Killed for Israel: Bolton, Netanyahu & Dershowitz welcome killing of Soleimani; Sanders & Gabbard oppose it
(1) Pentagon killed Soleimani and al-Muhandis in an airstrike inside Baghdad International Airport
(2) Soleimani arrived on a normal flight from Lebanon; he did not travel in secret
(3) Netanyahu backs Soleimani killing as US ‘self-defense’
(4) Report: Obama Administration Stopped Israel From Assassinating Soleimani in 2015
(5) Arch-hawk Bolton celebrates slaying of Quds commander as ‘first step to regime change in Tehran’
(6) Dershowitz: Trump had Legal Justification for eliminating Soleimani
(7) Extrajudicial execution of Soleimani violates international law' – UN Rapporteur
(8) Israel is the main culprit in this crime. Trump is a secondary culprit
(9) Sanders condemns assassination, calls for exit from Middle East wars
(10) Tulsi Gabbard condemns Soleimani strike: Trump isn't acting like he wants to end 'forever wars'
(11) N. Haass, President of CFR, fears US being dragged into another mideast war
(12) JStreet condemns the killing but makes no mention of Israel's role
(13) Economist says Soleimani killing "tantamount to an act of war"; US will have to leave Iraq
(14) Philip Giraldi: US will be forced out of Iraq, Syria & other Arab states
(1) Pentagon killed Soleimani and al-Muhandis in an airstrike inside Baghdad International Airport
https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Four-rockets-land-on-Baghdad-airport-report-612947
US assassinates Qasem Soleimani, Iran's Khamenei warns of 'harsh revenge'
"The American and Israeli enemy is responsible for killing the mujahideen Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Qasem Soleimani," said Iraqi PMF spokesman Ahmed al-Assadi.
By JERUSALEM POST STAFF, REUTERS, OMRI NAHMIAS
JANUARY 3, 2020 12:28
IRGC Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, along with at least 10 other people, were killed in an attack by US forces in Baghdad on Friday morning Israel time, according to reports confirmed by the Pentagon and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC).
In a statement, the Pentagon said that the US killed Soleimani and al-Muhandis in an airstrike inside Baghdad International Airport.
According to the Pentagon, Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.
"General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more," the Pentagon claimed, noting that the Iranian leader had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months, "including the attack on December 27th, cculminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel.
"General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the US Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week," the Pentagon added, clarifying that the strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. "The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world," the statement concluded.
The US embassy in Baghdad urged American citizens to leave Iraq immediately. Dozens of foreign oil company employees with US citizenship in Iraq headed to Basra Airport for evacuation, Reuters reported.
The Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces spokesperson claimed that Israel was also behind the attack, though Israel has made no such statement. ...
(2) Soleimani arrived on a normal flight from Lebanon; he did not travel in secret
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/01/us-will-come-to-regret-its-assassination-of-qassim-soleimani.html
Janary 03, 2020
U.S. Will Come To Regret Its Assassination of Qassim Soleimani
Today the U.S. declared war on Iran and Iraq.
War is what it will get.
Earlier today a U.S. drone or helicopter killed Major General Qassim Soleimani, the famous commander of the Iranian Quds ('Jerusalem') force, while he left the airport of Baghdad where he had just arrived. He had planned to attend the funeral of the 31 Iraqi soldiers the U.S. had killed on December 29 at the Syrian-Iraqi border near Al-Qaim.
The Quds force is the external arm of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Soleiman was responsible for all relations between Iran and political and militant movements outside of Iran. Hajji Qassim advised the Lebanese Hisbullah during the 2006 war against Israel. His support for Iraqi groups enabled them to kick the U.S. invaders out of Iraq. He was the man responsible for, and successful in, defeating the Islamic State in iraq and Syria. In 2015 Soleimani traveled to Moscow and convinced Russia to intervene in Syria. His support for the Houthi in Yemen enabled them to withstand the Saudi attackers.
Soleimani had arrived in Baghdad on a normal flight from Lebanon. He did not travel in secret. He was picked up at the airport by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes, the deputy commander of the al-Hashd al-Shaabi, an official Iraqi security force under the command of the Iraqi Prime Minister. The two cars they traveled in were destroyed in the U.S. attack. Both men and their drivers and guards died.
The U.S. created two martyrs who will now become the models and idols for tens of millions of youth in the Middle East.
The Houthi in Yemen, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Islamic Jihad in Palestine, the paramilitary forces in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere have all benefited from Soleimani's advice and support. They will all take actions to revenge him.
Moqtada al-Sadr, the unruly Shia cleric who commands millions of followers in Iraq, has given orders to reactivate his military branch 'Jaish al-Imam al-Mahdi'. Between 2004 and 2008 the Mahdi forces fought the U.S. occupation of Iraq. They will do so again.
The outright assassination of a commander of Soleimani's weight demands an Iranian reaction of at least a similar size. All U.S. generals or high politicians traveling in the Middle East or elsewhere will now have to watch their back. There will be no safety for them anywhere.
No Iraqi politician will be able to argue for keeping U.S. forces in the country. The Iraqi Prime Minister Abdel Mahdi has called for a parliament emergency meeting to ask for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops:
"The targeted assassination of an Iraqi commander is a violation of the agreement. It can trigger a war in Iraq and the region. It is a clear violation of the conditions of the U.S. presence in Iraq. I call on the parliament to take the necessary steps." The National Security Council of Iran is meeting with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to "study the options of response". There are many such options. The U.S. has forces stationed in many countries around Iran.
From now on none of them will be safe.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a statement calling for three days of public mourning and then retaliation.
"His departure to God does not end his path or his mission," the statement said, "but a forceful revenge awaits the criminals who have his blood and the blood of the other martyrs last night on their hands."
Iran will tie its response to the political calender. U.S. President Donald Trump will go into his reelection campaign with U.S. troops under threat everywhere. We can expect incidents like the Beirut barracks bombing to repeat themselves when he is most vulnerable.
Trump will learn that killing the enemy is the easy part of a war. The difficulties come after that happened.
In 2018 Soleimani publicly responded to a tweet in which Trump had threatened Iran:
"Mr. Trump, the gambler! […] You are well aware of our power and capabilities in the region. You know how powerful we are in asymmetrical warfare. Come, we are waiting for you. We are the real men on the scene, as far as you are concerned. You know that a war would mean the loss of all your capabilities. You may start the war, but we will be the ones to determine its end." Since May 2019 the U.S. deployed at least 14,800 additional soldiers to the Middle East. Over the last three days airborne elements and special forces followed. The U.S.has clearly planned for an escalation.
Soleimani will be replaced by Brigadier General Ismail Ghani, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war who has for decades been active in the Quds Force and has fought against ISIS in Syria. He is an officer of equal stature and capability.
Iran's policies and support for foreign groups will intensify. The U.S.
has won nothing with its attack but will feel the consequences for decades to come. From now on its position in the Middle East will be severely constrained. Others will move in to take its place.
Posted by b on January 3, 2020 at 9:05 UTC
(3) Netanyahu backs Soleimani killing as US ‘self-defense’
https://www.rt.com/news/477377-netanyahu-backs-soleimanis-killing-us/
‘A just struggle’: Netanyahu backs Soleimani’s killing as US ‘self-defense,’ says Quds head planned more attacks
3 Jan, 2020 11:56 /
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called the US assassination of a top Iranian commander a justified act of self-defense and said Donald Trump should be credited for "acting swiftly, forcefully and decisively."
The Israeli leader said his country "stands with the United States in its just struggle for peace, security and self-defense," accusing Soleimani of having staged and planned attacks against "American citizens and many other innocent people."
(4) Report: Obama Administration Stopped Israel From Assassinating Soleimani in 2015
https://www.newswars.com/report-obama-administration-stopped-israel-from-assassinating-soleimani-in-2015/
Report: Obama Administration Stopped Israel From Assassinating Soleimani in 2015
According to a report from 2018, Israel was "on the verge" of assassinating Soleimani in 2015, but Obama’s officials foiled the plan
By Infowars.com Saturday, January 04, 2020
So all the people killed or wounded in the last three years from anything this guy did can thank Obama and Biden.
Via PJ Media:
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.
(5) Arch-hawk Bolton celebrates slaying of Quds commander as ‘first step to regime change in Tehran’
https://www.rt.com/usa/477386-bolton-cheers-soleimani-death/
3 Jan, 2020 13:47
While there was no shortage of triumphant voices coming from Washington DC on Friday after the targeted assassination of a senior Iranian general, that of John Bolton seemed especially cheerful. The former national security adviser in the Donald Trump administration took to Twitter to congratulate "all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani,"
the commander of Iran's elite Quds Force.
John Bolton @AmbJohnBolton
Congratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani. Long in the making, this was a decisive blow against Iran's malign Quds Force activities worldwide. Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran.
The mustached cheerleader for any and all foreign interventions ever conceived in the US, Bolton has a long record of advocating a war with the Islamic Republic. He even wrote an opinion piece titled "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran" at the peak of Barack Obama's negotiations with Tehran on the now-scrapped nuclear deal.
Soleimani was killed in a US airstrike as his convoy was traveling outside Baghdad International Airport early on Friday morning.
Washington claimed the assassination was an act of self-defense, accusing the Iranian general of plotting attacks on American citizens.
Tehran said it was an act of international terrorism and pledged to retaliate.
(6) Dershowitz: Trump had Legal Justification for eliminating Soleimani
https://www.infowars.com/dershowitz-trump-had-even-more-legal-justification-eliminating-soleimani-than-obama-had-with-osama-bin-laden/
Dershowitz: Trump Had Even More Legal Justification Eliminating Soleimani than Obama Had with Osama Bin Laden
"[Soleimani] was a combatant."
Breitbart - JANUARY 4, 2020
Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Thursday evening that President Donald Trump had even more legal authority to eliminate Qassem Soleimani than former President Barack Obama had to take out Osama bin Laden in 2011.
Dershowitz, speaking with host Joel Pollak and guest host John Hayward on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight, dismissed arguments that Trump lacked constitutional authority to act against General Soleimani, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force.
Presidents have lawful authority to direct the killing of enemy combatants, explained Dershowitz.
"[Soleimani] was a combatant," explained Dershowitz. "There’s no doubt that he fit the description of ‘combatant.’ He [was] a uniformed member of an enemy military who was actively planning to kill Americans; American soldiers and probably, as well, American civilians."
(7) Extrajudicial execution of Soleimani violates international law' – UN Rapporteur
https://www.rt.com/news/477387-un-rapporteur-soleimani-airstrike/
Killing of Iran's Quds Force chief Soleimani by US 'MOST LIKELY violates international law' – UN Rapporteur
3 Jan, 2020 13:48 Get short URL
UN's top expert on extrajudicial executions said that Washington's decision to assassinate the commander of Iranian elite Quds Force Qassem Soleimani cannot be justified under international law. Major General Soleimani and the second-in-command of the Iran-backed Iraqi paramilitary Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, were killed in a US airstrike at Baghdad's airport on Friday morning.
The "targeted killings" of both men "most likely violate international law incl[uding] human rights law," UN's Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Agnes Callamard wrote on social media shortly after the attack.
Agnes Callamard @AgnesCallamard
The targeted killings of Qasem Soleimani and Abu mahdi al muhandi most likely violate international law incl human rights law. Lawful justifications for such killings are very narrowly defined and it is hard to imagine how any of these can apply to these killings.
The human rights expert said that such an attack may have been justified to protect against "an imminent threat to life" or in self-defense, but this "test is unlikely to be met in these particular cases."
Lawful justifications for such killings are very narrowly defined and it is hard to imagine how any of these can apply to these killings.
The Pentagon argued that the airstrikes were aimed at "deterring future Iranian attack plans." Callamard, however, dismissed this reasoning as being "very vague" and, therefore, unable to qualify as rationale to carry out targeted killings under international law.
Overall, eight more people died along with Soleimani and al-Muhandis.
The UN rapporteur stressed that such "collateral" damage is also unlawful.
The airstrikes received praise among US President Donald Trump's allies in the Republican Party, but were called reckless and escalatory by his opponents in the Democratic Party.
French Secretary of State for European Affairs Amelie de Montchalin urged for "stability" in the Middle East. "What is happening is what we
feared: tensions between the United States and Iran are increasing," she told RTL radio.
Iranian officials have blasted the airstrikes as an "act of international terrorism," and promised to retaliate.
(8) Israel is the main culprit in this crime. Trump is a secondary culprit
From: "Ken Freeland" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: [shamireaders] War Again on the Front Burner
War Again on the Front Burner
Paul Craig Roberts
January 3, 2020
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/01/03/war-again-on-the-front-burner/
The nonsensical statement below from the Pentagon announcing that the US government has committed an act of war against Iran should frighten
everyone:
"At the direction of the president, the US military has taken decisive defensive action to protect US personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a US-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization."
"This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans."
"The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world."
Murdering a high-ranking official of a government is an act of war. It is impossible for an act of war to protect US personnel abroad.
It is impossible for an act of war against Iran to deter future Iranian attack plans. Where there was no Iranian attack plan, there now is in response to the murder of Soleimani.
Committing an act of war does not "protect our people and our interests." It jeopardizes them.
How is it possible for the Pentagon to issue such a nonsensical laughable justification for murdering a top official of another country?
Where was Trump’s mind? Just as he is emerging from the impeachment hoax, why did he commit an impeachable act? Trump attacked another country without Congressional authorization. He thumbed his nose at Congress and the law. It is the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the United States, not break them. The Democrats now have a real impeachable offense to hang around Trump’s neck.
But they will not make us of it. Trump struck down Soleimani, because that is what Netanyahu wanted. The main leaders of the impeachment hoax are Jews, and they are not going to line up against Israel. Adam Schiff, for example, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who is leading the impeachment, gave his approval to Soleimani’s murder when he tweeted that Suleimani "was responsible for unthinkable violence and world is better off without him."
Israel is the main culprit in this crime. Trump is a secondary culprit.
Soleimani himself bears responsibility. He should have known that he was a target and not exposed himself so carelessly. The Russian government also bears responsibility. Russia, China and Iran should long ago have formed a highly visible alliance. Such an alliance would have prevented the crazy and irresponsible act that Israel manuevered Trump into committing. But Putin doesn’t want war, and apparently historians have convinced Putin that alliances are the cause of war. Thus Putin avoids alliances, taking his que instead from American libertarians who say that free trade is the basis of peace. Strength is the guarantor of peace, and strength rests in a powerful alliance against US/Israeli aggression.
Iran’s response was predictable and unfortunate. Iran declared it will take revenge, and most likely will. Iran’s revenge will give Israel the war it wants between the US and Iran.
Iran would have done better to take its revenge and deny responsibility.
Idiot American politicians, one of whom could end up as President, are furthering the cause of war by working up American patriotism with claims, false of course, that Iran is a "terrorist state" determined to harm America, that Iran is responsible for thousands of deaths, including hundreds of Americans, and so forth.
We have heard all of this before. It is the US that is the terrorist state, having destroyed in whole or part seven Muslim countries in the 21st century, producing millions of deaths, injuries, and dispossessed and displaced peoples. I knew it was going to get worse when the Russian government permitted Israel to continue attacking Syrian targets after Russia had rescued Syria from Washington’s proxy army.
As long as Israel runs US foreign policy in Israel’s interest, and as long as "non-compliant" countries are content for Washington to knock them off one by one, war will continue to be our future.
(9) Sanders condemns assassination, calls for exit from Middle East wars
https://fortune.com/2020/01/03/democrats-iran-biden-Sanders/
Bernie Sanders Stands Out in Anti-War Messaging After Death of Soleimani
By Nicole Goodkind
January 3, 2020
[...] Part of President Donald Trump's appeal to voters in 2016 were promises to bring American troops (currently fighting an 18-year war in the Middle East) back home and his framing of opponent Hillary Clinton as a war hawk. "You’re going to end up in World War Three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton," he said during a 2016 press conference.
Those promises, now fraying, are still appealing to voters, and Sanders could potentially appeal to a class of American who feels betrayed by the president. [...]
Sanders, who unlike Biden did not vote for the use of military force in Iraq in 2002, tweeted, made videos, and spoke out repeatedly against any war in the Middle East.
"Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars," said Sanders before touting his long anti-war history. "Trump promised to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one."
Later, Sanders added, "We must do more than just stop war with Iran. We must firmly commit to ending U.S. military presence in the Middle East in an orderly manner. We must end our involvement in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen. We must bring our troops home from Afghanistan."
Gabbard and Yang echoed Sanders’ anti-war sentiments. [...]
(10) Tulsi Gabbard condemns Soleimani strike: Trump isn't acting like he wants to end 'forever wars'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/qassem-soleimani-Tulsi-gabbard-trump-iran
Jan 3, 2020
Tulsi Gabbard rips Soleimani strike: Trump isn't acting like he wants to end 'forever wars'
By Julia Musto | Fox News
Gabbard slams Soleimani airstrike, says Trump has violated Constitution by declaring act of war against Iran
2020 Democrat candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard says on 'Fox & Friends'
that President Trump has 'seriously escalated' the Iran crisis by killing their top general.
The death of top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani may mark the beginning of a war that Congress never agreed to and disproves President Trump's promises to end "forever wars," 2020 presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, said Friday.
Appearing on "Fox & Friends," Gabbard argued that the airstrike violated the Constitution because there was no declaration of war from Congress.
"It further escalates this tit-for-tat that's going on and on and on.
[It] will elicit a very serious response from Iran and [push] us deeper and deeper into this quagmire," she said. "And it really begs the
question: for what?" [...]
(11) N. Haass, President of CFR, fears US being dragged into another mideast war
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/suleiman-killing-american-strategic-incoherence-by-richard-n-haass-2020-01
The Suleimani Assassination and US Strategic Incoherence Jan 4, 2020
Richard N. Haass
Following its targeted killing of Iran's second most powerful leader, the US could well find itself with no alternative but to devote more military resources to the Middle East, a path that could lead to additional Iranian provocations. And that shift would occur at a time of growing challenges to US interests elsewhere in the world.
NEW YORK – The United States emerged from the Cold War some three decades ago possessing a historically unprecedented degree of absolute and relative power. What is baffling, and what will surely leave future historians scratching their heads, is why a series of US presidents decided to devote so much of this power to the Middle East and, indeed, squander so much of America’s might on the region.
This pattern can be traced back to George W. Bush’s war of choice against Iraq in 2003. The US did not need to go to war there at that moment; other options for containing Saddam Hussein were available and to a large extent already in place. But in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Bush decided that he must act, whether to prevent Saddam’s development and use of weapons of mass destruction, to signal that America was no helpless giant, to trigger a region-wide democratic transformation, or some combination of the above.
His successor, Barack Obama, entered office determined to reduce American involvement in the region. Obama removed US troops from Iraq and, although he initially increased the number of US troops in Afghanistan, set a timetable for their withdrawal.
The big strategic idea of his administration was "rebalancing": US foreign policy should de-emphasize the Middle East and focus more on Asia, the principal theater in which the world’s trajectory in the new century would be decided.
But Obama had trouble seeing this strategy through. He never completely withdrew US forces from Afghanistan, reintroduced them into Iraq, and undertook an ill-conceived military campaign against Libya’s leader that resulted in a failed state. Obama also voiced support for regime change in Syria, although in that case his reluctance to involve the US further in the Middle East won out.
When Donald Trump succeeded Obama close to three years ago, he was determined not to repeat the perceived mistakes of his predecessor.
"America First" signaled a renewed emphasis on domestic priorities; economic sanctions and tariffs, rather than military force, became the preferred national security tool. The boom in domestic oil and natural gas production had made the US self-sufficient in terms of energy, thereby reducing the direct importance of the Middle East. To the extent foreign policy remained a US priority, it was to manage renewed great-power rivalry, above all the challenges posed by China in Asia and Russia in Europe. Indeed, China and Russia were singled out for criticism in the 2017 National Security Strategy for wanting "to shape a world antithetical to US values and interests."
In the Middle East, Trump went out of his way to shrink the US footprint and commitment. He looked the other way when Iran attacked oil tankers, US drones, and Saudi oil refineries, and turned his back on the Kurds in Syria, although they had been America’s partner in defeating ISIS there.
"Let someone else fight over this long-bloodstained sand," was what Trump had to say this past October. The principal exception to this avoidance of military action was the US strike in late December 2019 on sites associated with Kataib Hezbollah, an Iran-backed militia accused of launching an attack days before that killed an American contractor and injured several service members.
It is against this backdrop that Trump ordered the targeted killing of General Qassem Suleimani, by most accounts the second most powerful man in Iran. What prompted him to do so remains unclear. The administration claims it had intelligence that Suleimani was planning new attacks on US diplomats and soldiers. But the decision to act also could have been motivated by images of the US embassy in Baghdad under attack from Iran-supported militia – images that recalled the siege and subsequent hostage-taking at the US embassy in Tehran in November 1979 or of the
2012 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi that Republicans used to criticize then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Another contributing factor might have been a tweet attributed to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei that taunted Trump by saying, "You can’t do anything."
Given Suleimani’s standing, Iran is unlikely to back down. It has many options at its disposal, including a wide range of military, economic, and diplomatic targets in many countries in the region. It can operate directly or through proxies; it can use armed force or cyberattacks.
The US could well find itself with no alternative but to devote more military resources to the Middle East and to use them in response to what Iran does, a path that could lead to additional Iranian provocations.
And that shift would occur at a time of growing concern about North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, Russian military threats to Europe, the weakening of arms-control arrangements meant to curb US-Russian nuclear competition, and the arrival of a new era of technological, economic, military and diplomatic competition with China.
The premise of my commentary in December was that the US was increasingly distancing itself from the Middle East, owing to domestic frustration with what wars there have wrought, reduced energy dependence on the region, and a desire to focus its resources elsewhere in the world and at home. It could well be that I got it wrong – or that Trump has, by embarking on a course of action without first thinking through the strategic consequences.
(12) JStreet condemns the killing but makes no mention of Israel's role
https://jstreet.org/press-releases/on-brink-of-disaster-congress-must-act-to-prevent-trump-from-launching-disastrous-war-with-iran/
On Brink Of Disaster, Congress Must Act To Prevent Trump From Launching Disastrous War With Iran
January 3, 2020
J Street is deeply alarmed by the Trump administration’s targeted assassination of Iran’s General Qassem Soleimani. This highly dangerous step, taken without congressional authorization, could trigger a disastrous escalation costing the lives of thousands and lead our country into a devastating new war of choice in the Middle East.
Soleimani was a malicious actor responsible for deadly attacks on US service personnel and the Iranian regime’s targets throughout the region, including many civilians. At the same time, the assassination of such a senior figure is an extremely reckless step taken by an out-of-control administration that has repeatedly signaled its contempt for diplomacy and its interest in provoking an armed conflict with the Iranian regime. Carrying out a strike that is likely to be viewed as an act of war, without explicit congressional debate or authorization, shows flagrant contempt for the Constitution.
Since the president’s disastrous decision to unilaterally violate the JCPOA nuclear agreement and implement a so-called "maximum pressure"
campaign, Iran has only become more dangerous and aggressive, hardliners have been strengthened at the expense of moderates and the region has been further destabilized. The president and his saber-rattling advisers bear tremendous responsibility for the current crisis — they are leading us eagerly towards an abyss that will endanger American servicepeople, our allies in Israel and the Middle East and millions of Iranian civilians caught in the crossfire.
Congress must now take immediate, decisive action to prevent a new war which the American people do not want. They must pass legislation making explicitly clear that the president does not have authorization to go to war with Iran, and that any such war would represent a clear violation of the constitution. They must force every member of Congress to take a vote that will make publicly clear whether they stand against war or stand with this president.
(13) Economist says Soleimani killing "tantamount to an act of war"; US will have to leave Iraq
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/01/03/iran-vows-vengeance-after-america-kills-qassem-suleimani
A big escalation
Iran vows vengeance after America kills Qassem Suleimani
The strike on Iran’s most prominent commander will have profound consequences for the region
Middle East and Africa Jan 3rd 2020 | WASHINGTON, DC
PERHAPS HE CAME to believe his own myth, the aura of invincibility he worked so hard to cultivate. Early on January 3rd General Qassem Suleimani, Iran’s most storied and feared commander, stepped off a plane from Syria or Lebanon at Baghdad’s international airport. He climbed into a waiting convoy alongside the leader of an allied militia—a seeming lapse in security, the two men travelling together, that suggests the general felt safe in Iraq. Minutes later he was dead, his vehicle blasted into scrap by an American drone flying overhead.
Few believed the news as it trickled out on social media and satellite television. Within hours, though, both sides had confirmed the rumours.
The supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, praised General Suleimani as a martyr and vowed "severe revenge". President Donald Trump was uncharacteristically restrained: he simply tweeted an image of an American flag. He left the formal announcement to the Pentagon, which called this a "defensive action".
It was a dizzying escalation to cap off a dizzying week. On December 27th dozens of rockets hit an Iraqi military base near Kirkuk, killing an American contractor. America responded by bombing five bases used by Kataib Hizbullah, an Iranian-backed Shia paramilitary group. At least 25 of its men were killed. The group soon tried to storm the American embassy in Baghdad, besieging it for almost a full day.
Then came the strike that killed General Suleimani and seven others, including Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the founder of Kataib Hizbullah and the head of an umbrella group of pro-Iranian militias. The long conflict between America and Iran has mostly been fought through proxies, spies and sanctions. This was tantamount to an act of war—a rare overt strike with profound consequences for the region.
General Suleimani led the Quds Force, a branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) that operates outside Iran. He was Iran’s main interlocutor with Hizbullah, the Lebanese Shia militia and political party. In 2006, when it fought a month-long war against Israel, General Suleimani was in Lebanon to help oversee the campaign.
He later lent his support to Bashar al-Assad, the embattled Syrian dictator, and to the Houthis, a Yemeni militia fighting a brutal war against a Saudi-led coalition. Supporters saw him as the face of the so-called "resistance" against America and Israel. To his detractors he was more akin to a viceroy, an emblem of Iran’s deep and destructive influence across the region. In Baghdad’s Tahrir Square, where Iraqis have spent months protesting against Iran’s meddling in their country (among other things), news of General Suleimani’s death was met with cheers.
Americans knew him as the man who tormented their troops during the occupation of Iraq. General Suleimani trained Shia militias and supplied them with "explosively formed penetrators", roadside bombs capable of punching through the armour on American vehicles. They killed hundreds of soldiers (one in every six American combat fatalities in Iraq were attributable to Iran, says the Pentagon). Yet George W. Bush would not allow cross-border raids to strike at the IRGC, and officers detained in Iraq were released. Israel had opportunities to kill the general but passed them up because of American pressure. Mr Trump, as is his wont, broke with this long precedent.
The question now is how General Suleimani’s successors will respond.
Many American analysts fret that Mr Trump is blundering into a war. But Iran will not seek an open confrontation it would surely lose: its antiquated military is no match for America’s. Instead it will rely on the asymmetric tactics that General Suleimani perfected. It could hit vulnerable infrastructure in Gulf states, or fire rockets at Israel. It could strike at American diplomats and military personnel in Iraq and elsewhere. (The State Department has urged Americans to leave Iraq.)
Indeed, Iran and its proxies have done all those things over the past year. Until now Mr Trump has been hesitant to respond (while often offering to meet with Iran’s leaders). He ordered air strikes after Iran shot down an American drone in June, but recalled the planes when he decided the response was disproportionate. A September missile attack on two oil fields in Saudi Arabia, which America blamed on Iran, went unanswered. In typically chaotic fashion, he has now zagged from inaction to major escalation.
That raises the risks of an uncontrolled cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation. The regime in Tehran cares about self-preservation. But of late it has also seemed confident, even cocky. The attack on Saudi Aramco, itself an unprecedented strike on world oil supplies, followed months of Iran harassing tankers and warships in the Persian Gulf. If the IRGC hits back hard, it is impossible to predict what Mr Trump might do.
In the short term the Iranian regime may bide its time and use the killing to whip up nationalist fervour at home. General Suleimani was a popular figure in an otherwise unloved regime. Only Mr Khamenei appeared on more of Tehran’s billboards. The feeling of admiration was not
universal: General Suleimani was part of a security apparatus that ruthlessly crushes dissent. "It’s good to see there really are some checks and balances," says an academic in Tehran. Still, a state funeral, and the mourning that follows, offers a distraction from the crumbling economy that prompted a week of nationwide protests in November.
America will have to rethink its own regional position. It may be impossible to keep American troops in Iraq, where they train the Iraqi army and keep tabs on the jihadists of Islamic State (IS). The Iraqi government might order the Americans out, long a goal of pro-Iranian lawmakers. Even if it does not, the Pentagon may decide it is too hard to protect American troops in a hostile land. Withdrawing from Iraq may also end America’s rump deployment in Syria, which relies on Iraq for logistics. With American troops gone IS would find more space to regroup. American diplomats and spies face the threat of kidnapping or assassination, both of which the IRGC has done in the past. Corporations may have similar concerns about staff working on Iraqi oil fields and elsewhere.
General Suleimani was a singular commander, in both his skill and his standing. He seemed to be everywhere, popping up on battlefields all across the Middle East. Some saw him as a future leader of Iran—the real power behind the clerics. His death is a blow to the ambitious regional policy he oversaw, far more significant than the raids that killed Osama bin Laden or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leaders of al-Qaeda and IS. By the time of their deaths, those men were mere figureheads at the helm of diminished organisations. General Suleimani was cut down in his prime, at a time when Iran still wields great power across the region.
Less clear is whether the strike will advance America’s stated goal of creating a less belligerent, more restrained Iran. Though it now seems a distant memory, the current tensions began with Mr Trump’s decision in
2018 to withdraw from an agreement that lifted some sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear programme. Any hope of renegotiating that deal—of finding a diplomatic solution to a steadily worsening conflict—probably died with General Suleimani.
(14) Philip Giraldi: US will be forced out of Iraq, Syria & other Arab states
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/january/03/the-soleimani-assassination-the-long-awaited-beginning-of-the-end-of-america-s-imperial-ambitions/
The Soleimani Assassination: The Long-Awaited Beginning of The End of America’s Imperial Ambitions
written by philip giraldi friday january 3, 2020
The United States is now at war with Iran in a conflict that could easily have been avoided and it will not end well. There will be no declaration of war coming from either side, but the assassination of Iranian Quds Force Commander General Qassem Soleimani and the head of Kata’ib Hezbollah Abu Mehdi Muhandis by virtue of a Reaper drone strike in Baghdad will shift the long-simmering conflict between the two nations into high gear. Iran cannot let the killing of a senior military officer go unanswered even though it cannot directly confront the United States militarily. But there will be reprisals and Tehran’s suspected use of proxies to stage limited strikes will now be replaced by more damaging actions that can be directly attributed to the Iranian government. As Iran has significant resources locally, one can expect that the entire Persian Gulf region will be destabilized.
And there is also the terrorism card, which will come into play. Iran has an extensive diaspora throughout much of the Middle East and, as it has been threatened by Washington for many years, it has had a long time to prepare for a war to be fought largely in the shadows. No American diplomat, soldier or even tourists in the region should consider him or herself to be safe, quite the contrary. It will be an "open season" on Americans. The US has already ordered a partial evacuation of the Baghdad Embassy and has advised all American citizens to leave the country immediately.
Donald Trump rode to victory in 2016 on a promise to end the useless wars in the Middle East, but he has now demonstrated very clearly that he is a liar. Instead of seeking detente, one of his first actions was to end the JCPOA nuclear agreement and re-introduce sanctions against Iran. In a sense, Iran has from the beginning been the exception to Trump’s no-new-war pledge, a position that might reasonably be directly attributed to his incestuous relationship with the American Jewish community and in particular derived from his pandering to the expressed needs of Israel’s belligerent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Trump bears full responsibility for what comes next. The neoconservatives and Israelis are predictably cheering the result, with Mark Dubowitz of the pro-Israel Foundation for Defense of Democracies enthusing that it is "bigger than bin Laden…a massive blow to the [Iranian] regime." Dubowitz, whose credentials as an "Iran expert" are dubious at best, is at least somewhat right in this case. Qassem Suleimani is, to be sure, charismatic and also very popular in Iran. He is Iran’s most powerful military figure in the entire region, being the principal contact for proxies and allies in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. But what Dubowitz does not understand is that no one in a military hierarchy is irreplaceable. Suleimani’s aides and high officials in the intelligence ministry are certainly more than capable of picking up his mantle and continuing his policies.
In reality, the series of foolish attacks initiated by the United States over the past week will only hasten the departure of much of the US military from the region. The Pentagon and White House have been insisting that Iran was behind an alleged Kata’ib Hezbollah attack on a US installation that then triggered a strike by Washington on claimed militia targets in Syria and also inside Iraq. Even though the US military presence is as a guest of the Iraqi government, Washington went ahead with its attack even after the Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi said "no."
To justify its actions, Mark Esper, Secretary of Defense, went so far as to insist that "Iran is at war with the whole world," a clear demonstration of just how ignorant the White House team actually is. The US government characteristically has not provided any evidence demonstrating either Iranian or Kata’ib involvement in recent developments, but after the counter-strike killed 26 Iraqi soldiers, the mass demonstrations against the Embassy in Baghdad became inevitable.
The demonstrations were also attributed to Iran by Washington even though the people in the street were undoubtedly Iraqis.
Now that the US has also killed Suleimani and Muhandis in a drone strike at Baghdad Airport, clearly accomplished without the approval of the Iraqi government, it is inevitable that the prime minister will ask American forces to leave. That will in turn make the situation for the remaining US troops in neighboring Syria untenable. And it will also force other Arab states in the region to rethink their hosting of US soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen due to the law of unanticipated consequences as it is now clear that Washington has foolishly begun a war that serves no one’s interests.
The blood of the Americans, Iranians and Iraqis who will die in the next few weeks is clearly on Donald Trump’s hands as this war was never inevitable and served no US national interest. It will surely turn out to be a debacle, as well as devastating for all parties involved. And it might well, on top of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, be thegiraldi The Soleimani. Let us hope so!
Reprinted with permission from the American Herald Tribune.
