Trump explains
….of PROTESTERS killed in Iran itself. While Iran will never be able to properly admit it, Soleimani was both hated and feared within the country. They are not nearly as saddened as the leaders will let the outside world believe. He should have been taken out many years ago!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2020
For those who think this will cause Iran’s response to escalate, I wonder what the Iranian leaders can actually do that they haven’t already been doing. Sponsor more terrorism? They’ve been doing that for decades and in fact it seems to have been one of Suleimani’s main tasks. Establish proxy governments and/or influence around the Middle East? Check. Threaten Israel? Of course. Try to develop nuclear weapons? Indeed. All have been ongoing for ages.
Maybe I haven’t thought of everything. Maybe Iran’s leaders have been holding back on something they might be doing to hurt us. But so far I don’t know what it could be. And they also have to deal with their own growing economic problems and increasingly rebellious people, the latter constituting a population that most likely (as Trump points out) didn’t feature many who actually “revered” Suleimani at all.
[NOTE: And from Mike Pompeo:
You have folks who served in the previous administration who are telling the Iranian leaders today, “Just hang on. President Trump will lose in the election in November and we’ll go back to appeasement. America will write you a big check, we’ll underwrite your terror campaign around the world, we’ll give you a clear pathway to a nuclear weapon system. Just wait until the Trump administration is finished.”
Whether they’re in communication with them and literally telling them that, or whether the Iranian leaders are just inferring it from American news coverage, I think Pompeo is correct about the message being delivered.]
I still say to anyone who wants to understand Trump tactically: “Study George S. Patton.” This “Have I got your attention now?” approach is, to the best of my limited knowledge, classic Patton.
I like President Trump’s tweet:
“Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!”
It reassures Americans while suggesting to Iran the best way to proceed. He hints that he’s ready to open negotiations while making it clear that for Iran to do anything else would not be wise.
Some splendid wag asked “Why did Putin want Soleimani dead?”
Auf Natasha Fatale speak: “Is good question, no?”
Perhaps the US is not quite finished with present business regarding specifically Iraqi proxies: https://mobile.twitter.com/BaxtiyarGoran/status/1213226663397511168
“Reports of an airstrike targeted a vehicle carrying important Iraqi (Hashd al-Shaabi) figures near Taji northern Baghdad.”
“Whether they’re in communication with them and literally telling them that,”
Ask John “I throw away my medals” Kerry.
Suleimani was equal to bin Laden plus al-Baghdadi X 2.
Time to update the Trump Dayenu list.
The Trump “Dayenu”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23775
Yes, this was a much bigger deal than getting Bin Laden. At the time he was killed, he was not directly handling operations any more, not able to travel and lead plotters directly. Suleimani was actively leading terror operations in the entire region. Note that he was killed in Iraq, along with a leading Iraqi terrorist and a Lebanese who had arrived with him.
Don’t forget that Iran has waged cyber terrorism on commercial and national interests in the USA for years with near impunity, costing the economy billions. Add that one to your list.
Wow, Tucker going off on Trump about the hit, sounds like he just switched over to CNN.
“[Whether they’re in communication with them and literally telling them that, or whether the Iranian leaders are just inferring it from American news coverage, I think Pompeo is correct about the message being delivered.]” – Neo
Being as this is Twitchy, Acosta & McGowan do not escape unscathed.
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2020/01/03/there-it-is-jim-acostas-report-on-what-trump-said-about-the-soleimani-airstrike-includes-bonus-rebuttal-on-behalf-of-iran/
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2020/01/03/you-do-not-apologize-for-me-rose-mcgowen-dragged-like-weve-never-seen-dragged-before-for-off-the-charts-insane-dear-iran-tweet/
As to the Iranian response(s), “If they want to hit military facilities in Iraq, Kuwait, Doha, Jordan, all of that area is going to be on heightened alert,” the former CIA official said. “But I don’t know if we’re going to be on such high alert in Lima, Buenos Aires, Asunción, Malaysia, West Africa and Europe — places where there is a known Hezbollah presence, but we may not be able to step up security procedures for all embassies everywhere and expect the same level of protection.”
So Hezbollah is in multiple South American countries. And we have no control of our southern border. Our Latin embassies? The Iranian counter(s) may occur WITHIN the USA. Like blowing up whole malls full of shoppers.
physicsguy:
No, that’s old news with Tucker. His attitude has long been that all military action is going to be the start of another war and is a bad idea. That’s a very consistent thing with him.
Cicero:
It’s been known for ages that they’ve had a significant presence in some areas of Latin America. For example, this incident, which was a big deal at the time.
Stupid John Kerry I distinctly recall him telling the mullah reps in Paris
“Oh that deal we made with you is still in place Trump will be gone in a year.” Obviously John was in on the coup operation of Comey, Brennan, & Clapper.
Lincoln liked Grant because ‘he fights’, and both of them knew that attrition was part of winning the war even thought Grant was called the “bloody butcher” and Patton was referred to as Blood & Guts. Over the years because of the treacherous press during the 1960’s when I spent four years in the Army and went off to training with the ‘Ballad of the Green Beret” being a hit song and came back into the US in 1970 in uniform being treated like crap. We have not national pride in overcoming those who would do us harm and half of our government officials taking all sorts of money and kissing the butts of those who should be the enemies of this wonderful, best in the history of all mankind nation. I am hoping the common folk will show up and let their betters realize we cannot go on this way but we need to stand our ground, internationally as well as in our own states. The lefties cannot be allowed to win in the end.
Scott Adams has an interesting take – maybe the leaders of Iran are happy with the death of a general who was becoming way too powerful. Maybe we are as close to peace as we are to war. All in his podcast today. Well worth listening to.
I don’t know if Trump’s now-beyond maximum pressure approach to Iran is better than Obama’s. I’m certainly no Middle East expert. However, to see the Obama side react to this situation NOT with anything like calm, cool, hardheaded reason but just another spasm of “Orange Man Bad” makes me doubt they really know what they’re talking about.
And after the last 25 years, we NEED people like Tucker in the media waving the anti-war flag as much as possible. It doesn’t mean he’s right but we can never again have a repeat of the run up to the Iraq War, when the New York Times and most of the mainstream media turned into cheerleaders for the invasion.
Mike
https://www.nysun.com/editorials/american-cannot-do-a-damn-thing-eh/90961/
Slightly edited for accuracy.
MBunge:
The problem is that almost no one in the media, pro or con, knows what he or she is talking about. No, we don’t need someone like Tucker, whose negative reactions are just as formulaic and predictable as the positive reactions of others. I don’t want someone who always says yes and I don’t want someone who always says no. I want someone who sometimes says yes and sometimes says no and has really informed reasons each time as to why.
Considering that the Left is claiming Trump wants a war, a la “Wag the Dog”, he has been remarkably low-key and reticent to toot his own horn over this successful operation.
“Senator Warren called the attack “reckless” and said that “our priority must be to avoid another costly war.”
Warren announces even before she might be elected that she will not fight; that certain avenues of defense will not be considered. She makes Neville Chamberlain look like a war hawk and yet she thinks she can run and lead the country?
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/shadow-secretary-of-state-pelosi-on-the-killing-of-soleimani.php
Many forget that Iran, though a fairly large country with oil, is still no where near able to project military power other than through use of terror and guerilla tactics. They have a small navy, a third class air force, and, other than the QUDs force, a second class army. They use cunning sneak attacks, and religious fervor as a way to strike blows at their more formidable foes, Israel and the USA.
They have been at war with us since 1979. It has waxed and waned, but they have never been in doubt about their goals – to destroy Israel and the USA.
However, their economy is in tatters because of the sanctions Trump has put on them. In an all out war, they would be out of money, ammo, and weapons very quickly. Plus, they are very vulnerable to total destruction of their oil industry. Destroy their three major oil refineries and their economy would really suffer. I think they know this.
They can cause some violence at weak points around the world, but if Trump and the military keep the pressure on their militias in Iraq and other areas, they cannot keep up the pace either financially or morale wise. I expect we may see some bombings and other terror type activities for the next few months, but if we keep after their leaders (Someone, I assume the U.S., just carried out another attack on Iranian militia leaders tonight.) the will and means to carry on will fade. I think they will decide to do some dealing – they are, after all, masters of the rug trade and know how to do deals.
At least that’s the way I see this.
First of all, I think Tucker Carlson is about as whacked as any leftist and has lost any credibility with me. Im guessing some people figure a hundred Americans sacrificed to Islam a year is an OK number not to escalate anything that might upset that balance.
Now Im wondering if Trump regrets kicking Bolton off the team. Seems to me Trump is ending up proving Bolton right.
sdferr: “Some splendid wag asked “Why did Putin want Soleimani dead?””
Well, it’s been widely reported even in the MSM that Putin publicly thanked Trump and the US for info on a terror plot aimed at St Petersburg. Who’s to say that Iran might have been directly or indirectly involved?
J.J.: “Destroy their three major oil refineries and their economy would really suffer”
Yes, well stated. Not only would it cause havoc, just think: Who would want to support Iran if no oil was available? I guess they have pistachios and pomegranates but c’mon … what’s the upside of being friends with Iran?
Harry on January 4, 2020 at 12:52 am said:
First of all, I think Tucker Carlson is about as whacked as any leftist and has lost any credibility with me. Im guessing some people figure a hundred Americans sacrificed to Islam a year is an OK number not to escalate anything that might upset that balance.
Now Im wondering if Trump regrets kicking Bolton off the team. Seems to me Trump is ending up proving Bolton right.
* * *
https://babylonbee.com/news/john-bolton-cant-believe-he-quit-just-before-war-with-iran
LOL! Thanks AesopFan, that was a good laugh!
I’ve seen some oblique references to this attack, but only this one link so far.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/03/breaking-reports-new-u-s-airstrikes-north-of-baghdad-three-vehicle-convoy-of-iran-backed-shia-militia-leaders/
Links from the comments for some context.
joebkonobi says:
January 3, 2020 at 9:04 pm
Nice to see our intelligence being used for what it is intended for a change as to opposed to spying on Americans.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/whos-russias-agent-now-moscow-sides-with-democrats-in-condemning-soleimani-hit/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7850453/How-Qassem-Soleimani-targeted-230mph-laser-guided-Hellfire-missile-fired-drone.html
https://www.lawfareblog.com/soleimani-strike-one-person-decides
Read through to the comment, then tell me if the Democrats have any sane grip on reality.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/03/speaker-pelosi-threatens-possibility-of-armed-conflict-against-u-s-department-of-justice/
An NPR podcast dedicated to pop culture was talking about his Iran tweets. Those who were huddled around the microphone gave off a sense of worry. At that time I wasn’t sure if I enjoyed their slight state of panic or if I was irritated of their worry. Now, with at least 24 hours between listening to that podcast, I will say it was the latter.
“Whether they’re in communication with them and literally telling them that”
“That” pretty much describes the conditions of Obama’s Iran deal. And it is likely they are telling them that if Trump goes they will restore the deal. So it is very close to “literally telling them that”.
In neo’s thread “What are you doing New Year’s Eve?” I wrote:
Two days later at 8:08pm Jan 2, I wrote:
The following are merely my views of this stuff. Could be I’m completely wrong. Or, maybe not. Nevertheless, here’s how I see it:
Iran vows retaliation for the death of Gen. Soleimani.
I see via Mike Doran’s twitter that the flag of Imam Hussein Ali has been raised atop Jamkaran Mosque in Qom. This is big whoop-dee-do martyrdom stuff for these wholly religious totalitarian nutters. I take them seriously.
What will they do?
They will aim to kill Pres. Trump . . . most likely by explosion. They will never hurry. It only matters that they succeed. So Pres. Trump may be out of office when they come for him.
They will not consider attacks on other Americans or American assets or American allies as counting toward the vengeance they seek. These attacks and offensive gestures will be predicated on their views of their immediate political or strategic interests as each case presents itself. In other words, business as usual. Their revolutionary march will go on to the misery of all their neighbors and fellow Iranians.
Glad to see Neo making the point that Iran has ALREADY been escalating about as much as they can, so the Dem fear of escalation is almost silly. I actually have some hope they DO try to escalate, like the ’68 Tet offensive in Vietnam which destroyed the Viet Cong (S. Viet commies). It might be good for all Iranian terror assets to be attacking, to their deaths, even tho it means more death now of more innocents. No way to know what causes the least civilian death in the long term, but I believe killing terrorists sooner is more likely to lead to fewer.
The USA could use a LOT more escalating in response. And probably find Arab allies, and maybe Kurds, to provide most of the boots on the ground, if needed.
Other pressure, too. Trump is complaining about John Kerry’s illegal Logan Act discussions with Iran, so it’s publicly known. I’d like a Logan Act prosecution, even if it’s thrown out as an unconstitutional law. Better to get rid of it rather than allow it to be a selectively enforced law.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump — more should read Trump’s twitter feed, especially if you think he tweets too much. I used to think that, now I don’t.
Trump’s White House tweeted:
At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a US-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.
Redstate has good (NeverTrump) David French tweets on why it WAS legal for Trump to kill Gen. Terror in Iraq.
https://www.redstate.com/smoosieq/2020/01/03/when-david-french-doesnt-condemn-trumps-actions-its-worth-noting/
It’s very important that Suleimani was killed in Iraq. Why? Because American troops are lawfully in Iraq — there by congressional authorization and with the permission of the Iraqi government. Moreover, they have a right of self-defense. /2
More details, but the Dems who complain about international law are mostly showing they hate America more than they hate terrorists who murder Americans & other civilians.
Dems like Schumer complain about not being notified in advance, Dinesh D’Souza quips: Neither were the Iranians and for pretty much the same reason.
Trump’s twitter feed often links to others, like this 31 Dec tweet by Lindsey Graham:
Very proud of President @realDonaldTrump acting decisively in the face of threats to our embassy in Baghdad.
He has put the world on notice – there will be no Benghazis on his watch.
I think Dems were responding to Lindsey when they were claiming the embassy attacks in Iraq, led by Iranian-backed Shiite Iraqi militia, “were Trump’s Benghazi”. Just before Trump sent in Marines.
Just before Trump ordered strikes against Iranian & Iraqi terrorists.
Lindsey (doubly) right – NOT a Benghazi.
Iraq remains very complicated politically, since the majority Arab Shiites don’t like the more successful former ruling minority Arab Sunnis, nor the Kurdish Sunnis. But the Shiites are also split between Persian (Iranian) hating Shiites, and pro-Iranian Shiites, who have Iraqi militias and significant influence in Iraq.
The disunity among Iraqi Shiites is too little discussed or analyzed.
The disunity among Iraqi Shiites is too little discussed or analyzed.
What has Grand Ayatollah Sistani said about Soleimani’s assassination? Something? Nothing? This would be interesting to know.
“I don’t want someone who always says yes and I don’t want someone who always says no.”
Not to be a dick, Neo, but what you want doesn’t matter. What we have is a foreign policy elite still dominated by war-mongering neocons and other dreamers of imperial glory. If President Hillary had launched this same attack in the same circumstances, many if not most of those now sounding the alarm would practically be salivating over war with Iran.
Right or wrong, it is vital we never again have a situation like 2002/2003 where anti-war voices are essentially banned from the mainstream media.
Mike
I like the theory that Trump sent Suleimani a message that the next pallet of cash would be waiting for him at the airport, in the cargo area. Just stop by and pick it up.
Just kidding. The best analysis I’ve seen so far is this one.
Key paragraph.
Some argue that the assassination of Soleimani will increase tensions in the Middle East. This outlook confuses cause and effect: Tensions in the Middle East have intensified over the past decade because of the violent Iranian aggression which Soleimani spearheaded. Aggression which has led to Syria’s destruction and the disintegration of Lebanon and Iraq. Aggression that threatens maritime routes and safe passage in the Arab (Persian) Gulf and the Red Sea, a direct attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities that spiked oil prices and compromised the world’s oil supply. Aggression that has fueled and intensified tensions – including direct military confrontations – between Iran and its proxies and Israel.
General Soleimani and the Al-Quds force led the escalation in the region in the service of the hegemonic vision of the Iranian Mullah regime. Their actions have so far claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, led to the destruction of states, the disintegration of cities, and caused a wave of millions of refugees. Killing Soleimani is not the cause of the escalation – but the result.
Petraeus on the raid. I’d say his opinion ranks a little higher than Nancy’s.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/petraeus-on-soleimani.php
MBunge:
You write: “Not to be a dick, Neo, but what you want doesn’t matter.”
Gee whiz, and here I thought my preferences dictated foreign policy as well as the choice of pundits and prognosticators in the MSM. I feel so crushed by what you’ve told me!
Your point is poorly taken. Obviously, since this is a blog – my blog, in fact – I express my opinions and preferences rather frequently without imagining they have any effect on the world at all.
Now that we’ve gotten that cleared up, I’ll add that I think there are plenty of non-warmongering voices in the foreign policy establishment, and I include Trump as a non-warmongering voice. Each situation is different, and there is no way to cocoon oneself and never use force. All use of force carries the risk of war.
The present day MSM seems to follow the rule that wars and force, or appeasement and timidity, are all good if a Democratic president does them and bad if a Republican one does. That’s pretty much it, and it’s a worse than worthless way to report on things.
As for your last statement – it “is vital we never again have a situation like 2002/2003 where anti-war voices are essentially banned from the mainstream media” – we’re certainly not going to have such a situation these days when a Republican president is setting foreign policy. Nor did we actually have it in 2002/2003. See this (originally written in 2008, on the fifth anniversary of the war):
That’s the way I remember it, too, although revisionist history says otherwise.
Mike K – thanks for the link; the author looks like he has more credibiity than our own highly biased congresspersons.
For sdferr: he said that al-Sistani is lying very low right now, cause unknown. “Both Al-Hakim and particularly Al-Sadr, sent a signal to the Iranian-backed Iraqi militias to restrain their reaction. At this time, in that context, there is no official response from yet another major key factor in Iraq, and that is the Shi’ite spiritual supreme leadership and particularly Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who opposes Iranian influence in Iraq.”
* * *
“What we have is a foreign policy elite still dominated by war-mongering neocons and other dreamers of imperial glory. …Right or wrong, it is vital we never again have a situation like 2002/2003 where anti-war voices are essentially banned from the mainstream media.”- Mike/MBunge
I don’t think anyone’s voices should be banned from anywhere, but I can’t seriously entertain the fiction that it was the GOP doing the “banning” at any time. Kerry and Clinton were both for the war before they were against it, and the NYT & WaPo are part of the same camp.
Does the firing of Bolton make no difference on your calculus of which war-mongering elites are running Trump’s cabinet now?
* * *
The French are complaining that Trump is completely unpredictable, but I interpret that as meaning “we can’t depend on him to do the same things we would do so we don’t know what he will do.” I think it’s legitimate to say we can’t predict details of Trump’s actions, but I also think VDH gets the bigger picture.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/iranian-analytics/
I totally agree with this; the provocations where Trump “backed down” would not have given him the same bang for the buck – a vicious and essentially unwarranted attack (militarily speaking) on our Embassy that was clearly motivated and controlled by Iranian government forces, did.
Apparently, from several reports, Soleimani made no real secret of his wheareabouts in the last few years, and our military had “plans on the shelf” — as I suggested at the beginning. The tightly compressed time frame made that clear.
Bunker is not really the appropriate word; were the negative associations deliberately invoked? I’m not always sure with NYP & especially Reuters.
https://nypost.com/2020/01/04/decision-to-kill-qassem-soleimani-was-made-in-secret-mar-a-lago-bunker-report/
Another support for Trump’s characterization – we didn’t start (this phase of) the war, but we won’t roll over to aggression either.
I guess the Iranians don’t have any bunkers.
This provocation seems far more likely to have influenced American planning and timing than just the nose-thumbing done by Soleimani and the Ayatollah, although the schadenfreude element should not be totally discounted.
https://nypost.com/2020/01/04/qassem-soleimani-told-militias-to-step-up-attacks-on-us-targets-in-iraq/
The attack they provoked did not have the vector they anticipated.
Neo – tiny typo “worse” –
and it’s a worth than worthless way
Expressing fears for the future is always a bit OK, but should be balanced with fears from action AND fears from inaction.
The CIA (and NSA??) assured Bush that there were, in fact, WMDs, and all the 16 prior UN Sec. Council resolutions had failed to make Saddam “behave”. Funny-sad how those who talk about the UN fail to mention the worse-than-useless UNSC anti-Saddam resolutions from the end of his ’91 aggressive war on Kuwait (Desert Storm) thru 2003. (Already a longer time from then to now than from ’92 to 2003).
Bush had a plan – go in, put in Gen. Gardner, withdraw and leave and let the Iraqis “sort it out”. Then the plan changed to the far more noble “Nation Building”. Which America doesn’t know how to do, and I can’t even think of places where it has been done well.
A bad guy attacks America or some (innocent? until proven guilty) Americans. So the US marines and air power are sent in to kill the bad guy. And America leaves. That should be the model America uses, and it seems Trump is moving towards that.
Funny sad that Libya, destabilized by Obama & Clinton in helping rebels against Ghadaffy, remains a mess, but few Dems are claiming “the US broke it, so we have to fix it”. The USA can NOT fix all the problems in the world.
Killing a few international bad guys is pretty good, tho, especially in response to them killing some Americans. Most Americans DO value the life of an American higher, or much much higher, than the lives of others.
Most critics of American policy are hypocritical about criticizing America on this, because the bad guys America fights, like Saddam and now Gen. S. from Iran, these bad guys are doing worse than what America does. And the critics usually fail to criticize the bad guys’ worse actions.
The unfair critiques of US policy outrages me.
Tucker Carlson has long been against most wars, and has often highlighted how Trump is trying to pull back from war. If he thinks Trump is being too provocative, that’s a plausible intellectual opinion – but one I disagree with, strongly.
Nobody seems to be mentioning what body counts, of Americans or overall, would be needed to provide evidence that their position is right. I’d say if twice as many Americans are killed in the Mid East in each of the next 2 years without a regime change in Iran, then the fears of “escalation” were borne out. If less Americans are killed (than the avg of the last two years, or the two year sum), then Trump’s strategy is a big success. If between those two, as seems about 40% likely, Trump’s strategy will have avoided “huge escalation”, but not proven to be decisive.
Tom Grey:
Thanks. Fixed the typo.
I hope we happy few haven’t forgotten that Iran was the crown jewel of Obama’s foreign policy genius, which Obama humbly considered the 21st C equivalent of George F. Kennan’s “Containment” policy against the Soviets.
Obama’s masterstroke was that the US would shower Iran with benefits, cement them as the hegemon of the Middle East, and in return Iran would become a wonderful country of some sort.
Hence, the Iran Treaty which was never a treaty. Plus the pallets’o’cash in unmarked bills flown to Iran in the dead of night without oversight.
Thanks Obama!
(I always wondered how much Valerie Jarrett, who was born in Iran and lived there until she was five years old, had to do with that.)
To be fair, as Instapundit often says, Obama’s Iran policy did force Saudi Arabia and Israel together (somewhat) as the ME Odd Couple with Iran as the common foe.
Who saw that coming?
Indeed…
https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1213223524531347459
…plus this “golden oldie” (from the summer of 2015), which stands up pretty well—from Lee Smith (who continues to be indispensable):
https://www.hudson.org/research/11436-obama-strikes-a-deal-with-qassem-suleimani
As for Jarrett, well let’s just say there’s a lot to cover up.
huxley on January 4, 2020 at 6:40 pm said:
To be fair, as Instapundit often says, Obama’s Iran policy did force Saudi Arabia and Israel together (somewhat) as the ME Odd Couple with Iran as the common foe.
Who saw that coming?
* * *
NObody saw it, especially Obama.
Nobody (or very, very few) saw the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Nobody (or very, very few) saw the candidacy of Barack Obama, and then his election, until after the first primaries.
Nobody (or very, very few) saw the election of Donald Trump.
Nobody saw the destruction of Soleimani and the top tier of Iran’s militia commanders.
That’s what makes following the news so addictive.