back into the terrorist game and do so in a big way. Iran has a robust cyber warfare capability and hurt U.S. infrastructure. They can do more damage to us on this front simply because our economy is more dependent on computer networks. In the aftermath of the 2013 Stuxnet malware attack on Iran's nuclear facilities (it was U.S. software deployed by Israel) it is believed that Iran launched a spate of cyber attacks against online banking sites that accelerated in September. U.S. banks, including JP Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co. and PNC Financial Services Group Inc. That was just a warning shot from Iran.

Iran also will likely look at striking at U.S. Naval vessels and U.S. military installations in the Middle East. Diplomatic facilities and personnel also will be targeted and likely killed.

If Iran retaliates then the pressure will build on Donald Trump for more decisive action. Trump has the ability to say no and de-escalate, but that goes against his nature and would open him to savage political attacks for being weak on terrorism. 

Which leaves us on the brink of something potentially devastating and costly. 

To the extent that Iran carries out massive, deadly attacks that kill Americans, there is likely to be a short term boost to Trump's political standing. But as the smoke clears and we become bogged down in a new, very expensive war in the Middle East, the entire foundation of Trump's "get us out of foreign wars" will be blown up.

This action also is likely to bolster support for the existing Iranian regime. It makes it very easy for the Mullahs and the Revolutionary Guard to target Iranian protesters as enemies of the state.

I pray I am wrong. There is no joy or satisfaction in being proved right if things go horribly wrong.

 

Comments

[Jack]

“I'm sure the people he's blown up are perfect saints just out for a walk enjoying the sent of daffodils.”

Eric,

that’s a strawman!

Yeah, you are correct that when Trump goes against the Borg they retaliate. However he doesn’t have to go with the Borg either nor does he need to stack his administration with Borgists. He should know after 3 years that the Borg will be after him no matter. It would be better IMO if he stuck with what he articulated during his campaign that won him the presidency against all odds.

He is ultimately responsible for his actions and inactions. He never declassified Spygate and the putschists are still running the roost. He hasn’t withdrawn from conflict in Afghanistan or the Middle East all instigated by the Borg.. OTOH he’s escalated. Of course he has tweeted a lot.

[prawnik]

"I'm a 100% isolationist personally, but if you're not, you have to do something to keep Iran in its place. I recognize that there's a lot I don't understand about reasons to not be an isolationist and maybe there are good reasons."

Tell me, if you are a "100% isolationist" why must Iran be kept "in its place"? Then, tell me how many countries Iran has invaded in the last 100 years? (The answer is - ZERO!)

It's good that you recognize that there are things that you don't know or understand. Blindly following Trump will not lead you to greater understanding. Nor will making excuses for people when they betray you.

[prawnik]

If it makes you feel better, the only thing that Machiavelli will do for the more clued-in sort of mostly Black poor people is put in words what they already know deep down.

The Prince caused such an outrage because Machiavelli merely described how rulers actually behave.

[turcopolier]

Renae

You don't understand how the US government works. The armed forces would not accept such an order from anyone else but the CinC.

[Something To Think About]

"Soleimani was in Iraq architecting attacks on the US embassy and on Americans."

Wrong, actually, but don't let facts get in the way.

Soleimani was in Iraq to attend the funeral of Iraqi soldiers killed by US airstrikes. That is a fact.

So the US took the opportunity to kill him. Via airstrike. That is also a fact.

Perhaps you should take off those blinkers for once and consider this possibility: most of what you think you understand about this has been brought to your attention by people who have made a career out of lying to you.

[turcopolier]

theymustbemorons

Yes they can, but will we go?

[Dan]

I wouldn't use the term checkmate but I do agree that the situation is precarious for Iran...this was a pointed provocation and they are forced to respond. But that response has got to be well-calibrated to not bite off more than it can chew in terms of escalation. They need a spectacle more than anything.

[Fred]

Harper,

Thanks for the link. The Trump triumvirate of class of '86 advisors did the minimum time on active duty and left service for greener pastures. The move to politics is reminiscent of the neocons decameron mentioned on the prior thread. It looks like the move to war which only the neocons want is coming on in full force.

[John Merryman]

Given the real masters of the universe are the very rich, would the Iranians see them as logical targets?
Sheldon Adelson comes to mind, as he is a primary backer of both Trump and Netanyahu. As well as likely not known, or appealing to Trump's base, so avenging his death wouldn't appeal in the same way as soldiers or diplomats. Especially leading up to the election. Not only that, but if the very rich were to sense their Gulfstreams are somewhat vulnerable to someone with a Stinger at the end of the runway in quite a few tourist destinations, Davos, etc, the pressure from the People Who Really Matter might be against further conflict.
The rule of law has its uses and destroying the structure on which their world rests does have consequences.

[Fred]

Elora,

It must be late in Spain. The trio left active duty in the early 90s; that's almost 3 decades ago and plenty of time to "earn their own merits" but not necessarily enough to earn wisdom.

[Ishmael Zechariah]

SST;
Some comments reminded me of two sayings at opposite ends of phase space.
The first I learnt from an article of Uri Avnery almost a decade ago. It is the classic Jewish joke about the Jewish mother in Russia taking leave of her son, who has been called up to serve the Czar in the war against Turkey. “Don’t overexert yourself’” she implores him, “Kill a Turk and rest. Kill another Turk and rest again…”

“But mother,” the son interrupts, “What if the Turk kills me?”

“You?” exclaims the mother, “But why? What have you done to him?”
Seems appropriate, somehow.

The second are the immortal words of Thucydides: “the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must.”
Interesting times...

Ishmael Zechariah

[Something To Think About]

Colonel, that is a very interesting question.

If the USA refuses to go then... what happens next?

I assume it is not under dispute that if those US forces refuse to go then the Iraqis have a right under international law to attempt to eject them. After all, it is their territory.

This isn't 2003 and the US forces inside Iraq do not number in the hundreds of thousands. Something in the region of 5,000 is my understanding, with another 4,000 on standby. Is that enough?

[Andrei Martyanov (aka SmoothieX12)]

The second are the immortal words of Thucydides: “the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must.”

Yeah, I heard Thucydides had some issues with resolution of uncertainties for targeting, especially for stand-off precision guided weapons. Plus there were some issues with long range air-defense systems in Greece in times of Plato and Socrates. You know, GLONASS wasn't fully operational, plus EW was a little bit scratchy. So, surely, it all fully applies today, especially in choke points. Plus those Athenians they were not exactly good with RPGs and anti-Armour operations. Other than that, Thucydides nailed it.

[Artemesia]

prawnik, In my Machiavelli proposal to the library I urged that the works of Machiavelli scholar Maurizio Viroli be offered to the young people. Viroli maintains that the key chapter in The Prince is the final chapter -- classical rhetoricians know that the most powerful theme must come last, as that is what the audience will remember. Chapter 26 is nearly a prayer (Machiavelli was deeply Christian, tho he hated the Roman Catholic papacy), a prayer for a courageous leader - redeemer, like Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, who would deliver Florence, which he loved "greater than my soul," from "barbarous cruelties and oppressions" to a life of republican self-government.
The critical concept is his deep love for Florence.
I hoped that the young people could be moved beyond the CliffNotes version of The Prince to an understanding that would arouse passion, pride and patriotism.

[Eric Newhill]

You know all of that how exactly? Who's propaganda are you and your fellow travelers thoughtlessly consuming and spreading?

[Something To Think About]

Ah, yes, the Melian Dialogue.

Interesting to note that it was the party professing those words - Athens - who started the Peloponnesian War, driven in large part by that haughty attitude.

It was Athens that also ended that war, of course.

They did so when they surrendered to the Spartans.

[CK]

Sometimes the tall poppy gets weed wacked, especially if he is a future threat to the current poppies.

[CK]

Our wondrous neo-cons are merely continuing the military greatness of their grandfather Trotsky.

[Patrick Armstrong]

Rice says Obama administration never given the opportunity to kill S -- would have carefully weighed pros and cons -- planned for consequences -- probably not have.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/obama-administration-didnt-have-opportunity-to-kill-soleimani-susan-rice-says

Stripped of the BS, an admission that the OA would certainly have considered doing it and not ruled it out immediately.

[Stephen Richter]

What does Iraq do in response to the assassination?

Whether they expel the US military or not, either way helps the US. If Iraq does not tell the Americans to leave it tells us they value the US and the West more than Iran. And if they do, that gets the US away from the close proximity to Iran that resulted in this attack/counterattack.

[Fred]

George,

So Solemani was not a general commanding the revolutionary guards? 'Diplomat' must have a new meaning in the climate change world.

[Fred]

Ishmael,

Iran faces the same problem as the Melians and the neocons have forgotten Thucydides in favor of Fukuyama. They neocons have also forgotten that they this created 21st century Iraqi government.

[vig]

May they both rest in peace.

my and it seems your spiritual friend Uri and as far as I am concerned someone that thus far was nothing more then a name.

Take care IZ

[vig]

I am envious. ;)

[fasteddiez]

Iraq was once Mesopotamia, Iran was once Persia, Lebanon was once Babylonia, civilizations all. You, on the other hand, with a name like Newhill, a British name, have the unmitigated gall to refer to these peoples as some sort of coteries of tribal Wogs. You and your lot, come from, Romans, Huns, Franks, Gauls, Goths, Visigoths, Belgae, Celts, Picts ...... etc. etc. I also have a European name. All of the peoples secondly above, became civilizations long after the Middle Eastern ones, mentioned above, late state cavemen of sorts. A Pox on your non-interventionist, non-combatant, ahistorical beliefs. You sponsor combat against Baddies, like the Iranians. How do you like the last twenty years? All of it bullshit to me.