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.
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.
rho,
So you, like many here, are fine with people that organize attacks on our embassies?
Sure, Soleimani was just there to attend a funeral. Such a nice guy. What about the rioters outside the embassy who proclaimed him to be their leader? What about the exchanges between Trump and Iranian leadership in which Iran mocked the US's ability to stop attacks?
Posted by: Eric Newhill | 03 January 2020 at 12:39 PM
“Trump inherited the mess. Perhaps he is trying to salvage something out of it.”
Admittedly he did inherit this mess. However, IMO, he’s done nothing to salvage it. He fired missiles into Syria on the basis of false propaganda and while he’s ostensibly ordered troops out of Syria, it’s like the Pentagon is thumbing their nose at him, while he tweets. And rather than putting in place a plan and executing on getting out of the wars that have cost us trillions of dollars and destabilized the entire Middle East he’s just aggravated it further by blowing up people on the Iraqi/Syrian border. And now he’s escalated it further. The bodybags still keep coming home from Afghanistan, where we know with certainty that we’ll have to exit and that it will revert back to its natural state. I’m afraid he just went along to get along with the neocon warmongers that he’s ensconced in all the top places in his administration.
In many ways Trump seems like Governor William J. Le Petomane, in Blazing Saddles.
Posted by: Jack | 03 January 2020 at 12:40 PM
The Russians aren't going to do anything, Putin does whats best for Russia, he is clearly not interested in confronting the Americans and if anything would probably like to see Iranian influence in Syria diminished. 20 dead airmen, cruise missile attacks in Syria and he didn't do anything. If anything my money is on the Russians providing intel to the US on Qasem Soleiman's location and movements. I still think they provided intel on the location of the Islamic state leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and last week Putin was thanking Trump for intel that stopped an attack in St Petersburg, so perhaps rolling over on Soleiman was his way of saying thanks to Trump. I don't think the Russians intentions are as pure as people think. As untrustworthy as the USA is the Russians are worse.
Posted by: luke8929 | 03 January 2020 at 12:47 PM
Rand Paul opposing the nomination of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, March 2018: “I’m perplexed by the nomination of people who love the Iraq War so much that they would advocate for a war with Iran next. It goes against most of the things President Trump campaigned on."
Posted by: Jack | 03 January 2020 at 12:51 PM
Please don't laugh or pooh-pooh if I introduce Christian preacher - activist Rick Wiles' assessment of the penetration and protests at the US embassy in Baghdad: Wiles, whose colleague spent time in Iraq w/ US military, asked how it was that "Iraqi" protesters could get inside the Green Zone, apparently protected by a 10 mile perimeter, and also inside the building itself, to cause damage.
How is it Reuters was on the scene to photograph the protests and the damage?
How is it the protesters were so quickly called off by a word from the PM?
US military guards the embassy, right?
If one argued that Iraqi soldiers permitted Iraqi protesters to gain access, that could make sense: didn't Russian soldiers refuse to fire upon citizens who stormed the Czar's palace?
But that is apparently not what happened.
So Wiles conjectures that US military allowed the penetration and destruction of US embassy, in order to blame it on _____ . Callers to C Span Washington Journal this morning raised the issue of "Iranians took our embassy in 1979." Do tell.
https://www.trunews.com/stream/ghislaine-maxwell-which-spy-agency-is-hiding-her
~ 40 min.
Posted by: Artemesia | 03 January 2020 at 12:58 PM
Deja whoops
https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1213127647489863681?s=21
History doesn’t repeat...
https://twitter.com/andreassteno/status/1213015271088242693?s=21
Posted by: Jack | 03 January 2020 at 01:00 PM
It has been pointed out to me that until his retirement in October 2019, JCS Chairman Joe Dunford was a factor in tempering neocon fervor for war. The same was true for his predecessor Martin Dempsey. Now we have a self-described "West Point Mafia" class of 1986 and a JCS Chairman far more politically motivated than Dunford and Dempsey. This looks to be to be more dangerous than when Bolton the chicken hawk was running around the West Wing. This is a recent Politico profile of the new Defense team, including Pompeo, Esper and other key national security advisors to Trump.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/17/west-point-alumni-pompeo-esper-state-department-071212
Posted by: Harper | 03 January 2020 at 01:06 PM
O/T, perhaps: Machiavelli wrote in The Prince that the effective leader must be feared AND loved: were he only feared, the people would turn against him as quickly as an opportunity emerged.
I donated a significant sum (all things being relative) to my local library and requested that it be used to teach the mostly-Black and impoverished young people who frequent that library, about Machiavelli: I'd just read about a very wealthy community in my state where high school students participated in an essay contest on Machiavelli. They will be the next generation's leaders. I though the poor kids in my neighborhood should have the same opportunity.
Library administrators all the way up and down the line resisted my proposal: "Our kids are not capable of such a project."
Instead, the library system is proliferating Drag Queen Story Hours.
They want me to put my gift in the hands of the local librarians who introduced this program to the library system.
Drag Queen Story Hours for your 1 yr to 5th grade children and grandchildren.
Your son - grandson dressed in high heels, chiffon, and a wig.
Your little girl telling you she needs drugs and surgery because she "feels like a boy."
That's what comes next.
Weimar 2.0
Posted by: Artemesia | 03 January 2020 at 01:12 PM
No but he could well have gone to the top in their politics as his next career move. With a satisfaction rating over 80% he was a probable future President.
Posted by: JohninMK | 03 January 2020 at 01:12 PM
In the last around 20 years or so this was a foundation for operational planning in the US. This is not to mention a key fact of neocons being utterly incompetent in warfare with results of this lunacy being in the open for everyone to see.
Posted by: Andrei Martyanov (aka SmoothieX12) | 03 January 2020 at 01:19 PM
Jack,
Trump is currently negotiating with the Taliban to get US troops out of Afghanistan. You may have noticed that when Trump goes against the Borg they retaliate by doing things like impeaching him. he deliberately lobbed some ineffective missiles at nothing in Syria after giving the Russians and Syrians a heads-up. That hardly a neocon war monger move. I'm sure the people he's blown up are perfect saints just out for a walk enjoying the sent of daffodils.
Posted by: Eric Newhill | 03 January 2020 at 01:23 PM
What country? I thought Iraq, etc were just constructs created by evil Europeans? Now they are official countries? Just flip the narrative to whatever makes the US look like the bad guy. As far as I can see, these "countries" aren't very cohesive. More like tribes with flags vying to live on the same geographic turf. The Sunnis in Iraq appear quite happy with Trump's actions. They don't count for you?
Posted by: Eric Newhill | 03 January 2020 at 01:26 PM
I don't believe Trump ordered this attack. I believe that the neocons/neolibs are afraid they would lose power when the coup plot is revealed. So, this is a pre-emptive action against Trump winning re-election. It seems Nancy Pelosi was consulted by Secretary of Defense Esper first, although she denies she was briefed about the asassination. Well, we all know where to stick her denials, don't we? https://www.enmnews.com/2020/01/03/pelosi-briefed-thursday-night-after-strike-killing-soleimani/
Posted by: Renae | 03 January 2020 at 01:49 PM
Amen! Most Americans are ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL. They don't know which way is UP! They haven't a clue. They are easy prey to the progandists in the US government (dominated by Zionists/Israel-Firsters) and in the US media (also dominated by the Zionist narrative).
Posted by: Skip Molander | 03 January 2020 at 01:57 PM
When I had to move out of a large house into a small apartment recently, I donated over 900 books from my personal library to the local university library. My books reflected my major and minor areas of study: Literature from all periods of English and American authors, many books on the theories and research about linguistic theory and often brain research in regard to linguistics. I also had many books from my minor in German.
I was an avid user of libraries from the time I was quite young. My mother dropped me and my siblings off at the local library while she did the Saturday shopping and bill paying. The librarians never directed us in regard to what we should study. They helped us to find resources on each of our varied interests. My brother and two sisters had quite different interests from mine. I was then studying all I could in Greek and Roman mythology and in the Acient history of Greece and Rome.
It's the old, You can take the horse to the water, but...." Expose children to the rewards they get from reading and studying, but let their own personal interests determine what they read.
Our problem is not that our students now "should" be reading ......(fill in the space. Our problem is currently that our children are now totally unacquainted with reading much in depth. They want sound bites and quick Google searches.
As for the topic of Larry's post, I'm convinced that few Americans are even aware of the event or have any idea of why it happened and no opinion about whether it should have happened.
I hold my breath every day, hoping that we don't become involved in another big mess that will cause the life and maiming of our young people in the military and of the people on the ground in the places they are sent to.
But I have no opinion of why or whether Trump's decision was right or wrong. All I can do is pray fervently that really God is ultimately in charge and God will control it for His purposes. I never assume that God is always on "our side." I just put my faith that it is all in God's hands, no matter what the personal price I or anyone else will have to pay for His decisions.
I also pray that Trump will always make his deicisions based on good and sound advice and on his own sense of right and wrong. It must be hard picking and choosing from the many people who surround him and from their various ideas of what is right or what is wrong to do.
I certainly did not want the previous Middle East War and do not want another.
Posted by: Diana C | 03 January 2020 at 02:02 PM
Unintended consequences of a high level assassination.
No good pathway to de-escalate for any side once open hostilities start.
Block heads running things (President f---ing moron - quote Tillerson), born again fundamentalists believing in the second coming calling the shots on one side and the Mahdi on the other.
But if you want to focus on a title, I guess nothing to see.
Posted by: ISL | 03 January 2020 at 02:03 PM
EN: So you, like many here, are fine with people that organize attacks on our embassies?
I fully agree, outrageous! Simply outragepus! Now of course I have to reflect in what ways those men could have joined Americans in celebration of the dead of their comrades.
ISL: There is a reason civilized nations do not do assassinations
didn't Trump suggest somewhere that the Geneva Convention is obsolete anyway? Not that it matters anyway anymore, other then to US soldiers maybe? Some of them? ... The US writes the rules for to its own convience anyway?
Posted by: vig | 03 January 2020 at 02:05 PM
why do you think the US could not have this intel on its own? A high level visit to a friendly nation by a top military and you have to posit Russians? You insult US Intel.
Posted by: ISL | 03 January 2020 at 02:08 PM
Solemeni was in Iraq to attend the funeral of the PMU soldiers killed by
the US last week.
He was there with the full support of the Iraqi government.
He was on a diplomatic mission.
The US killed an Iranian Diplomat on a diplomatic mission.
That is the way the Iranians and Iraqi people will see this.
Also, the base attacked was an Iraqi and PMU base. 107mm rockets of the kind the US gave ISIS were used.
This kerfluffle began over an ISIS attack for the purpose of taking advantage of Iraqi disarray to steal Iraqi oil.... likely for sale to Israel...
INDY
Posted by: Dr. George W Oprisko | 03 January 2020 at 02:08 PM
What a fantastically convoluted scenario. Russia and the US are cooperating on terrorism threats for years now, and the latest on St. Petersburg was not the first one issued by the US. Russia wouldn't mind some limits to Iranian influence in Syria but not at the price of surrendering a man who was to a large degree responsible for getting Russia into Syria and cooperating with her there, which was a crucial factor in success of the campaign. I also do not see problems with US "developing" own targeting on Baghdadi w/o any Russia's help.
Posted by: Andrei Martyanov (aka SmoothieX12) | 03 January 2020 at 02:22 PM
Eric, you make many assertions, but provide no facts to support them. For example, you claim Soleimani was planning attacks on both US troops and our embassy. You also claim Iran took over our embassy. However, you provide no facts supporting those assertions and I am not aware of any. So tell us, what evidence or facts do you have proving your claims?
Additionally, you seem to have skipped over the part where Bush agreed all US troops would withdraw from Iraq and Obama was unwilling to agree to have US troops remain if they would be subject to the Iraqi justice system. So all of them left, only for some to be allowed back when ISIS threatened.
Obviously, when all US troops left Iran did not take over Iraq. When all US troops leave again, which Trump just about insured will happen very soon, Iran will again not take over Iraq. They will remain allies, but one will not rule the other.
Posted by: LA Sox Fan | 03 January 2020 at 02:22 PM
As context, nothing to do with the current topic.
The cartels should be declared terrorists along with domestic gangs, antifa, and the muslim brotherhood.
The border should be controlled by our government.
Posted by: Terry | 03 January 2020 at 02:56 PM
After around 25 people were killed by a U.S. attack over the weekend, and subsequently the damage was being done to the "embassy" in Iraq, it looked like a real problem was developing. But it seemed as if Iraqi security people had let the demonstrators and attackers into the area where the U.S. embassy is, and then the following day were not letting them in, and so the embassy cleanup would begin. At that time I felt better about the situation. In other words, the Iraqi government, such that it is, allowed the protest and damage at the embassy to occur, and then was stopping it after making the point of a protest.
However, that defusing of the situation by the Iraqi government by shutting down the embassy protest was for naught when the ignorant people in the U.S. government carried out the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and several others inside Iraq itself. Now there is a real problem.
Posted by: robt willmann | 03 January 2020 at 03:07 PM
I am curious LJ. Some lateral drift on my part.
Been reading that much of the funding for these proxies are from coming Iran. According to the Treasury. So the following is BS from State?
(Nov 2019)
"The State Department's most recent Country Reports on Terrorism, released Friday, stated that Iran is still the "world's worst state sponsor of terrorism," spending nearly $1 billion per year to support terror groups including Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad."
There is much nashing of proverbial teeth in our media. Peeps like Sen Graham saying "the Iraqi's need to choose between us or Iran."
(That choice is a Sunni sandwich with Kurdish Bread and Shia Mayo)
There critical mass in 72 hours and the straight of Hormuz will be closing soon.
LJ are you stating that there was no Intel on emerging threats from Iran? Or the strike Saudi oil plant was not via Iran?
Seems to me China and Russia have to much $$$ invested in Iran to see it go up in smoke.
Posted by: TeakWoodKite | 03 January 2020 at 03:07 PM
You and Trump have something in common. Ypou are both short of brains and common sense. A couple of zionist neocon puppets.
Posted by: Mark | 03 January 2020 at 03:30 PM