↓
 
Home » Trump’s threats were not empty: Suleimani, head of Iranian terrorism, killed in Baghdad

Trump’s threats were not empty: Suleimani, head of Iranian terrorism, killed in Baghdad

The New Neo Posted on by

The very predictable reaction of Democrats is typified by this Elizabeth Warren tweet:

In other words, there’s a formulaic condemnation of Suleimani as a dangerous killer. But it’s followed by fears of a huge war to follow, and words like “reckless” and “escalation.” Many responses also express complaints that the action was done without Congressional approval – as though a strike on a terrorist like this could or should be subjected to Congressional debate and a vote.

If you study the entire thread under Elizabeth Warren’s tweet, you’ll find that many of the respondents criticize her for criticizing Suleimani. Yes, that’s really what many are saying; here’s an example:

Liz Warren isn’t leftist enough for them.

However, there is a very real dilemma when faced with Iran: how to respond in a way that doesn’t lead to a widespread war, a war no one wants, including Trump. I don’t have an answer, but I understand the problem. Appeasement and weakness do not work. Provocations must be met with a strong and unequivocal response. But they do run the risk of being met with even more provocation. Where does it end?

One thing I have little doubt about is this: if Suleimani had succeeded in mounting a new attack on US troops in the area, and Trump had done nothing to stop it, he would have been roundly criticized for that.

Another thing that has seemed clear for several years is that Iran is very influential in the Iraqi government. Will this latest action have any effect on that situation?

And how will the Iranian and/or the Iraqi people respond to it all? Will they cheer – and if so, will it be privately, or publicly?

UPDATE: Here’s an interesting Twitter exchange:

“You can’t do anything”??

There are a lot of comments in the Twitter thread saying: “This didn’t age well.”

Comments

Trump’s threats were not empty: Suleimani, head of Iranian terrorism, killed in Baghdad — 86 Comments

  1. He had it coming. Fox News says Iran killed 608 U.S. troops during Iraq War.
    Let’s see what happens next.

  2. There are reports of public cheering in Iraq and Iran, as well as twitter thankyous from Iranians.

    I was surprised that the Iranians had misjudged Trump so thoroughly that they thought they could pull an Iranian American Embassy caper (a la Jimmy Carter) or a Ben Gazi Embassy caper (a la Obama/Biden/Clinton).

    Trump is one to take decisive and immediate action.

  4. Ben Norton, the guy responding to Elizabeth Warren’s tweet is one of the principal apologists and propagandists for authoritarian governments all over the world. His organization’s work can be easily found at #greyzoneproject. Their rhetoric is often Marxist, but they don’t have any problems with defending Assad or fundamentalist theocracies. They don’t have any consistent ideology other than being Anti-American. They call themselves “Journalists”.

  5. “Where does it end?”

    It ends with a mushroom cloud over Tehran.

    In the long run, the left’s propaganda of appeasement always results in a much greater cost.

  6. I read lots of reports before coming to this post.
    It is disgusting the way the Left and Democrats were apologizing for daring to offend Iran, and lionizing Suliemani (revered leader indeed, WaPo).
    I imagine most of you have seen the bulk of punditry by now.

    I am reposting below a comment I made on another post, because it accords with Edward’s observation above: “Trump is one to take decisive and immediate action.”

    A couple of observations of my own:
    (1) The time between the embassy attack and the taking-out of Iran’s top military leaders was much too short for a shoot-from-the-hip response by Trump; the Pentagon had to have had plans already in hand to take advantage of any opportunity that might occur once they got a GO – when Trump said “threat” that was exactly what he meant.
    (2) They had phenomenal intel on this mission.
    (3) There were no leaks, just as there were none on Trump’s previous “big stick” actions in the Middle East; NorKs and China are not doubt aware of that.
    (4) Ball is now in Iran’s court.
    (5) Leftists & Dems posturing about “assassination” and “provocation” are (as usual) ignoring the fact that we have actually been in a lukewarm, occasionally hotter, war with Iran for a minimum of 40 years.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations#The_1979_revolution
    ..Sulieman’s death is already in Wikipedia, BTW.

    https://www.thenewneo.com/2020/01/01/trumps-benghazi/#comment-2473237
    AesopFan on January 3, 2020 at 3:54 am said:
    Above I quoted J. E. Dyer: “Trump doesn’t rub bromides on political crises like a topical ointment. He doesn’t like using military operations as policy tokens; he prefers to use military operations for their most straightforward purpose: changing situations on the ground, in order to decisively affect the will of the opponent.”

    That didn’t take long.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pentagon-declares-us-killed-qassim-soleimani-on-trumps-orders

    Only one of the about 20 posts I’ve read tonight.

  7. Good point from Dyer:
    https://libertyunyielding.com/2020/01/02/pentagon-confirms-strike-near-baghdad-airport-killed-soleimani-top-iraqi-militia-leader-muhandis/

    Soleimani’s demise, as well as that of the PMF leaders, is unalloyed good news. Of course, one of the most important aspects of this is the response of Donald Trump to Iranian provocations — very different from the typical response of the previous administration. Twitter isn’t sparing the voices of the Obama administration (or the media) tweeting angry criticism of Trump tonight.

    Beyond the demonstration of will by Trump, whose impact should not be minimized, there is the operational-analytical point that the Soleimani meeting in Baghdad had to be about something big. Not only was Soleimani there in person, but there were reportedly at least four top PMF leaders, and possibly a leader from Lebanese Hezbollah as well. The latter is unconfirmed, but if he was there his presence indicates an intent to widen the retaliatory campaign beyond attacking Americans in Iraq to attacking Israel, and probably Americans in Israel and Saudi Arabia.
    …
    Is the Iraqi national government prepared to deal with the political earthquake ensuing from the death of Soleimani? It is if we are working with it, and it is smart enough to work with us. The U.S. has to be prepared: not to do the work for the Iraqis, but to bolster them against the inevitable backlash and pressure from Tehran. The good news is we can assume Trump knows that.

    Defense Secretary Esper said this evening, “The game has changed.” Manifestly so.

    I’ll conclude with something I emailed earlier (because why duplicate the work):
    We’ve already had at least 16 years of justification for taking these guys out (more, depending on how you calculate it). Justification-wise, there was no political need to wait and see what Soleimani was doing, meeting with Kataib Hezbollah and Lebanese Hezbollah in Baghdad. In terms of operational effectiveness, the impact will be preventing highly coordinated near-term retaliation against the US in the Middle East and against Israel (and Saudi Arabia, for that matter).

    Longer term, more will need to be done. (Preemption has to be carried through with alertness and a plan to reset conditions, so that it doesn’t all just revert to what it was before, but with more resentment.)

    But if we got Soleimani, that’s “yuuge.”

  8. ICYMI, this is a not-negligible change in the Executive department.

    https://libertyunyielding.com/2020/01/02/more-winning-trumps-national-security-adviser-quietly-slashes-obama-bloated-nsc-staff/

    One of the beauties of this move is that it’s a decision about how to use the Executive Office of the President (EOP) that is entirely within the president’s discretion – which is why Obama got away with bloating the National Security Council staff up in the first place.

    The Washington Times reports that President Trump’s National Security Adviser, Robert C. O’Brien (successor to John Bolton), is “downsizing sharply” the NSC staff from its high count under Obama, which at one point reached as many as 450 people. This report, on the last day of 2019, is good news for the first day of 2020.

    The good news is about more than the fact that cutting the staff will move a lot of people out of the White House complex, where some of them – “Obama holdovers” – have served a cottage industry of “leaking” to the media. It’s even more about accountability and good government, neither of which was served by moving policy-making positions onto the NSC staff and putting people in the NSC positions who (during Obama’s tenure) reportedly had trouble even qualifying for security clearances.

    …[details of Obama era shenanigans] …

    Trump and O’Brien appear to be trimming the NSC back to something more like its original mission. Says O’Brien: “The NSC is a coordinating body.”

    That was actually the intent of its architects in the National Security Act of 1947. It was meant to facilitate coordination between agencies – not to concentrate policy execution in a single body in the EOP that operates effectively outside the chains of command of the departments and agencies through which Congress can exert policy influence.
    …
    The important aspect of the reorganization, however, is that it will restore some balance and congressional insight and influence in national security policy. No one on the National Security Council staff, starting with the adviser, has to be approved by the Senate. The NSC principals — the heads of departments and agencies — do have to be approved. So do their budgets.

    The staff reduction will also put policy accountability and policy horsepower where they belong. It will reduce the cases of secretaries — defense, state, homeland security — being undercut by NSC staffers who are nominally their own personnel. It will also help relieve the problem of stinging hornets sent by cabinet departments to sit on the NSC, under the president’s armpit, without his affirmative cognizance. Mike Pompeo can be trusted to put the right people at the NSC staff, but the same can’t necessarily be said of every subordinate at Foggy Bottom who might have the authority to make such assignments.

  9. https://libertyunyielding.com/2020/01/02/u-s-begins-enforcing-remain-in-mexico-at-arizona-border/

    Not strictly on topic, but it might help reduce the infiltration of Iranian and other Islamist agents through the porous Southern border,* as they set out in righteous indignation to wreak vengeance on the Great Satan for … daring to call them on their bluster about retaliating for the US retaliation against the Iranian provocation that was retaliation for…mixed dancing in Greeley Colorado in the forties.
    Oh wait, that was the Egyptian Qutb, who influenced the Saudis Ayman Zarahiri & Osama bin Laden.
    Sorry.
    …admitting the terminally ill former Shah to the US for medical treatment.
    (well, among other things…but that was the proximate cause of the embassy hostage crisis)

    *
    https://clarionproject.org/iran-hezbollah-use-mexican-drug-cartels-to-inflitrate-us/

  10. A good summary of the build up to yesterday’s kinetic military action.

    https://freebeacon.com/columns/trump-calls-the-ayatollahs-bluff/

    Matthew Continetti – JANUARY 2, 2020 9:25 PM

    The successful operation against Qassem Soleimani, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, is a stunning blow to international terrorism and a reassertion of American might. It will also test President Trump’s Iran strategy. It is now Trump, not Ayatollah Khamenei, who has ascended a rung on the ladder of escalation by killing the military architect of Iran’s Shiite empire. For years, Iran has set the rules. It was Iran that picked the time and place of confrontation. No more.
    Reciprocity has been the key to understanding Donald Trump. Whether you are a media figure or a mullah, a prime minister or a pope, he will be good to you if you are good to him. Say something mean, though, or work against his interests, and he will respond in force. It won’t be pretty. It won’t be polite. There will be fallout. But you may think twice before crossing him again.

    That has been the case with Iran. President Trump has conditioned his policies on Iranian behavior.

  11. Details on the US actions prior to the strike.

    https://www.meforum.org/60196/the-unthinkable-soleimani-killed-in-iraq

    Reports emerged after four in the morning, Iraqi time. A mysterious airstrike near the airport had led to rumors of its closure hours earlier. Two flights were inbound at the time. A Pegasus and Iraq airways flight. Three or four rockets impacted near the airport. US helicopters were reported buzzing in the distance.
    …
    It appears a cryptic tweet from US Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced the US policy to begin pre-emptive strikes against Iranian adversaries or their proxies. “To Iran and its proxy militias: We will not accept the continued attacks against our personnel and forces in the region. Attacks against us will be met with responses in the time, manner and place of our choosing. We urge the Iranian regime to end malign activities.”

    It is not known if the US acted alone or who else may be responsible for the airstrike. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had called Middle East leaders in the last days to firm up support and discuss strategy. He called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia. He also phoned Iraqi leaders and Qatar. He warned Muhandis as well as Qais Khazali, a Shi’ite militia leader the US had sanctioned. He then warned the leaders of the Iranian-backed Popular Mobilization Units, Hadi al-Amiri and Faleh al-Fayed.

    …[so: no Pearl Harbor sneak attack*; lots of details follow about prior altercations, and biographical notes; Suleiman really was a kind of austere warrior, if not exactly a scholar — but I suspect it was as much of an act as Castro’s “just a soldier” front] …

    For Soleimani and Muhandis, all was well in December even as US rhetoric increased. They did not believe the US would decisively respond, as Pompeo threatened. They had seen national security adviser John Bolton and other Iran hawks go. They judged US President Donald Trump an isolationist. They tried to push the US, via attacks in the Gulf and against Saudi Arabia and then against US forces. The US said 11 attacks targeted bases since October.

    Finally, after the killing and wounding of Americans on December 27 the US acted.
    Kataib Hezbollah responded on December 29 with the attack on the US embassy. Working with Badr Organization commander Hadi al-Amiri who plays a role in the PMU and parliament, they opened the gates to the Green Zone and PMU members in fatigues assaulted the embassy. They wrote “Soleimani is my leader” on the guardhouses. It was a symbol. They were saying Soliemani runs Iraq and Baghdad, not the US.

    Forty-eight hours later Soleimani and Muhandis were targeted in an airstrike near the airport. It is a fitting end to men who believed there would be no response to provocations.

    The Iranians must have really believed their own propaganda, to send so many of their top leaders into Baghdad after essentially blowing raspberries at Trump just a few days before.

    And despite all the calls around the region, it doesn’t look like anybody leaked any operational details.

    *yes, I know the Japanese supposedly intended to declare war on the US immediately prior to dropping their bombs, but the message didn’t get to the White House as planned.

  13. Powerline makes instructive observations, and links a post that shows how clueless are the usual pundits.

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/report-rocket-strike-takes-out-the-odious-gen-soleimani.php

    In the wake of Soleimani’s demise, however, we should at least see a cessation, for a while anyway, of articles like this one, published in the National Interest after the attack on our embassy, called “How Tehran Rolled Donald Trump In Iraq.” That “rolling” didn’t work out well for Tehran’s most important military man.

    JOHN adds: This is excellent news. However, watch for the U.S. press to root non-stop for the mullahs.

    https://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-tehran-rolled-donald-trump-iraq-110206

    January 1, 2020
    On its face, it would seem that Soleimani and the Mullahs of Iran are pursuing a policy that is counterproductive. If their objective is to drive the United States out of Iraq, and ultimately out of the Middle East, it certainly seems that their support for attacks on American facilities, and for the storming of Washington’s Baghdad Embassy, so reminiscent of the Hostage Crisis of 1979, would likely to have the opposite effect. After all, Donald Trump has made it clear that he is determined not to allow another “Libya” on his watch. He might actually carry out his “threats” in response to any further efforts to sack the embassy, or worse still, to seize or injure American diplomats and other American personnel. At some point, he might order American troops to fire on the rioters, among whom may well be Iranian fighters, the equivalent of Russia’s “little green men.” He could do no less without being seen as a “loser,” the appellation he most abhors, indeed fears.

    Were American troops to fire on Iranians, however, the Ayatollahs could treat any such incidents as an opportunity to rally the highly nationalistic Iranian public and order Tehran’s proxies, or even Soleimani’s Quds Force, openly to attack American facilities throughout Iraq. Soleimani may be betting that given the American public’s disenchantment with Washington’s “endless” Middle East conflicts, Trump, despite his threats, would be reluctant to retaliate by unleashing the full might of American power to eliminate Iran’s presence in Iraq. Any such effort could once again mire American forces in a prolonged Middle Eastern conflict, which, more than anything else, could damage Trump’s hopes of re-election.

    The president might resent being a “loser” in Iraq, but that image would pale before the prospect of his losing America’s presidential election. If saving his electoral fortunes calls for his leaving Iraq to Iran’s tender mercies, Trump will not hesitate to do so. After all, he could summon up the spirit of Ronald Reagan, and like his far more illustrious predecessor, call it nothing more than a “strategic redeployment.”

    Dov S. Zakheim was an under secretary of defense (2001–4) and a deputy under secretary of defense (1985–87). He is vice chairman of the Center for the National Interest.

    I wonder if Trump ever read “Ender’s Game”?
    Nah.
    Probably not.

  16. Not verified, but interesing.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/02/oh-snap-iraq-tv-confirming-u-s-airstrike-in-baghdad-kills-irg-leader-qassim-soleimani/

    atomichillbilly says:
    January 3, 2020 at 1:04 am
    Story is: the Iranians were about to pull a coup against the Iraqi government ?

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/breaking-report-before-u-s-drone-strike-fears-soleimani-was-in-iraq-to-lead-coup-arrest-president-salih-and-takeover-u-s-embassy/

    Nice before and after picture of the Iranian generalissimo

    joshashland says:
    January 3, 2020 at 2:50 am
    “What if the former commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Qassem Soleimani, visits Baghdad for a meeting and you know the address? The temptations to use hypersonic missiles will be many.”

    What are the odds? This was in the NYT article earlier on Jan 2 2020. Was this a warning that wasn’t heeded?

    Alec Rawls says:
    January 3, 2020 at 3:12 am
    Trump always makes a very fair offer, and is happy when his opponent doesn’t take it. 100% right in this case. Do not fear hostilities with Iran. The Mullahs can be knocked over with a feather. The had packed up and were ready to flee the Green Revolution when Obama stepped in to prop them up, announcing to the world the horrendous lie that the Green’s had asked the U.S. to stay out. (We later found out that they had actually made desperate appeals for U.S. help.)

    The domestic situation of the Mullahs is now at the same precipice. All we would have to do is drop crates of rifles and ammunition to the already rebelling population, or go in and knock off the right 100 people ourselves.

    This is no Iraq. The people have been trying to free themselves for 20+ years and trying desperately for 10. Helping them knock over their oppressors will not just free Iran but will turn the corner on Iraq as well. It is Iran that is ruining Iraq.

    I hope Sundance is not right that Pompeo manipulated Trump into this. I hope they instead have been working together. But there are a number of places where Trump’s economic warfare, as fast and efficient as it is for dealing with economically powerful enemies, is too slow for dealing with economically weak enemies who happen to occupy crucial squares on the chess board.

    Venezuela is another example. We can knock Maduro out easily. Again: take out the right hundred people and we can effect regime change. Our of fear of the treasonous Democrats’ control of the press and the public response we instead sit while Russia and China angle to pick up this most resource rich little plot on planet earth for a song.

    The Iran square is more like a center square on the board. When we can knock them over with a feather don’t delay.

    Timmy-the-Ute says:
    January 3, 2020 at 4:55 am
    I know that SD thinks that the Deep State in the State Department is pushing Pres Trump in to a war with Iran. A few points need to be made. We know thru Kerry Iran has inside contacts with the Deep State part of the State Dept. The Deep State is convinced that Pres. Trump is a pawn of Putin and Russia. They are going to tell Iran that Pres. Trump would not have acted against such a high Iranian figure without Putin’s approval. Pres. Trump talked with Putin last weekend. As a result Iran will be very weary of being aggressive if they have fears of Russia no longer backing them. Looks like 3-D chess to me and Pres. Trump just beat the founders of chess. Pres. Trump has got Iran doubting all of their friends for protection or intelligence.

  17. CTH has a lot of Trump supporters.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/02/soleimani-dead-sketchy-details-emerging-airstrikes-at-baghdad-airport-cargo-area/

    Anybody know anything about “Red Wedding” and “earthquake” reports?

    oodeluph says:
    January 3, 2020 at 4:09 am
    Yes. It is a game changer. President Trump has launched the “Red Wedding” at Iran and, as of this comment, everyone involved in fomenting the attack on the U.S. embassy is either dead or in the custody of the U.S. Marines. There is a report that the Iranian nuclear facility has suffered a 5 point “earthquake” and that Hezbollah leaders are being mopped up faster than a harried mom can wipe up a spilled cup of milk.
    Sundance has and will continue to have my deepest regard but, with all due respect, perhaps remembering his own observations about President Trump are in order; Trump is, above all, a very, very intelligent man and a planner. He does not go off half-cocked. He is calm and will allow a great deal of leeway… until it is proven that a situation calls for other measures. He listens to everything but makes his own decisions. And he NEVER starts fights. He finishes them.

    Landslide says:
    January 3, 2020 at 1:25 am
    This guy supports PDJT and is a good source of info. Seems like he is Iranian and lives in the US. Reports alot about the protests by the people in both Iran and Iraq.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/heshmatalavi

    jrapdx says:
    January 3, 2020 at 2:25 am
    I sincerely doubt there will be “a bloody continental war on par with WW1” re: US actions against Iran. Given today’s arrests of militia leaders outside of Baghdad by US forces, it’s evident a much more comprehensive operation is underway to substantially degrade Iran’s ability to mount an attacks on US assets. Raising Iran’s cost of military response is likely to be an effective strategy—their resources are already severely depleted, it’s only a matter of time until the regime can’t sustain itself whatsoever.

    fred5678 says:
    January 3, 2020 at 4:56 am
    …
    A point that needs to be made over and over — not just a missile strike but arrests — and LOTS of good intelligence to orchestrate it all.

    xcontra says:
    January 3, 2020 at 1:40 am
    What the hell was an Iranian terror general doing in Iraq?

    Reply
    onevoiceinamerica says:
    January 3, 2020 at 1:51 am
    Community organizing.

    Mike in a Truck says:
    January 3, 2020 at 1:41 am
    Somebody did something.

    onevoiceinamerica says:
    January 3, 2020 at 1:49 am
    Looks like they stayed in touch. Obama Strikes a Deal–With Qassem Suleimani July 2015
    https://www.hudson.org/research/11436-obama-strikes-a-deal-with-qassem-suleimani
    Administration officials counsel calm, and explain that Suleimani is still on the U.S. terror list and will remain on the terror list. But that’s irrelevant.
    Obama likes Suleimani, and admires his work. As the president reportedly told a group of Arab officials in May, the Arabs “need to learn from Iran’s example.”
    Hindsight gets more 2020 all the time.

    joshashland also mentioned this in the above comments, but had no link.
    So — were there leaks or not?
    A pretty convoluted way to warn Iran, though; there are probably more direct channels.

    oldersoul says:
    January 3, 2020 at 2:03 am
    Mere hours BEFORE this strike, the NYT published the following:

    “Moreover, hypersonics are a weaponized moral hazard for states with a taste for intervention, because they erase barriers to picking fights. Is an adversary building something that might be a weapons factory? Is there an individual in an unfriendly country who cannot be apprehended? What if the former commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Qassem Soleimani, visits Baghdad for a meeting and you know the address? The temptations to use hypersonic missiles will be many.”

    http://archive.is/iXItp

    If that’s not an attempted tip-off, I don’t know what is.
    The corporate media is a greater enemy of America than Iran is.

    John Rawls says:
    January 3, 2020 at 2:31 am
    Soleimani’s subscription must have lapsed.

    John Rawls says:
    January 3, 2020 at 2:35 am
    Soleimani: “As a soldier, it is my duty to respond to Trump’s threats. If he wants to use the language of threat, he should talk to me, not to the president [Hassan Rowhani]. We are near you, where you can’t even imagine … Come. We are ready. If you begin the war, we will end the war.”

    I looked that one up. Rawls didn’t finish the quote.
    https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Iranian-general-As-a-soldier-it-is-my-duty-to-respond-to-Trumps-threats-563502
    Iran has dismissed a warning from Trump that Tehran risked dire consequences “the like of which few throughout history have suffered before” if it made threats against the United States.

    And in closing —

    Heshmat Alavi
    @HeshmatAlavi
    Sen. @ewarren says killing Soleimani was “reckless” & “increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict.”

    Me asking:
    Why didn’t you ever take such a position when Soleimani was killing hundreds of thousands across the Middle East?

    Shame.

    Payam Larestani
    @Payam_Larestani
    As an Iranian I sincerely thank you
    @realDonaldTrump
    for this Holiday gift to the ppl of midle east and specially Iran.
    #tnxPOTUS4Soleimani

  18. Look at Lebanon and Hezbollah there as a model for Iraq. This is clearly where Iraq is (or was, awaiting events) headed. So yeah, whether an immediate plot to overthrow any remaining Iraq loyal actors in government was underway or not, that’s where the Iranians are headed, and that is what (apparently) will be stopping here.

    Frankly, my sense is that if Iranian Islamic Revolutionary movement (i.e. Khamenei) would come to its senses, pull back to Persia from the subjected middle east, cease spouting hate and death, cease murdering, cease underwriting murderers, be more normal — just follow Sec. Pompeo’s listed items — Pres. Trump would permit those scum to maintain their lives.

    However, as there is no chance, zero, that the Islamist totalitarian pigs will do that . . . I think they will induce Pres. Trump to annihilate them. Tant pis.

  19. In case this got lost in all my commentary above:
    https://www.hudson.org/research/11436-obama-strikes-a-deal-with-qassem-suleimani
    by Lee Smith July 14, 2015

    The administration argues that Tehran will spend most of the money from sanctions relief on rescuing the economy, or fixing street lamps and potholes, and not so much on terrorism and other foreign adventures. But there can be no similar argument about buying and selling and smuggling arms since ending the embargo can only help the hardliners. Combining the two—tens of billions of dollars in immediate sanctions relief and an end to the embargo—is like loading a gun and handing it over to Qassem Suleimani. And that’s precisely what Obama intended: The way he sees it, he’s arming an American ally.

    “If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, …”

  20. Of the choices: act in response to threats and attacks, or turn the other cheek (you say appeasement) the decision of which to do is made based on an assessment of which will allow you to achieve your objective or goal. Trump’s goal is to get Iran to stop attacking the US and the West and to stop stirring up trouble in the region. Warren, et al, have a similar goal but think appeasement is the best way to achieve it; lift the sanctions, get the US out of the ME, allow Iran to fully develop nuclear weapon capability, allow Iran to threaten and pursue their goal of eliminating Israel.

    We’ll now see if Trump is right.

  21. Obama’s pigishness is a bit more puzzling of account, albeit just as plain a fact. But good riddance to bad rubbish.

  23. I believe this is a pretty good attempt on President Trump’s part to thread a very small needle with a very large thread.

    I hate agreeing with Democrats but we can’t afford a war with Iran. And yet, he had to do something. Either way, they were going to criticize his actions or inactions. This is decisive and surgical enough that it looks measured.

    That’s good. I just hope that ends it for a while. After nearly 20 years of non-stop war for our military, another war would be disastrous for all involved.

  24. Tony Badran, Tablet Magazine: US Kills Qassem Soleimani

    Despite the size of the threat he posed, two US presidents shied from taking out Soleimani. Even as Soleimani was harvesting American soldiers in Iraq with anti-tank missiles and roadside IEDs, President George W. Bush and his military commanders were too afraid to pull the trigger. Gen. Stanley McChrystal revealed a year ago how, when he was serving as the head of the Joint Special Operations Command in 2007, he had an opportunity to kill Soleimani, and very good reason to do so: “At the time, Iranian-made roadside bombs built and deployed at his command were claiming the lives of U.S. troops across Iraq.” But he didn’t, in order “to avoid a firefight, and the contentious politics that would follow.”

    A year later, another opportunity to kill Soleimani was wasted. During the operation to assassinate Hezbollah’s senior military commander, Imad Mughniyeh, in Damascus in 2008, Soleimani was present with Mughniyeh. “At one point, the two men were standing there, same place, same street. All they had to do was push the button,” a former US official disclosed in 2015. “But the operatives didn’t have the legal authority to kill Soleimani … There had been no presidential finding to do so.”

  25. I hate agreeing with Democrats but we can’t afford a war with Iran.

    I hate to be picky but hasten to point out we have been at war with Iran for decades, and can’t “afford” not to see that through to a finish. They aren’t about to quit: their “vote”. So we will carry on. We have multitudinous allies in Iran, as we will see in future days, as well as in Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and even Syria. Turkey won’t be disappointed we should rid them of a troublesome regional actor.

    So yes, we can altogether afford to take on Iran. And defeat them utterly.

  27. sdferr,

    You’re more sanguine than me. We have to agree to disagree.

    If we weren’t spread so thin already, if our military weren’t being undermined by Obama’s and the Deep States minions/PowerPoint rangers (who still haven’t been fired or cleaned out) and our navy ships weren’t colliding because the commanders on watch were having a spat and refusing to talk to each other while being wholly unprepared to use the latest high tech guidance systems, if it weren’t for all that, I might agree. Might.

  28. I may merely observe that some sense of “spread thin” — for instance, aloft, or troopers walking contested ground (“don’t bunch up”) — can be wholly appropriate. But in this case, I lay the emphasis on airpower. We are not going into a mucky ground war. As earlier remarked, we have many friends on the ground, friends who have much to gain when we and they are successful.

  29. “…McDonald’s…”

    Actually, now just another operator of a Mc72Virgins franchise.

    File under: “You deserve a drone today…”

  30. “You deserve a drone today…”

    Heh. “A drone”!

    Mike Doran looking at video of the attack on Hajj Q and counting explosions (he gets 10, I only get 8) says “they meant business”.

  31. The claim that we could have killed Suleimani before but didn’t would confirm something I’ve long thought about our current elites. These people are consumed with an “end of history” belief that the way things are now is the way they are eternally meant to be. All of their thinking focuses on maintaining or entrenching the current status quo.

    Look back at the Iraq War. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and company sure seemed convinced we could take out Saddam and NOTHING would change. How much of a plan was there for post-invasion Iraq?

    Mike

  32. Some thoughts this morning:

    President Trump:
    is NOT Jimmy Carter
    harvested more votes in his his quest to be reelected
    opened 2020 ‘with a bang’

    I’m a bit puzzled that one of the usual suspects haven’t bellowed that President Trump has ‘just opened The Gates Of Hell’.
    Or perhaps that is only a Palestinian folk expression.

  34. One of the problems with Persians is that historically their wars have been almost exclusively with Arabs. In 1948 Moshe Dayan said “”That’s the way it is when fighting with Arabs, if you put one knock on the tin bin – they all run away, like birds.” This I believe has imbued Iranians with a sense of bravado that is inconsistent with reality. Did they really think that the brazen attack on the Saudi oil facilities would go unanswered?

  35. Play terrorist games, win terrorist prizes in the form of Predator drones and Hellfire missiles.

    If Iran wants to ramp things up, we can sink their navy and crush their anti-ship forces station in and around the Straight of Hormuz.

  36. Speaker Pelosi has responded to the death of Soleimani with the very stupidity for which she is renowned. No link. No quote. Just the notation.

  37. I see where we are hearing from the hollyweirds, ( cusack, rose mcgown those 2 of all people) in addition to Warren & squad) about how terrible was the take out of
    Suleimoni. Oh my how dreadful the so called elites lamenting the loss of a terrorist mastermind WHO just happens to be a fellow elite. A bad guy but in their *club* nevertheless!

  38. Looking back on Trump’s Twitter feed, he went silent for 14 hours before the strike. He then tweeted the picture of the American flag after the operation had been successfully executed.

    If anyone in Natl Sec is reading this, please relay that they should never repeat this “tell”. Trump will need to continue tweeting in his normal manner in the hours leading up to any future ops.

  39. I see a pattern developing that Trump is willing to target the elites in charge instead of mere pawns and foot soldiers. I applaud this and am sorely tempted to append my personal list of bad guys as his next targets.

  40. “I hate agreeing with Democrats but we can’t afford a war with Iran.”

    1. We are at war with Iran.
    2. This dead Iranian actually makes it more likely that we can get out of the war with Iran.
    3. Next is taking out refineries.
    4. After that the Iranian Navy.
    5. After that it’s a year or so of “You deserve a drone today.”
    6. By taking out leadership from the top down you reduce the overall caliber of the remaining leadership and then you take that level out from the top down.

  41. WaPo is still on the job! Revering terrorist monsters, getting caught in the act then backpedaling.

    Washington Post ripped for calling Qassim Soleimani ‘Iran’s most revered military leader’

    …Some also hearkened back to when they referred to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi as an ” austere religious scholar.” The Washington Post changed the headline to both of the articles after backlash.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-post-ripped-for-calling-qassim-soleimani-irans-most-revered-military-leader

    The girl can’t help herself.

  42. Israel has bloodied Iran’s nose quite a few times recently with almost NO response. I suggest Iran is a paper tiger and while there may be a few skirmishes, war is the last thing they want and they gotta know Trump will not back down even if every Democrat will and promise them big cheques and access to nukes once they are in power.

  43. war is the last thing they want

    There’s much to this. Gotta feed an army, for instance. These schmucks can’t even properly feed their own people.

  44. With aggressive regimes like Iran who hate you, are working against you and killing your people, you fight ’em now or you fight ’em later.

    You get to choose the timing, strategy and tactics, as seems best, but the notion that if you just leave them alone or appease them enough, it all works out is bogus.

    1. We are at war with Iran.

    Quite right. Since 1979. It wasn’t our idea.

    An Iranian bomb remains one the most serious threats to the world. We may well wish Bush 43 and the Israelis had flattened that in the 2000s.

  45. “1. We are at war with Iran.”

    Indeed…. When a country regularly refers to your country as “The Great Satan” you are, in fact, at war with them, whether you call it as such or not.

  46. If only we’d had this capability and will when German troops crossed into Poland on September 1, 1939, or into the Rheinland in 1933. Trump sent his message 5 x 5: “No, we are not the same wimps you’ve been pushing around for years.”

    To those who say this is a dangerous escalation that will lead to war (Tucker Carlson, are you listening?), “Si vis pacem, para bellum.”

  47. Instapundit features a funny “meme”-picture with Trump as magician saying “And now for my next act I will make the Democrats defend Iran.”

    Poor things, they truly cannot help themselves.

  48. This comment is directed mainly to Huxley. I’m a long-time reader of and appreciator of Neo. I noticed, Huxley, that you mention New Mexico, Santa Fe, I-40, etc. I can’t remember if you have mentioned Abq, but I wonder if you live in Abq? My husband and I moved here 3 years ago from NYC. Last year I started a meetup called “Not of the Left” and through it I’ve met some smart and committed conservatives and made a few friends. I’ve thought it might be nice to connect with another Neo fan; you could join the meetup (our next meeting will be on Sat, Jan 18, 2:00-4:00, although I’m not sure if it’s been announced yet on the meetup website) or email me at kikisidibe@gmail.com. Best- Kiki

  49. Katherine Richardson: Yes, I’m in Abq near UNM. I’d love to. Will send email. Thanks!

  50. Tehran, the Kremlin, Sanders, Warren, and Biden condemn Trump for ordering the execution of a truly evil man, the murderer of many, including many Americans.

    But is it not odd that Iraq is an “ally” of the USA where Soleimani lands at its principal airport? Wow for the intelligence received about this!

    One must remember the decay of the Middle East was hastened, nay enabled, by our esteemed and apparently immortal Democratic Jimmy Carter, who refused to support the Shah and basically gave Iran to the ayatollahs, who today have nearly achieved a brutal Shia crescent from Pakistan to Syria.

    I do not think we can hit Iran too hard. Too bad for Iranian civilians, but….

  51. Look back at the Iraq War. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and company sure seemed convinced we could take out Saddam and NOTHING would change. How much of a plan was there for post-invasion Iraq?

    MBunge: I suggest you look back at the Iraq War. What you write is so over-simplified, I’d say it’s dishonest, but I suspect you haven’t done your due diligence to the other side of that argument.

    Try reading almost anything by Victor Davis Hanson at that time or even neo’s posts back then.

    If Trump’s Iran reprisal goes south — and it could — will you be going on about how Trump’s team didn’t plan for it?

  52. These schmucks can’t even properly feed their own people.

    They’re having acute problems right now, but life expectancy at birth has increased by 30 years since 1960 and is similar to that of the United States ca. 1985. I seem to recall we were eating passably back then.

  53. Neo
    Defiantly Iraqi more happy and pleasured by this action
    My internal sources telling there wide saprade happiness between Iraqis with all different ethnics due to what they suffer for the last 16 years from this guy and his regime

  54. “The temptations to use hypersonic missiles will be many.”

    Unless we just became Russia, the US does not have any Hypersonic missiles

    The AGM-183A is not in service yet… still being played with..
    “The hypersonic missile is expected to be completed by 2022.”
    And its already been topped big time by Russia, same as they topped our torpedoes… And china topped our anti-ship missiles…

    so the author of the above sentence and paragraph doesn’t even know what we have or can use or did use. Besides, what idiot would use a hypersonic missile which would be 100 million each instead of a 1.87 million dollar Tomahawk?

    The only thing that we have that goes hypersonic are nuclear and very expensive… so its the same as not having them… (LGM-30 Minuteman (land based), UGM-133 Trident II *30 million each)

    guessing? its probably a BGM-109 Tomahawk from a submarine (it can be launched by land as well)… its Mach .7

    if ya gonna surmise whats going on, would help to know what we have and use and deploy…

    kind of reminds me of when Elvis got in trouble trying to shoot flies with a hand gun

    [Note we have used these in the hundreds over the past years. they are well regarded, work very well, not too expensive, and are launched from sea…]

  55. who refused to support the Shah and basically gave Iran to the ayatollahs, who today have nearly achieved a brutal Shia crescent from Pakistan to Syria.

    Shia are unusual in Syria and atypical in Pakistan.

    Carter was a dithering nincompoop with bad judgment about social relations outside of environments he knew intimately, but the regime’s implosion wasn’t his doing, it was the regime’s. One of the Shah’s last prime ministers supposedly told a visiting dignitary at the end of 1978: “the Shah cannot make up his mind, and for that reason the country is lost”. Recall the Shah was terminally ill, and died just a year and a half later. Look at what lurks in that family: two of his five children died by suicide, and one of the survivors is a childless spinster. Empress Farah latched on to her (deceased) younger son’s ba*tard child, one assumes because that’s the only grandson she has.

  57. The left has WWIII trending..
    yeah… we would go into a world war over Iraq
    ground war maybe as Russia needs its land bridge
    so do not expect much of anything as its a hot potato no one wants to hold

    The actual fall and change of Iran would prevent munitions from easily traveling from one place to another in quantities enough to cause issues. So nothing is really going to happen, as whoever takes it that is not on the same side of those that critically need it to prevent raw materials from entering the markets, would have lots and lots and lots of troubles with it.

  58. Art Deco: I meant from the western Paki border to the eastern Syrian border! Sorry for the unclarity.
    Yes, the Shah was ill, but that did not negate the strategic importance of Iran, which had real non-fundamentalist strengths in its population. Carter threw Iran away.

  60. I was just looking over the photos of the results… the damage is too small for a tomahawk… and it was to the vehicles they drove in.. so i am 99% sure it was a smaller munition from the air.. probably laser guided…

    in the scheme of things a VERY surgical strike…
    almost nothing else but the vehicle was damaged
    only the crash rails on one side of the road were affected!

  61. This is going to be a big nothing burger, a lot of noise, sound and fake fury, but nothing will come of it and the event is over… the left is really not going to like it as they ramp up for a empty hall…

  64. “MBunge: I suggest you look back at the Iraq War. What you write is so over-simplified, I’d say it’s dishonest, but I suspect you haven’t done your due diligence to the other side of that argument.”

    Oh, not THIS again. When somebody sets you on fire, it’s not necessary to determine the exact nature of the accelerant nor with what precisely you were ignited. You just need to jump in the lake. Unfortunately, people like you are still running about ablaze for what’s soon going to be 17 years. It would be kind of impressive if we didn’t have to constantly worry about you catching the rest of us on fire.

    I don’t know how old you are but I was a grown adult when the Iraq War happened. I don’t need to review what other people have said or wrote about it. I SAW IT HAPPEN IN REAL TIME. That President Bush and company did not adequately plan for the post-war environment in Iraq was obvious in the weeks and months immediately following the invasion. That they did not even vaguely appreciate or anticipate the probable consequences of their actions HAS JUST BEEN DEMONSTRATED by a U.S. airstrike on an Iranian general tooling around Baghdad like he was going to a high school reunion.

    And you know what? If Trump and his Administration are so utterly unprepared and clueless about what might happen next that we’re still dealing with the aftermath of this airstrike 17 years down the road…I probably will be somewhat critical, even though right now I’m marginally supportive of the attack. One’s opinions should conform to what is, not what we wish it was.

    And just to be clear, I WAS relatively supportive of the Iraq War. I didn’t think it was the greatest idea I’d ever heard but I supported it. I was wrong and I’ve tried to learn from that mistake. It’s a novel concept you might want to consider.

    Mike

  65. Good job Pres. Trump!
    “Kill one for the Gipper!” or more!
    Heck, there’s whole tribes full of them…
    PJs has some more news about it, including more marine action.
    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/the-morning-briefing-trump-fulfills-his-new-year-promise-to-iran/

    There’s also the letter from Joe Biden, accepting that no American will mourn the death of General S. Terror, tho no congrats to Trump or the current admin.
    Then there’s Biden’s Dem complaint that this is a “highly escalatory move”, and his prediction that Trump’s rationale for doing this “almost certainly will have the opposite effect”.

    Trump claims the goal is to deter future attacks. I think Trump is right, and Biden is wrong, but Biden has some logic.

    Here’s the logic: The US should not escalate conflict, because Iran can kill more Americans and do more damage to the USA.

    Trump uses that logic in reverse. What Biden, Warren, and other critics fail to do, understandably, is to use that logic with Iran:
    Iran should not escalate conflict, because America can kill more Iranians and do more damage to Iran. Trump’s attacks are showing he is willing to hurt Iran more.

    Trump has long been a successful counterpuncher. The bad guy punches first, and Trump, the good guy, punches back. But harder.

    Iran has long been hitting America about as hard as it could. America has never hit Iran “hard”, but Trump is threatening that it would do what it always could do but so far has chosen not to. “This is a Threat, not a Warning.” – Trump

    Trump’s threat remains stronger.

    Some background:

    After Iran attacked Saudi oil in September, without much military punishment, Iranian proxies killed some contractors in Iraq, including an American. America attacked some 5 different Iranian affiliated targets on Dec 30. Iran sent Iraqi allies against the US Embassy, at the same time as having a high level meeting of terrorist leaders (maybe a coup against Iraq?). Trump attacked the meeting, killing multiple terrorists.

    By Nov. 2020, Trump’s Iran-Iraq policy is likely to look even better than the no-longer talked about Turkey-Kurd-Syria policy.

    Let’s not forget to mention the hypocritical Dems who complain about Trump leaving parts of Syria, but now complain about him killing a top Iranian terrorist. I don’t think this will make the Dems look at all better, but will make Trump look both stronger and again better than the ‘experts’ on the mid-East.

  66. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/breaking-report-before-u-s-drone-strike-fears-soleimani-was-in-iraq-to-lead-coup-arrest-president-salih-and-takeover-u-s-embassy/

    by Kristinn Taylor January 2, 2020
    A report by Al Hurra reporter Steven Nabil shows that sources close to the Iraqi government said to him hours before the U.S. attack that killed Iran Quds Force leader Major General Qassem Soleimani as he arrived at the Baghdad airport–reportedly from Syria–that there were fears in the Iraqi government that Soleimani was going to lead a coup and overthrow the government, arrest President Barham Salih and takeover the U.S. embassy.
    …
    One since deleted translation read, “Because Iranian militias and leaders are present, intending a coup and the elimination of important governmental, military and party figures. At the head of the list is Barham Salih, under the charge of working for America. Their plan is to withdraw all their military units and declare a people’s government on this basis while they control the branches of government and give a deadline for the American embassy to withdraw its employees.”

    Another since deleted translation reads, “The image says: The militias and the Iranian leaders want to overthrow and kill Iraqi big officials and parties leaders, and military leader ms. Barham Salih is on the top of the list. Their plan is to seize power in Iraq, giving the U.S embassy a time-limit to withdraw”

    (had this queued up to post early this morning and forgot to submit; news may have changed by now)

  67. Oh, not THIS again. When somebody sets you on fire, it’s not necessary to determine the exact nature of the accelerant nor with what precisely you were ignited. You just need to jump in the lake. Unfortunately, people like you are still running about ablaze for what’s soon going to be 17 years.

    MBunge: “People like [me]” include neo and Victor Davis Hanson. Apparently you don’t read them; you just spout invective and ad homs.

    I don’t demand you agree with me — as you seem to require of your opponents — I simply say that there is another side and it’s worthy of consideration and respect.

    But that seem beyond you.

  68. MBunge:

    I very strongly suggest that you read this as well as this.

    And one of the things the Bush administration didn’t anticipate was the pullout by Obama when things were much improved. But I don’t think they’re responsible for that.

  69. MBunge: you may want to consider that the Iraq war should have led to a permanent strong US military presence in the middle of the ME viper’s nest.

    But you correctly observe the US occupation of Iraq was bungled from the get-go, facilitated by the MSM’s long hysteria about Abu Graib.

    I believe there was insufficient George W-Rumsfeld geostrategic thinking: after Saddam’s fall, Iraq should have been formally divided into three states, a Kurdistan, a Sunnistan (Baghdad and surroundings, which hold no oil) and a Shiastan eastern Iraq which was certain to fall under the Iranian umbrella anyway. With a central “island” US military stronghold/airbase, several hundreds of thousands of acres, housing a US force of a least 20,000. None of this purple finger BS!

  70. Some people not in Lt. Col. Vindman’s circle have been getting good intel.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/03/secretary-pompeo-discusses-killing-of-qassem-soleimani/

    After a U.S. airstrike kills Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Iraq, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tells ‘Fox & Friends’ that President Trump’s decision was necessary to deter further aggression and disrupt an ongoing terror plot.

    Trump just did a game-changer; whether that will tank his re-election or cement it is up for grabs.
    I do think that he knows more about popular response to foreign entanglements than any of the Dems or most GOP past-elites do; and he has wooed the troops (authentically, not cynically) from Day One, to the point that the boots-on-the-ground will walk through hellfire missiles for him.

    The Boss says:
    January 3, 2020 at 3:09 pm
    The greater punishment will be having to endure days of pearl-clutching, hypocritical democrat socialists spewing utter nonsense to their broadcast media pimps. I could care less about a dead Iranian dog. Same goes for my active duty son.

    Dee Paul Deje says:
    January 3, 2020 at 3:05 pm
    Khamenei: “You Can’t Do Anything.”
    POTUS: Hold my beer Diet Coke.

    This warning also has shown up in civilian news reports.

    JohnCasper says:
    January 3, 2020 at 3:06 pm
    https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/01/state-dept-tells-americans-to-immediately-leave-iraq-after-top-iranian-general-killed/

    The U.S. State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq have advised Americans in the country to leave Iraq as soon as possible after U.S. airstrikes killed a top Iranian general who was devising attacks on diplomats and service members in the country.

    The U.S. State Department’s travel advisory updated this week lists Iraq as a red-alert “Level 4: Do Not Travel” zone, but a new alert issued Friday morning warns citizens to “depart Iraq immediately.”

    “U.S. citizens in Iraq are at high risk for violence and kidnapping. Numerous terrorist and insurgent groups are active in Iraq and regularly attack both Iraqi security forces and civilians,” the travel advisory warned. “Anti-U.S. sectarian militias may also threaten U.S. citizens and Western companies throughout Iraq. Attacks by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) occur in many areas of the country, including Baghdad.”

    The advisory further warns those U.S. citizens who persist with their travel plans to Iraq to draft a will and discuss funeral arrangements with loved ones beforehand.

    “U.S. citizens should not approach the Embassy,” the alert stated.

    The security alert further advised U.S. citizens seeking visas or passports that they can go to The U.S. Consulate General in Erbil, the capital of the Iraqi Kurdistan region.

    Travel – State Dept ?
    @TravelGov

    #Iraq: Due to heightened tensions in Iraq and the region, we urge U.S. citizens to depart Iraq immediately. Due to Iranian-backed militia attacks at the U.S. Embassy compound, all consular operations are suspended. U.S. citizens should not approach the Embassy.

    Great minds..

    sherryoftexas says:
    January 3, 2020 at 3:07 pm
    I’m wondering if the timing wasn’t also meant as as two/for, to also remind NK of possibilities.

  73. https://pjmedia.com/trending/obama-administration-stopped-israel-from-assassinating-soleimani-in-2015-report-says/

    When President Donald Trump gave the order to kill Iran’s Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani, he not only made an arguably proportionate response to the invasion of the U.S. Embassy this week but he also reversed a policy of the Obama administration. According to a report from 2018, Israel was “on the verge” of assassinating Soleimani in 2015, but Obama’s officials foiled the plan. In fact, they reached out to Iran with news of Israel’s plans.

    The Trump administration, on the other hand, gave Israel a green light to assassinate Soleimani, according to a January 1, 2018 report from the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida. The paper quoted a source in Jerusalem as saying that “there is an American-Israeli agreement” that Soleimani is a “threat to the two countries’ interests in the region.” According to Haaretz, Al-Jarida is generally assumed to be a platform for the Israeli government to disseminate its message to other Middle Eastern governments.
    …
    If the Pentagon is correct and Soleimani orchestrated the invasion of the U.S. Embassy, the airstrike against him is proportionate. If war comes, it will be the fault of Iran, not Trump.

    It will also be the fault of the Obama administration, which thwarted Israel’s attempt to stop Soleimani five years ago. How many Americans have died because the Obama administration prevented Israel from carrying out this hit?

    Somebody tell me again why we didn’t impeach Obama for colluding with a foreign government?

  76. Ben Shapiro
    ?
    @benshapiro
    Just to get this straight, according to Democrats, giving the Iranian terror regime access to hundreds of billions of dollars with no restrictions on terror use or ballistic missile testing was good, and killing the terrorist responsible for hundreds of American deaths is bad.

    CharlestonSC
    @CharlestonSC294
    Replying to @benshapiro
    To get Democrats on board with killing the terrorist Suleimani, Democrats would have to be told that Suleimani consistently refused to use a person’s preferred pronoun.

  77. Reading Twitchy so you don’t have to — and this works with Instapundit’s meme as well.
    https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2020/01/03/wth-we-love-trump-even-more-now-cnn-writes-entire-piece-about-trump-eating-ice-cream-during-airstrike-and-omg-lol/

    To be completely honest, when we saw this tweet from CNN Politics we had to double-check that it wasn’t The Onion or someone hilariously parodying CNN but nope … this is real.

    Imagine how absolutely gone you have to be to think this is somehow a story worth putting out there.

    CNN Politics
    ?
    @CNNPolitics
    President Trump dined on ice cream as news of the airstrike broke https://cnn.it/2SPsJKZ

    …
    OMG NOT ICE CREAM! WAS IT TWO SCOOPS THIS TIME?!

    From CNN:

    As news broke that the US struck and killed Qasem Soleimani, President Trump was dining at his Mar-a-Lago club, surrounded by old friends and others like House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

    As meatloaf and ice cream were served, the Pentagon confirmed that the US was behind the strikes, the only statement from the administration throughout the night.

    Putting this airstrike in perspective: The scene Friday was similar to the one after Trump gave the order for American forces to carry out the missile strike on a Syrian airfield in the spring 2017.

    After that strike, Trump went into great detail about the chocolate cake he had with Chinese President Xi Jinping, who was there for a summit, when he informed him about the series of tomahawk missiles.

    Trump owns these people.

    https://www.thenewneo.com/2020/01/03/trumps-threats-were-not-empty-suleimani-head-of-iranian-terrorism-killed-in-baghdad/#comment-2473307

    sdferr on January 3, 2020 at 12:48 pm said:
    Instapundit features a funny “meme”-picture with Trump as magician saying “And now for my next act I will make the Democrats defend Iran.”

    Poor things, they truly cannot help themselves.

  78. Gerard Vanderleun brings up a salient point that most people forget ( I can’t; I spent 20 yrs in the Navy much of it off the coast of Iran). Iran declared war on us in 1979.

    At first I found the Dems antics funny. Our job as conservatives is to get the message across. My fellow Americans, they hate you. And here they are showing America just how much.

    But then I grew angry. Iran, a declared enemy of the USA, is watching too. And yet they prefer Iran to this country while DJT is President.

    Treason is a word that is used too cheaply. But in this case no other word will do.

    Article III; Treason against the United States shall consist only of levying war against them, adhering to an enemy of them, giving it aid and comfort…

    Iran has long declared war on us. But there the Dems were, adhering to Iran and giving aid and comfort.

  79. Cicero on January 3, 2020 at 1:57 pm said:
    Artfldgr, your thoughts are not clearly expressed this time.

    I explained a while back and didnt want to waste space rehashing things that, when put forth, take too long and get cut down…

    but for the most part, when the war in Iraq was going on, everyone was on the narrative, but few were looking at maps to see what the actual objective of such things were when you put them together… and or listening to the speeches or rhetoric of leaders of countries like russia, who used certain terms that would clue one in. in this case, the term was buffer.

    turkey, iran, iraq, afghanistan, etc… with Iran being the last piece of the puzzle..
    would have turned out to be a one country buffer zone the way that the white russian states were being used to put one country between russia and any potential enemies. europe had to go through those before they got to russia, and russia had no problem if they wanted the reverse given who ran what.

    i wrote extensively as to the history and this point… but in short, if one wanted to end the conflicts in the middle east, one has to at some point stop the flow of the supply of military equipment that is so ubiquitous and gets updated and resupplied… (and from there, goes to africa as well)

    Russia is a resources state, not a productive one. It manufactures very little that the world needs and gets a huge amount of its revenue and living from digging holes, refining, and selling raw materials out onto the open market… almost anything that threatens that, especially by lower prices or other things, tends to be the point of conflict. this is rarely paid attention to.

    for example, what is the raw material potential of Africa? huge.. if Africa could produce without the conflict and other games (same weapons), these things would come on the market. Everything from more diamonds, to oil, to rare earths, to raw metals. they currently do, but not in a way that would match a open non conflict capitalist means.

    a lot of this has to do with knowing russian history which most in the west really dont… the devils are in the details… take for instance the syrian conflict… why? what is it about? well, its about gas line competition… as several lines have to go through there to be whole and to deliver such to europe and give them an alternative. at one point i put up maps, gas line maps, and more to make my case, but such things take up too much space, ignore the narrative, and in the long run, neo cuts them for space… which is her perogative

    Russia leverages a lot with gas supply and has many pipelines…

    but also, russia makes money from arms, and weapons, and experts..
    and long posts cut down showed that they needed land to transport such
    airplanes are limited in their capacity, and quite easy to track and watch
    ships have been refused to be unloaded, and thats an issue too

    the syrian conflict has with it, as a foot note to the narrative, gas lines from UAE, as well as new fields in the Levant, as well as others… these were to supply europe and would be in competition.

    similarly, just after Russia put up new communications satellites… internet and phone cables magically got cut… and of course the fastest easiest way to get back up and running was to use the capacity in these new satellites (and they of course would expose information, even if it was just flow and point to point info)

    people seldom notice or realize that in order to have a large conflict and never ending such, you have to keep re-supplying the destination with more and more material. not just the big stuff that is sold openly and transported openly… but the other stuff… and expertise… as there is a definitive lack of art in what gets made and done, despite the ease of which such things can be created.

    There is a long history of these things, which ALSO includes the outcome of defectors and libraries and those kinds of things which neo doesnt include in discussions or as a focus. and others tend to ignore… funny how much money goes into the agencies and how little we pay attention to what is known and not tin hat… not even hidden… just sitting there… not even all that exciting… as a lot of it has to do with boring economics not war plans.

    anyway… as you can see, even a light outline that would clear up things tends to get long… but take a look at a map.. and if you think that weapons, experts, and other things have to travel by land, the conflicts in boring little countries like Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Armenia, etc… become clear… they happen to just be in a bad location.

    Even the Kuwait period makes a lot more sense… and you dont have to conjure up more than moving material that causes conflicts we all watch that never end and are economic in their ultimate nature. its a pretty simple thing that explains alliances and other stuff without much cryptic anything..

    you want to move material from Russia into the middle east, ships and planes are not the way but land which cant be monitored is.. you need Armenia and ajerbaijan… you want to move over the Caspian sea, whats on the other side and who says the US has to stay out? If Iraq becomes unfriendly or occupied, you either need Turkey to look the other way, or Kuwait… with Kuwait over, and Iraq over, the closest is to skirt the border of turkey Iraq and get into Syria.. the only way to get more stuff into Africa is either Egypt or Yemen..

    Conflict takes millions of tons of stuff… the The AN-225 Mriya, is one of the largest… can carry 250 tons… quoting D-day reference not as a good comparrison but to just get a clue – “With thirty-six divisions eventually on the continent, the Allies needed twenty thousand tons of food, fuel, ammunition, and equipment every day.”

    you need 80 Mriya a day… quite noticeable..
    the largest container ships could handle 10 days! 232,618 tons
    but you can watch that unload from the air easy..
    but trucks? 80,000 lb (36,000 kg) total for any vehicle or combination
    40 tons each would require 500 trucks..

    Which is the easiest to stop, or note?
    which is impossible to stop or track?

    maybe i missed my calling as this is what analysis brings up
    the news and all the pundits, none of them talk about this..

    “We do not deserve this. We defended these borders for eight long years during the Iran-Iraq war. We gave blood. Now, our children have to carry loads on their backs like animals for a bite and finally lose their lives on the job. They hunt us like animals.”
    — Dervish Mohammad, city of Sardasht

    by the way… who else brings things in the country illegally?
    Kurds… so they get caught in the conflicts as well as their smuggling causes attention

    anyway… putting more would be too long, and putting it in order would be even longer

    but note.. 500 double trailer trucks is only about 2 a day…
    easy to slip into the huge amounts of material that move all the time

    but if you take some time to note this, and look at maps, with an eye on economics of each state and how they make their cash and what certain changes would reap, what goes on isnt so hard to ‘get’… it gets more interesting when you look at who the players are and who they are helping and what their politics are and their fealty seems to be…

    The details are emerging of a new secret and quite stupid Saudi-US deal on Syria and the so-called ISIS. It involves oil and gas control of the entire region and the weakening of Russia and Iran by Saudi Arabian flooding the world market with cheap oil. Details were concluded in the September meeting by US Secretary of State John Kerry and the Saudi King. The unintended consequence will be to push Russia even faster to turn east to China and Eurasia.

    the iran iraq syria pipeline?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq%E2%80%93Syria_pipeline
    In July 2011 Iran, Iraq and Syria said they planned to sign a contract potentially worth around $6bn to construct a pipeline running from South Pars towards Europe, via these countries and Lebanon and then under the Mediterranean to a European country…

    The pipeline would be a competitor to the Nabucco pipeline from Azerbaijan to Europe

    Nabucco pipeline
    The project has been driven by the intention to diversify its current energy supplies, and to lessen European dependence on Russian energy—the biggest supplier of gas to Europe. The Russia–Ukraine gas disputes have been one of the factors driving the search for alternative suppliers, sources, and routes.

    so much more.. but it would get cut..
    nothing secret about it.. just open facts
    [which help investing.. eh? 🙂 ]

  80. Fractal – thanks for the Red Wedding ID – I wondered if GoT was involved.

    On the earthquake, the implication of some involvement with the US strikes is probably erroneous.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/27/iran-earthquake-51-magnitude-quake-hits-near-bushehr-nuclear-plant

    A magnitude 5 earthquake can cause considerable damage. The Bushehr nuclear power plant was designed to withstand much stronger earthquakes.

    “No damage has been reported to us so far based on the checks by the Red Crescent Society, village councillors and officials in the area,” Jahangir Dehqan, the head of the provincial emergency department, told the semi-official news agency ISNA.

    Iran sits on major fault lines and is prone to near-daily earthquakes. In 2003, a 6.6-magnitude quake flattened the historic city of Bam, killing 26,000 people. Bam is near the Bushehr nuclear plant, which wasn’t damaged at that time.

  81. Artfldgr on January 3, 2020 at 5:12 pm said:
    …

    Thanks for giving us the big picture; that was quite helpful, even in abbreviated form.

  83. Provocations must be met with a strong and unequivocal response. But they do run the risk of being met with even more provocation. Where does it end?

    It ends when one side can’t keep up the pace, can’t marshall the resources to continue, can’t absorb another blow.

    Or until one side does the math again and this time sees the inevitable conclusion: increased suffering with no hope of victory.

    Iran is outclassed. Their arms are too short to box with Uncle Sam.

    If Iran cannot demonstrate a viable threat to the American homeland, their goose is cooked goat is fricasseed. Only a well-placed fifth column can change their current trajectory.

    Can they convince the American public that they have an invisible army in place ready to strike?

    Sleepers awake!

    Let the Persian cheap talk flow like mey!

  84. Thanks everyone… 🙂

    The benefit of the analysis i gave is that it has little to do with rumor, the press opinions, emotions, etc… it does ask qui bono, but it does not make assumptions about which is getting it as every player gets something depending on whether their angle works out or not… if russia ‘wins’ the play or meneuver, they do better… if the US foils them in favor of the smaller people, benefits shifts to that (but not necessarily monetary or as much as the instigator)

    when asking qui bono one has to realize that all people or players in the game are there for that… but some are offensive and acting to it, the others are defensive or negative and not necessarily seeking benefit the same way.

    but for the most part, this is economics and outcomes on a big scale and for the benefit of many not the few, and so, the selfish points of most writers of articles make no sense… the kuwait war was about oil? not really.. or not really the way they were saying it… same with the gulf war for the US.. which takes no countries or land or keeps its occupation… nor does it impose a “we won you cant do business with them rule”… so the US benefits are the invisable hand… which left has always denied exists despite its old time reliance on metaphysical concepts.

    you have to scope out the players… the soviets do not generally allow economy, because they fear it… because from economy comes supply and comes ability and comes layers and layers of stuff happening no one knows about… take down economy and keep it low, and you, by other means, have insured desires of any kind cant be fulfilled…

    the west likes economy and is perfectly happy with its people doing all kinds of things that are horrors to ruling classes.. like guns, inventiveness, creative destruction, replacemtn, etc… their benefits tend to be abstract in the form of an indirect something… so they dont seize oil, they just let it get on market and lower all oil prices (theirs too, which sharpens their producers)… while the soviets would rather seize land and so, own it, and do it that way (a child like methodology that required some real negative morals and justification)

    one only needs to read about the old time spies and things to ‘get’ where the focus is… sooooo many of the people and more are from offices that measured or worked with various raw materials and commodities… because that gives them cash, without giving their people ability…

    it gets pretty easy to see it once you get a knack for this kind of thinking..
    the left countries want control, and ownership to give them control or oversite
    they want to channel things their way
    the right countries want openeness, because they want the prices down for all, which includes them, and lets this openess garner success easier..

    control wants to withold and pick and choose winners and losers
    opennesss is willing to let the dice of competition decide

    they are both following their methods to qui bono..
    🙂

  85. “it gets pretty easy to see it once you get a knack for this kind of thinking..
    the left countries want control, and ownership to give them control or oversite
    they want to channel things their way
    the right countries want openeness, because they want the prices down for all, which includes them, and lets this openess garner success easier..

    control wants to withold and pick and choose winners and losers
    opennesss is willing to let the dice of competition decide” – Artfldgr

    The only thing I see lacking in your spot-on analysis is the point that not all the “controllers” are in the Russian’s orbital frame.

  86. Echoing Aesop yet again:

    Yes, good job, Artfl. Interesting points that I haven’t seen before.

    In fact your whole set of comments today rings the bell. Thanks very much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑