Soleimani’s assassination and its aftermath

A mass murderer calling himself a general is killed on Donald Trump’s orders either and/or because he escalated terror by killing yet another American or to take him out before he escalated even further.

George W. Bush did not target him during the height of the Iraq War, when Iranian-supplied roadside bombs and Iran-backed militias were killing hundreds of American troops. By 2011, that toll had reached more than 600 and Barack Obama was the president; he too declined to hit the general. Indeed in his $150 billion Danegeld to Iran he financed that nation’s Middle East reign of terror. But Trump, who came into office vowing to pull the United States out from Middle Eastern wars, decided to cross a line two war-president predecessors feared breaching.

The reaction;

  • Joe Biden, said Trump had “tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox”.
  • Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said the move “‘increased the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict.”
  • Bernie Sanders slammed what he called a “dangerous escalation” that puts the United States “on the path to another war — potentially one that could be even worse than before.”

The New York Times quoted Dr Cohn, foreign policy scholar at the Naval War College, “We killed people inside their sovereign territory, without the permission of the government … This is a massive violation of sovereignty.”

An initial Iranian reaction by Foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif was. “The Americans made a wrong move and are now worried about its consequences.” He said the U.S. “will pay” for a drone strike that killed the commander of the country’s elite Quds Force, which he described as an act of “both terrorism and war.”

Esmail Gha’ani, Suleimani’s successor as head of the Quds Force, the élite wing of the Revolutionary Guards, vowed to confront the United States. “We promise to continue down martyr Soleimani’s path as firmly as before, with the help of God, and, in return for his martyrdom, we aim to get rid of America from the region,”

Then this.  Iran sends some missiles near to US personnel ensuring that they explode harmlessly and Zarif tweets

Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched. We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression,”  According to the normally unreliable Guardian, Iran even gave advance notice of its puny missile strikes.

Iran folded: more resolute action would have brought the destruction of their oil refineries, many weapon facilities, their preparations for nuclear weapons and perhaps the areas of “cultural significance” like Qom the sometime residence of the Ayatollah Khamenei, who at over 80 says he does not fear death.

Trump has shown resolution unlike Presidents other than Reagan and shown the petty despots to be jellybacks.  The woke media has been shown to be idiots since, if Iran took the steps they said they would, Trump would have inflicted even more harm.  And the Democrat pygmies ranged against him show their true character.  Trump adds foreign policy cred to his other successes.  Dem candidate X may win California and NY in November but it is doubtful that they will take other states

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Soleimani’s assassination and its aftermath

  1. feelthebern

    It will take months to see if the US actions over the past fortnight were wise or folly.

  2. Iran will avoid an all out war with the US because a real war would roll back their hold over their client states of Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Gaza, and the most recent in Syria – encircling Israel. After the loss of Suleimani, whose strategies gained all this, they don’t want to also lose his legacy.

  3. classical_hero

    There will be no war because Iran isn’t suicidal.

  4. Davey Boy

    Mr Kates the short sharp essays from this Israeli think tank (h/t OldOzzie) are worth a visit: The Soleimani Killing: An Initial Assessment.

    Re the reactions you quote, the final essay “Soleimani, the Blob, and the Echo Chamber” is pertinent.

  5. Astrid van den Akker-Luttmer

    Trump is a testosterone-driven dangerous lunatic!

  6. nb

    It is not impossible that the Ayatollah is not so unhappy to see this particular contender for his title out of the way.

  7. Nob

    BBC desperately trying to hype this up as WW3.

    however a very sober and sensible contribution from their reporter Barbara Plett Usher in Jerusalem, saying that Israel had been frustrated at USA lack of action on Soleimani and were warning Iran they would take huge retaliation if attacked, but didn’t expect an imminent attack.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCBarbaraPlett

    She’s a lefty but played a straight bat on this one.

  8. Leigh Lowe

    nb

    #3286626, posted on January 9, 2020 at 12:11 am

    It is not impossible that the Ayatollah is not so unhappy to see this particular contender for his title out of the way.

    Aha!
    Trump-Ayatollah collusion!
    I knew it!

  9. Leigh Lowe

    Astrid van den Akker-Luttmer

    #3286608, posted on January 8, 2020 at 11:54 pm

    Trump is a testosterone-driven dangerous lunatic!

    Possibly.
    But his predecessor was an estrogen-driven dangerous lunatic, so maybe it all balances out.
    Yin. Yang. Yada yada.

  10. mareeS

    I am bored utterly with other people, but I don’t kill them. This bloke killed lots of people, he got killed, so what? Good riddance.

  11. Scott Osmond

    Iran doesn’t want war. So they staged a show to keep the faithful in line. With any luck America can remove it’s troops quietly and leave them to each other. Fracking has lowered the value of the oil states so tantrums don’t swing oil prices like they used to. As for the world war claims I laugh. I mean for a world war you need more than 1 failed state don’t you? China isn’t ready and Russia is still a basket case.

  12. pbw

    Throw in Trump’s “All is well!” tweet, and the generally low-key response, and this looks more and more like a face-saving exercise for the Iranians, to which Trump is happy to give his tacit support.

    That’s not to say they are not fuming and looking for another way to respond later, but if Zarif’s message gets wide coverage at home, it’s effectively an announcement to restive Iranians that honour has been satisfied.

    Nonetheless, I suppose many of the protesters at home will see it as a vulnerability and an opportunity to push the regime. Those blokes are on a knife-edge of their own design. Trouble is, everyone Soleimani had been interfering with is balancing on the same edge.

  13. pbw

    According to the Clarion Project,

    Yet on Iranian state media, officials reported that at least 80 “American terrorists” were killed in the 15 missile attacks.

    Hyped up for local consumption.

  14. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Somebody wanna `splain this one? Al Jazeera reported 12 hours ago that the Iraqi Prime Minister had been telling everyone that he had a meeting scheduled with Soleimani just a few hours before Soleimani got executed. Soleimani was supposedly carrying some letter from Iran to Iraq signalling some kind of change of policy. USA reckons this was an “unsigned letter” which did not represent any official change in policy. What on earth are they talking about and what was in the letter?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxt03pL8Ics

    Definitely an intriguing story if the true audience of Soleimani’s death was Iraq and not Iran.
    Oh you wanna get cool with Iran huh? Naw dog, yap that fool.
    ==> The war machine must maintain tensions in the middle east at a level optimal for sales.
    But it all hinges on the letter. Which is toast now.

  15. JC

    Fracking has lowered the value of the oil states so tantrums don’t swing oil prices like they used to.

    People seem to think that if the US is energy independent, it’s all hunky dory. It’s not. If there were a mid east oil embargo of some sort, the US wouldn’t cop it, but most certainly its trading partners would causing serious problems for the Americans if their trading partners were chocked of energy. Think exports and revenue falls for US multinationals.

    If there was a sudden and substantial rise in the oil price US consumers would be hit hard along with every other consumer in the world. The oil producers would do well, but not the consumers. The US may be energy secure, but an economic fallout as a result of disruption to mid east oil cannot be avoided.

  16. Mark A

    Colonel Crispin Berka
    #3286667, posted on January 9, 2020 at 2:12 am

    ==> The war machine must maintain tensions in the middle east at a level optimal for sales.
    But it all hinges on the letter. Which is toast now.

    What a sham the Iranians ran out of ink and paper, tree barks even.
    Oh my what are they going to do to send a message again?

  17. Colonel Crispin Berka

    No Mark, you doofus. The message, the contents of the letter. The medium is irrelevant.

  18. Mark A

    I am the dofus?
    What do you think, this was the only copy and nobody even remembers the content?

    Or that the general was the only one on earth who could convey it or enact upon said contents?
    Have rest mate.

  19. PVO on The Project mentioned 80 deaths from the Iranian missile attack. At the time I had not seen any report mentioning any never mind 80.

    Now I read that the 80 was as reported by Iranian TV.

    PVO clearly likes to rely on the Iranians propaganda rather than verified facts.

  20. Caveman

    PVO on The Project ,he’s in his element as King of the Kids on that show.

  21. Colonel Crispin Berka

    Dang, Trump just did a press announcement about the attack. It was on PBS.

    Recycles the Solei Man Bad routine. Says Irans missiles were paid for by Obama’s bribe. Oooh, nasty.
    Lets the hypersonic missiles cat out of the bag.
    Underscores he doesn’t want to use the military, but having a strong military is a useful deterrent.
    Extends the olive branch at the end.

    No questions. Pretty short and sweet as far as Trump decrees go.
    Like he said… so far so good.

  22. feelthebern

    Like he said… so far so good.

    Hard to argue with that.
    But as I opened the thread with, it will be a few months before we see the real impact of the US actions.

  23. iain russell

    The US just fought and won WW III, with no US casualties. Victoria in excelsis.

  24. Zatara

    Al Jazeera reported 12 hours ago that the Iraqi Prime Minister had been telling everyone that he had a meeting scheduled with Soleimani just a few hours before Soleimani got executed.

    That would have been quite a trick as Soleimani was in Damascus just a few hours before he was killed.

    Soleimani was supposedly carrying some letter from Iran to Iraq signalling some kind of change of policy.

    Like, “This is a coup. Keep quiet, don’t move, and nobody gets hurt?”

  25. Cui Bono

    Gotta choose a side…and the Dems chose ‘Death to America!’

  26. Mother Lode

    The New York Times quoted Dr Cohn, foreign policy scholar at the Naval War College, “We killed people inside their sovereign territory, without the permission of the government … This is a massive violation of sovereignty.”

    Heh!

    Iran – the worlds leader in sponsoring terrorism throughout the region and increasingly around the world – being defended on the grounds that the killing was in another country without its permission.

    At least the Americans were only going after an individual who had killed Americans and intended to keep doing so – rather than families in ice cream parlours or catching the bus.

  27. The New York Times quoted Dr Cohn, foreign policy scholar at the Naval War College, “We killed people inside their sovereign territory, without the permission of the government … This is a massive violation of sovereignty.”

    I expect Dr Cohn wags his finger regularly at the Russians.

  28. Mother Lode

    So WWIII is now over?

    If so, you can count on the mullahs, the MSM, and the Dimocrats to tell us Iran won.

  29. Iampeter

    I think if you’re reading these events as anything other than America’s total surrender to Iran then you’re grossly misreading the situation.
    Randomly killing a general, then following it up with the President re-assuring the Ayatollah that he doesn’t want regime change, sends the following message to Iran: You win. America is not going to take any real action to end your murderous, anti-Western theocracy. America is not going to take any action to stop you from acquiring a nuclear arsenal. Instead America is going to fiddle around the margins with the occasional bombing. That way when the first Iranian made suitcase nuke goes off, rendering Israel uninhabitable, or the first cargo ship, carrying a full-scale, Iranian made nuke, goes off and wipes out New York, the American military can claim they did all they could.
    “Hey, we killed that general, remember? We had B52’s sitting on an airfield! We even dropped a bomb that one time! We’re heroes! ”
    No, you’re cowards. And these actions of cowardly appeasement today are going to guarantee millions of dead Westerners tomorrow.

    I will say though, that this is one unfolding foreign policy disaster that I don’t think Trump deserves any real blame for. In fact I’m re-evaluating how much any of the messes we’ve been in are actually the faults of Presidents and their administrations. As hard as it might be to face because of the respect I’m sure we all have for those in uniform, I think the fault lies with an ideologically bankrupt military.

    I recommend reading this article to get a measure of just how crippled the American army is by altruism and suicidal “Just War Theory.”
    The article was intended as a criticism of Trump’s leadership (which I agree with) but it unintentionally revealed the appalling ideas driving what are apparently “combat experienced” generals.
    There is zero concern for victory or destroying the enemy. These don’t seem to be priorities at all.
    Instead all they seem to care about is “off-ramps” and what coalition members will think of America. In other words, all American military leadership seems to care about is how best to avoid conflicts with America’s enemy, while still justifying their most-expensive-army-in-history existence.
    The best example in the article is the story of how Trump’s hastily ordered and then suddenly canceled strike on Iran in retaliation for downing an American drone unfolded. Instead of it being a case of Trump’s typical slap-dash and flip-flopping approach to leadership, the attack was cancelled because the military talked Trump out it.
    Why did they do that? Apparently because they seem terrified of a conflict with Iran.

    If we’re living in a time where America’s military is afraid of a third world Iran then it’s game over.

  30. Gilas

    Let me get this straight:

    1) Iran has been a terrorist state for more than 20 years (Axis of Evil etc..). Has no real friends in the first world.
    2) Iran has been a well-established economic sewer for decades, because of sanctions and the commie tendencies of its theocracy.
    3) The US has, by light-years, the most powerful, technologically advanced army in the world. Period.
    4) China and Russia are in no technological or political position to attack the US directly, let alone come to the aid of a shithole like Iran.
    5) A honest US attack on Iran would plummet this shithole back to the Neolithic within a few hours. Killing the majority of the barely-continent geriatrics in charge, if the US so wished.

    And yet everyone is afraid of Iran?

    WTF?????

    No, let me put it another way..

    WTF????!!

  31. Gilas

    Oh, bums!
    I hadn’t seen Wimpeter’s valuable contribution to the thread.

    I rest my case.

  32. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    So we have an administration whose top national security officials lack experience in national security crises:

    The president himself had never held a government position before coming into office.
    The vice president is a former governor and congressman. He was on the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives, although never as the committee chairman or ranking member. Membership on that committee does little to prepare you for sitting in the Situation Room as a crisis unfolds.
    Robert O’Brien, John Bolton’s replacement as national security advisor, held only low-level positions in the Bush administration, positions that did not directly deal with any issues involving larger strategic outlooks.
    Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is a former Army Captain, an operational level rank, and three-term congressman. Again, no prior Sit Room experience.
    Secretary of Defense Mark Esper’s highest-ranking position before the Trump administration was as a deputy assistant secretary of defense—that’s a position below the secretary, the deputy secretary, the undersecretary, the deputy undersecretary, and the assistant secretary.
    Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy has the most crisis-management experience among the Trump officials, since he was a close aide to Secretary of Defense Bob Gates during the Iraq surge. He is also a former Army Ranger and a veteran of the war in Afghanistan.
    Secretary of the Air Force Barbara Barrett is a former non-Foreign Service Officer ambassador. By way of disclaimer, I’ll note that I know her personally, and I think the world of her and her family. But she has no experience in national security crisis management.
    There is no secretary of the Navy since the last one was fired.
    The new deputy secretary of state, who just came on the job three weeks ago, does have relevant experience: He was a top National Security Council staffer during the George W. Bush administration. The deputy secretary of defense, though, is a former CFO of the Department of Homeland Security.
    Brian Hook, the special representative for Iran at the State Department, is a well-reputed and capable man, but he has no background about anything related to Iran.
    It’s not the most confidence-inspiring roster in the midst of a developing crisis!

    Meanwhile, two of the most serious students of Iranian history and politics on the conservative side, Michael Rubin and Ray Takeyh, remain on the Trump administration’s enemies list for having criticized Trump in 2016.

    https://thebulwark.com/trump-team-lacks-experience-in-national-security-crises/

  33. Dr Faustus

    PVO on The Project mentioned 80 deaths from the Iranian missile attack. At the time I had not seen any report mentioning any never mind 80.

    Now I read that the 80 was as reported by Iranian TV.

    PVO is a useful idiot. It was reported on Iranian TV because the Iranian Government said so – in florid and improbable detail:

    US Army Sustains Heavy Casualties in Iran Missile Attacks

    “Early estimates indicate heavy US casualties in Iran’s missile attack,” an informed IRGC Intelligence Department told FNA Wednesday morning.

    “According to the reports sent by our sources in the region to this moment, at least 80 US arm personnel have been killed and around 200 others wounded,” he said, adding that the wounded have been evacuated from Ein Al-Assad on choppers.

    In reality it would appear to be 20, pre-warned, carefully-placed holes in the Iraqi desert. Brown trousers, but nil casualties.

    The revenge you’re having when you’re not having revenge.
    (But don’t want your population to eat your regime.)

  34. Trump says what he means and means what he says.
    Recall the drone shot down by Iran? Trump didn’t retaliate at the time but here is what he said (paraphrasing) –
    It was just equipment that got destroyed, not American lives. I don’t think it would be proportionate if I kill a bunch of Iranians over a piece of equipment that’s easily replaceable. But if they harm any Americans, then I’ll hit them so hard they won’t know what hit them

    Trump was criticised for that. Democrats and MSM (redundant) said this made America look weak and emboldened Iran yada yada yada.
    Then Iran killed an American and threatened another embassy siege a la’ 1979. So Trump did EXACTLY what he said he would do; Hit them so hard they didn’t know what hit them (Suilemani certainly had no idea what hit him lol).

    As for the comment above from the urine smelling old fart from Skipton regarding the lack of foreign policy experience of Trump and his aides: The only experience a man in Trumps position needs is understanding human nature.
    No amount of war college learning will give you that experience. Only life and repeated dealings with all sorts of hardened people will give you that experience and Trump has it in spades. Probably more than any other president in a generation or three.
    The “experienced” foreign policy wonks from America, Germany, France and Britain got us the Iran Deal. How’d that work out?

    Anyways, just listen to what the man says. If he says he will do X if Y happens, you can be sure he will do X when Y happens. No need to try reading his mind or reading between the lines. Just hear his words.

  35. 1735099

    If we’re living in a time where America’s military is afraid of a third world Iran then it’s game over.

    Perhaps.
    But reflect on the last couple of times the US went to war with what you so quaintly call “third world” countries.
    There was Vietnam.
    Remember how that worked out?
    Then Afghanistan – a work in progress.
    Care to predict an American “victory” when it’s all done and dusted?

  36. mh

    PVO on The Project

    Not sure if that’s TV Hell or comedy gold.

  37. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    Donald Trump Just Delivered Iraq Into Iran’s Hands
    The abruptness of Trump’s decision to target Qassem Soleimani – who deserved his fate – benefits Tehran, burdens Israel and is another blow to U.S. strategy and interests in Iraq and Syria, if not the wider Middle East
    Daniel B. Shapiro Haaretz, Jan 06, 2020
    https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/.premium-trump-s-impulsive-soleimani-strike-is-a-gift-for-iran-1.8354152

    Qassem Soleimani had the blood of many thousands on his hands: American troops killed in Iraq, Israelis murdered in terrorist attacks, and untold thousands of Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese and others dispatched by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Quds Force and its network of proxies. After years of lurking in the shadows, in more recent times he was given to smug, smiling selfies with terrorists across the region.
    That a man this evil deserved his fate, a fate he authored for so many others, is not in question. The ability to carry it out was also an impressive American intelligence and operational achievement.
    It was not, however, part of any strategy.
    That much became clear in the aftermath of the attack when it was reported, first by David Cloud in the Los Angeles Times, that President Trump’s most senior national security advisers were shocked by his decision to authorize the operation. It had been included as an option on his briefing slides as a “throwaway,” an extreme step designed to make other options seem more reasonable.
    Subsequently, Trump and his advisers have offered a range of conflicting explanations for the strike: It was in response to the violent assault on the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad. Or it was to disrupt imminently planned large-scale attacks against American targets. Or it was to establish deterrence against additional Iranian attacks.
    The last explanation may, in a way, prove accurate. A president whose decision making is impulsive and wholly unpredictable, even to his closest advisers, may well achieve a measure of deterrence against adversaries who do not seek a full-scale conflict.

    Iran has undoubtedly been rocked back on its heels by this sudden blow. Soleimani occupied a unique place in Iran’s leadership, at once a strategist and tactician, the builder of a network of Shia allies in half a dozen countries, a confidant of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and an ideological inspiration.
    But he is not irreplaceable. And Iran will not be without tools to respond to his death. Which raises not moral questions, but strategic ones.
    If Iran has learned anything about President Trump, it is the following: his one red line is attacks on American personnel and facilities. As Iran lashed out in response to crushing sanctions imposed by the United States following its withdrawal from the nuclear agreement, Trump chose not to react. Attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf, on a Saudi oil facility, and even the downing of an American UAV, passed quietly. In Syria, the United States was content to let Israel manage the threat posed by Iranian forces.
    The U.S. strikes on bases of the Iraqi Shia militia, Kitaib Hizballah, following the death of an American contractor and the wounding of U.S. soldiers last week, and the elimination of Soleimani after the embassy attack, reinforce this conclusion.
    So a smart Iranian response will be to avoid direct confrontation with the United States and escalate elsewhere, with U.S. allies and partners left to deal with the fallout on their own. For Israel, it could mean Iranian-sponsored terrorist attacks on Israeli facilities or citizens overseas and efforts by Tehran to stoke tensions between Israel and Russia in Syria, in hopes of facilitating greater Iranian freedom of operation.

    But Iran has another opportunity at hand. They can try to exploit Trump’s other clearest, if contradictory, conviction: that he wants out of the Middle East.
    Yes, as tensions have risen, additional U.S. forces have been sent to the region, to help protect U.S. facilities and to be prepared for emergency contingencies. But if Trump has been consistent on anything, it is his belief that the United States should not engage in additional wars in the Middle East, where U.S. forces face only “sand and death.”
    A patient, strategic Iranian response will be to generate pressure on the Iraqi government to expel U.S. forces from Iraq. Already, there is a move in the Iraqi parliament to vote for expulsion, amid many Iraqis’ outrage about U.S. military operations conducted on Iraqi soil without the consent of, or even informing, the host government. Stoking those tensions will not be difficult for Iran, wired as it is within Iraqi society.
    Iran may not even have to act to achieve this objective. After the elimination of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Trump seized on the achievement as a justification to abruptly reverse policy and declare the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria, shocking the United States’ Kurdish and Israeli partners. (He later partially retracted the decision, leaving a smaller contingent of U.S. forces focused on protecting Syrian oil fields.)

    No one should be shocked, then, if Trump, with a similar claim of victory in the wake of the Soleimani strike, announces the end of the U.S. military presence in Iraq. And once those forces leave – whether by an Iraqi or an American decision – the remaining U.S. troops in Syria could not stay without being deeply exposed. Whether a U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, or civilian personnel working with the Kurds of Northern Iraq, could function safely would also be very much in question.
    In any of these scenarios, the ironic second and third order effects of the U.S. strike on Soleimani would be a significant increase in Iranian influence in Iraq and Syria, hardly a positive outcome for U.S. interests or those of its regional allies.
    Were any U.S. strategists tasked to game out these scenarios and come up with mitigations to the abrupt change of policy represented by eliminating Soleimani? Of course not. And it would make little difference if they had. Trump doesn’t do strategy. He does impulse. For better and, frequently, for worse.

    Daniel B. Shapiro is Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. He served as U.S. Ambassador to Israel from 2011 to 2017.

  38. Leigh Lowe

    The New York Times quoted Dr Cohn, foreign policy scholar at the Naval War College, “We killed people inside their sovereign territory, without the permission of the government … This is a massive violation of sovereignty.”

    Like when Obumbi snuffed Osama bin Laden without telling the Pakis?

  39. Dr Faustus

    Like when Obumbi snuffed Osama bin Laden without telling the Pakis?

    Aside from resetting the ME playbook, Trump has made the entire Lefty commentariat beclown themselves very bigly. Amazing result for a petulant manchild with small hands, a mushroom willy, and Macca’s juice down his shirtfront.

  40. Iampeter

    Perhaps.
    But reflect on the last couple of times the US went to war with what you so quaintly call “third world” countries.
    There was Vietnam.
    Remember how that worked out?
    Then Afghanistan – a work in progress.
    Care to predict an American “victory” when it’s all done and dusted?

    I am contemplating these things and criticizing them. These are failed approaches to war.
    Instead you need to contemplate how America fought Japan. The only war America has won in the last century. They did so by accepting nothing less than victory.

    Which reminds me of a book that should actually be required reading in the military.

    Instead of trash like “Stones into Schools: Promoting Peace with Books, Not Bombs.”

  41. Tailgunner

    Hehe
    Increasingly nervous man/Cats say “Oh noes! Trump’s done it this time! He’s finished! It’s WW3!!” for the i4th time….
    Only three words needed.
    Trump is god

  42. Chris M

    Iran folded:

    I agree that they are pathetic and weak but they didn’t ‘fold’ just yet and I anticipate will respond further in their own time over the next month or two ie the rockets are only symbolic at this point. Accidentally killing their own airliner was a blow to them.

  43. New Chum

    This killing also sent a message to others such as North Korea.

  44. Chris M

    Iran isn’t suicidal.

    So you don’t agree with the 12th Imam thing the leaders believe in? Yes, maybe they are fake Shiites, who knows…

  45. Dr Faustus

    I agree that they are pathetic and weak but they didn’t ‘fold’ just yet and I anticipate will respond further in their own time over the next month or two ie the rockets are only symbolic at this point.

    Quite possible.
    However, given the Swiss are saying Tehran passed on multiple ’we’re finished here’ backchannel messages to the US, that would seem to be a pretty dim strategy. Trump has put proxy deniability out of play, so any ‘second round’ combined with taqiya is likely going to energise the US to fuck up Iran rather more than, say, vapourizing a high-profile bad guy on a naughty mission.

  46. Nighthawk the Elder

    The New York Times quoted Dr Cohn, foreign policy scholar at the Naval War College, “We killed people inside their sovereign territory, without the permission of the government … This is a massive violation of sovereignty.”

    Did I miss something? When did Iraq become Iranian sovereign territory. These arseholes attacked US Embassies on a regular basis, you know, real sovereign territories but apparently that isn’t a violation. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

  47. Nighthawk the Elder

    Dr Faustus
    #3286778, posted on January 9, 2020 at 8:24 am
    PVO on The Project mentioned 80 deaths from the Iranian missile attack. At the time I had not seen any report mentioning any never mind 80.

    Now I read that the 80 was as reported by Iranian TV.

    PVO is a useful idiot.

    The Americans should counter with their own response that the rockets only hit baby formula factories. After all that seems the favourite response in that region after every missile shower.

  48. Bad Samaritan

    With DJT I am oft reminded of the comment made by the future King of Morocco after he’d seen Patton in action at the Torch Landings….”Meme les Lions dans leurs tanières tremblent en le voyant approcher” ……..FFS!…

    Or of Patton’s own later comment….”Few men are killed by bayonets, but many are scared by them. Having the bayonet fixed makes our men want to close. Only the threat to close will defeat many a determined enemy.”

    Trump knows what Patton knew….and the Iranians know he knows it too!

    BTW: For those who’s French is not what it was ….”Even the lions in their dens tremble at his approach”

  49. Leo G

    The New York Times quoted Dr Cohn, foreign policy scholar at the Naval War College, “We killed people inside their sovereign territory, without the permission of the government … This is a massive violation of sovereignty.”

    My understanding of existing international laws is that he use of force abroad by UN member states can only be sanctioned by the United Nations. Accordingly, the permission of the government of Iraq is not the determinant of that question.

  50. max

    A mass murderer calling himself a general is killed on Donald Trump’s orders

    did he had a trial by judge and jury and get accused?

    and who give Trump power to kill people and when? Is it in constitution ? did congress authorise such a think?

    who is next? maybe you and me?

    we do not have law and order we have lawlessness and ordinary people will pay for it.

  51. stackja

    max – You support Iran?

  52. Nob

    Elderly White Man From Skipton
    #3286770, posted on January 9, 2020 at 8:10 am
    So we have an administration whose top national security officials lack experience in national security crises:

    The president himself had never held a government position before coming into office.

    And that is why he is president and Hillary is not.

    There are 2 million federal employees and 1.3 million active duty military. And they all answer to the people.

  53. Leo G

    … and who give Trump power to kill people and when? Is it in constitution ? did congress authorise such a think?

    The US Constitution gives the president the authority to command US armed forces. Since Truman, presidents have claimed authority, independent of Congress, to commit the US Armed Forces to involvements abroad.

  54. stackja

    Leo – Truman as a Democrat probably didn’t face opposition in fighting communist regimes. DT is fighting a new menace created by Dems. BO doesn’t have to face it.

  55. Chris M

    the rockets only hit baby formula factories.

    It was a Chinese baby formula factory, hence the secondary explosions.

    did he had a trial by judge and jury and get accused?

    Yes indeed he will Max, as we all. Hebrews 9v27 “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment”

  56. Cynic of Ayr

    This is really getting to be bullshit!
    This or that “expert” says the U.S. may be in trouble, the Iranians may do this or they may do that, or they could do this or perhaps do that.
    Same old sameo with the climate “experts”
    This could be a tipping point, that may cause something, it might be hot, it is possible it will get cold.
    None of these armchair drongos has the courage to put their ego on the line and say, it will.
    There are a couple of notable and hilarious exceptions. That money bloke – Krug? who said the Market would never recover, and our own resident moron, Flannery, who stood on his verandah in pouring rain to say it will never rain again.
    There’s plenty of life left in that stupidity.

  57. Colonel Crispin Berka

    This comedy could not have been scripted better:

    Mother Lode
    #3286731, posted on January 9, 2020 at 7:30 am
    So WWIII is now over? If so, you can count on the mullahs, the MSM, and the Dimocrats to tell us Iran won.

    Iampeter
    #3286746, posted on January 9, 2020 at 7:50 am
    I think if you’re reading these events as anything other than America’s total surrender to Iran then you’re grossly misreading the situation.

    I’m surprised it took Iampeter as long as 20 minutes to receive his instructions from the Dimocrats. Executing the highest officer of Iran’s equivalent of the SAS is now “cowardly appeasement” in Iampeter’s view. He is such a staunch Libertarian he is compelled by Reason to deprive thousands of Persians of their life and property. Because no true Libertarian would try a strategy of containment. Or something.

  58. Robber Baron

    Killing terrorists is a good thing. Killing terrorist enablers is also a good thing. Trump for re-election is a good thing. Get on.

  59. Lee

    The president himself had never held a government position before coming into office.

    So what?

    You say it as though it’s a bad thing.

    I reckon it’s a good thing to have a president who isn’t a career politician or bureaucrat.

  60. Lee

    A mass murderer calling himself a general is killed on Donald Trump’s orders

    did he had a trial by judge and jury and get accused?

    and who give Trump power to kill people and when? Is it in constitution ? did congress authorise such a think?

    Did you complain when Obama had Bin Laden bumped off?

    I’m guessing not.

  61. Iampeter

    I’m surprised it took Iampeter as long as 20 minutes to receive his instructions from the Dimocrats. Executing the highest officer of Iran’s equivalent of the SAS is now “cowardly appeasement” in Iampeter’s view.

    Yea I also explained that point of view you in detail.

    He is such a staunch Libertarian he is compelled by Reason to deprive thousands of Persians of their life and property.

    I’m not a libertarian of any kind. I’m an actual right winger. That means someone who doesn’t tolerate theocracies that declare war on us.
    True libertarians are like max in this thread. They blame the West and support the most cowardly of appeasement. In other words, true Libertarians want the same thing as you, they just don’t delude themselves that such action constitutes winning.

  62. mh

    Iampeter
    #3286746, posted on January 9, 2020 at 7:50 am
    I think if you’re reading these events as anything other than America’s total surrender to Iran then you’re grossly misreading the situation.

    Now that Iran has defeated the USA, it’s time to implement Iampeter’s open border plan and the Mullahs can take over Australia.

  63. nfw

    The New York Times quoted Dr Cohn, foreign policy scholar at the Naval War College, “We killed people inside their sovereign territory, without the permission of the government … This is a massive violation of sovereignty.”

    Wasn’t the thug, who was in charge of oppressing women and the murder of homosexuals, killed in Baghdad? Not sure that Baghdad is inside Iranian sovereign territory Dr Cohn. Sounds just like another “expert” who knows nothing but says anything to be heard. So much for the quality of instruction at the Naval War College. Must have been short of funds to employ him.

    Soleimani’s actual rank was Guardian Major General, a fact not mentioned by the low IQ journalists who deliberately or otherwise try to disguise the true role of the IRGC, which immediately indicates he was not of the Iranian Armed Forces but the equivalent of an SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen-SS or perhaps at best SS-Gruppenführer und Generalleutnant der Waffen-SS. He was the Himmler equivalent but without the impressive Hugo Boss designed uniform. The IRGC can be considered the Persian SA and the Quods as the Farsi speaking Waffen SS. They are of the “party” of the corrupt and lying mullahs, not of the armed forces. Not odd that leftie luvvie “progressives” should flock to the totalitarians.

  64. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    Lee; I think the article lays out a pretty good case for why Trump is totally our of his depth. The problem is that some of what he does makes people feel good right now, leaving a cost that we will pay over and over for years. For example, there’s a quite credible piece in The Spectator that reports on developments in the ME that leaves the US out and the Arabs lining up with the Persians. And the Israelis all alone.

  65. candy

    Basically anyone anti Trump is pro Iran terrorist.

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend, whatever that saying is. I don’t think it’s much more complicated than that. It’s hard to find anything straightforward to read about it and trust the information and it seems so complex.

Comments are closed.