Trump says Iranian commander was killed to 'stop a war'

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

Didn't the IG report answer these questions for you? 

It's like none of you read an entire thread before commenting.

Did the IG report remove everyone in our intelligence community?

[I_M4_AU 7,848]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Assassination is assassination. Not sure why you’re uncomfortable with that.

I guess I think assassination is used when a head of state is killed for political reasons and terrorists should not be classified as heads of states as they are terrorists first and foremost.  

Another way to look at it:

Columnist, attorney, and Iraq war veteran David French debunked this false claim last week, tweeting, “I’m seeing a lot of people calling the strike on [Soleimani] an ‘assassination.’ Some are even bringing up Reagan’s EO 12333, prohibiting assassinations. Killing an enemy commander, in a war zone, with a military strike conducted under the law of war is not an ‘assassination.'”

[alexava 6,973]

I don’t think assasination of a military leader is going to stop anything that is going on. The military takes orders from above. The person assassinated will be replaced and take orders from the same it would be like killing our defense secretary and thinking his replacement was unable to attack you. It’s not a terror organization it’s a sovereign nation. 

[TexasTiger 12,897]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I guess I think assassination is used when a head of state is killed for political reasons and terrorists should not be classified as heads of states as they are terrorists first and foremost.  

Another way to look at it:

Columnist, attorney, and Iraq war veteran David French debunked this false claim last week, tweeting, “I’m seeing a lot of people calling the strike on [Soleimani] an ‘assassination.’ Some are even bringing up Reagan’s EO 12333, prohibiting assassinations. Killing an enemy commander, in a war zone, with a military strike conducted under the law of war is not an ‘assassination.'”

State directed terrorism in the case of Iran.

The guy deserved it. But that can be said for many bad actors who are official state figures.

Folks can argue over the legality— the ultimate question for us is whether it was wise? Was it yet another impulsive act without adequate regard to consequences?

[I_M4_AU 7,848]

13 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

State directed terrorism in the case of Iran.

The guy deserved it. But that can be said for many bad actors who are official state figures.

Folks can argue over the legality— the ultimate question for us is whether it was wise? Was it yet another impulsive act without adequate regard to consequences?

Like many other decisions made by our leaders, only time will tell.  It’s not limited to Trump’s decision making, although I know you are not fan of his, it applies to all Presidents.

[homersapien 11,379]

17 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I guess I think assassination is used when a head of state is killed for political reasons and terrorists should not be classified as heads of states as they are terrorists first and foremost.  

Another way to look at it:

Columnist, attorney, and Iraq war veteran David French debunked this false claim last week, tweeting, “I’m seeing a lot of people calling the strike on [Soleimani] an ‘assassination.’ Some are even bringing up Reagan’s EO 12333, prohibiting assassinations. Killing an enemy commander, in a war zone, with a military strike conducted under the law of war is not an ‘assassination.'”

We are not legally in a state of war.  Iraq is not a war zone.

Not to mention Trump has demonstrated little regard for the "law of war".

[homersapien 11,379]

On 1/5/2020 at 10:27 AM, jj3jordan said:

Nope. It was a bad deal. Regardless of who negotiated it.

Homer the mind reader.

And a shrink no less.

They never stopped. If we were still in the deal, and Israel did attack, we would have had to defend Iran, against Israel.

Glad you are not involved in the analysis.

https://theintercept.com/2018/05/08/donald-trump-iran-nuclear-deal-john-bolton/

"........ Don’t be fooled: This disastrous and unilateral decision by Trump won’t improve U.S. security. Or Israeli security, for that matter. Even card-carrying hawks who hate the Islamic Republic think Trump is mad to pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the nuclear deal is officially known.

Because guess who won’t be celebrating? The entire U.S. military establishment: Defense Secretary James Mattis, who says he has read the text of the nuclear agreement three times and considers it to be “pretty robust”; Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford, who says, “Iran is adhering to its JCPOA obligations” and a U.S. decision to quit the deal “would have an impact on others’ willingness to sign agreements”; the head of U.S. Strategic Command, Gen. John Hyten, who says, “Iran is in compliance with JCPOA” and argues “it’s our job to live up to the terms of that agreement”; and the head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Joseph Votel, who says the nuclear deal is “in our interest” because it “addresses one of the principle threats that we deal with from Iran.”

Those are just the generals who are still in uniform. In March, a statement signed by 100 U.S. national security veterans from across the political spectrum said the nuclear agreement “enhances U.S. and regional security” and “ditching it would serve no national security purpose.” Fifty of the 100 signatories were retired U.S. military officers, including leading Republicans such as retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to George H.W. Bush, and retired Gen. Michael Hayden, who served as director of both the NSA and the CIA under George W. Bush.

Then there’s retired Gen. Colin Powell, national security adviser to Ronald Reagan and secretary of state under George W. Bush, who has called the JCPOA “a pretty good deal.” And Trump’s own former national security adviser, soon-to-be-retired Gen. H.R. McMaster, who was “working closely with two key senators to prevent Trump from destroying the Iran deal” prior to being fired and replaced with Bolton in March.

Guess who else isn’t celebrating? The Israeli security establishment. Netanyahu may claim to possess thousands of “secret nuclear files” that show the JCPOA was “built on lies,” but Israel’s generals and spymasters disagree, including: the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, who says the deal “with all its faults is working”; the chair of the Israeli Space Agency and award-winning military scientist, Isaac Ben-Israel, who says “the agreement is not bad at all, it’s even good for Israel” because “it averts an atom bomb for 15 years”; the former director of the spy agency Mossad, Efraim Halevy, who says the JCPOA provides a “credible answer to the Iranian military threat, at least for a decade, if not longer”; the former chief of domestic security agency Shin Bet, Carmi Gillon, who says the nuclear agreement has helped “make the region, and the world, a safer place”; the former head of Israeli military intelligence, Amos Yadlin, who says “tearing up the deal would create a dangerous void”; and former Israeli prime minister — and the country’s most decorated soldier — Ehud Barak, who says withdrawing from the deal would be a “mistake.”

So let’s be clear: On the one side, we have a dizzying array of serving and retired generals and spy chiefs from both the United States and Israel, none of whom are friends or fans of Iran, yet all of whom agree that the Islamic Republic is complying with the stringent terms of the JCPOA, and that the United States should stay in the deal because it bolsters U.S., regional, and global security.

And on the other side? A former property developer and reality TV star; a chicken hawk who wants to bomb everyone; a 32-year-old Gulf prince who can’t win a war against rebels from the poorest Arab country; and an allegedly corrupt politician who has been claiming Iran is “three to five years” away from a nuclear weapons capability since … 1992.

This isn’t about security or protecting American — or Israeli — cities from Iranian missiles. Trump & Co. aren’t trying to avoid war with Iran. They want war with Iran."

[homersapien 11,379]

https://www.vox.com/world/2020/1/6/21051249/trump-us-iran-news-war-soleimani

Trump’s reckless Middle East policy has brought the US to the brink of war

Why the killing of Qassem Soleimani comes at precisely the wrong time.

The US drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the long-time leader of Iran’s paramilitary Quds Force of the Islamic Republican Guard Corps, comes when the United States is at a dangerous crossroads in the Middle East. Soleimani was responsible for many of Iran’s most important relationships, including with paramilitary groups in Iraq, the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, and Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas, among many others. In many countries, he and the Quds Force basically controlled Iranian policy.

By killing him, the United States is risking a major escalation with Iran and across the region at a time when the overall US position is weak and growing weaker. Tehran has vowed “harsh revenge” and declared it is withdrawing from the nuclear deal in its entirety. Trump, for his part, has tweeted out yet more threats, vowing to “HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD.”

With painful irony, Trump is escalating tensions with Iran just as he is weakening the overall US position in the Middle East. His actions may force a US withdrawal from Iraq, hinder the fight against ISIS, and bolster hardliners in Tehran — all while making American allies uncertain and fearful.

A reconsideration is in order, but the Trump administration has no record of such self-scrutiny. Rather, its record in the region so far is confusing and ineffectual. As a result, the influence of US adversaries like Iran is likely to grow, while allies will, by necessity, go their own ways.

Soleimani’s death comes when Iran’s position in the Middle East is vulnerable. Recent months have seen popular protests in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, with hundreds dying in government crackdowns. Most of the protesters focused on corruption, the poor quality of government services, and other bread-and-butter issues. However, a strong theme throughout the protests in Iraq and Lebanon was resentment at Iran’s undue influence in these countries and the manipulation of politics. In Iran itself, protests swept more than 100 cities, and demonstrators burned revolutionary leaders in effigy.

Iran’s increasing influence in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen has alarmed many of the region’s Sunni powers. In addition, the public in Iraq and Lebanon were expressing unhappiness with Tehran’s influence in their domestic politics. Politically, the situation was ripe for pushing back. However, the dominant regional story now is the Soleimani killing, Iran’s potential response, and the risk of broader escalation. Even before the assassination, US strikes in Iraq last month against the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah militant group enabled Iran’s allies there to portray the United States as the aggressor and shifted the discourse to one of “resistance” against American imperialism, a timely diversion for Iran.

Tehran used its allies in Iraq to orchestrate demonstrations at the US Embassy in Baghdad, burning parts of the compound: just enough violence to threaten the United States, but not enough to provoke US military retaliation. That was incorrect, as it turned out. Tehran’s leaders probably thought that their limited use of violence would lead Trump, who in the past was highly cautious about a confrontation with Iran, to step back — a clear misjudgment of a mercurial leader.

he strike that killed Soleimani also killed several leaders of Iraqi militant groups, further inflaming the situation. Following these deaths, the gloves are likely to come off, allowing Tehran to shift the discourse both at home and in Iraq to questions of vengeance and supposed US aggression rather than the Iranian regime’s own abuses and declining popularity. Already, Iraqi leaders and the country’s parliament are calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, though it is unclear if this proposal will move forward.

Even as the Trump administration prepares for an Iranian response, US allies continue to work at cross-purposes in the absence of American leadership or even basic guidance.

Trump has abandoned allies and sent conflicting messages across the region

The rift between Qatar on one side, and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates on another, still divides key US Gulf allies, all of whose support would be vital in a broader military confrontation with Tehran. They disagree primarily on whether or not to support Islamists in the Middle East’s many crises, and Trump has egged them on rather than try to calm tempers.

In Libya, allies are on opposite sides of the country’s messy civil war. Turkey has announced it will deploy troops to back up its growing military support for the US- and UN-recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, other important regional allies, are backing a rival force led by Khalifa Haftar, a Libyan general opposed to Islamists. Which thuggish claimants to power are better for Libya and its fractured political scene is an open question, but the Trump administration’s approach has been the worst. The United States formally recognizes the GNA, but Trump himself has praised Haftar, sending a confusing signal. In any event, a proxy war involving important US allies increases regional instability and distracts them from Iran and other dangers.

Allies are understandably nervous, as President Trump has made no secret of his desire to end the US military presence in the Middle East. “We’re getting out. Let someone else fight over this long blood-stained sand. The job of our military is not to police the world,” he declared.

Even countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel that were critical of Obama and welcomed Trump’s victory are reconsidering their relations with the United States. For these and other US allies, the US presence has been an extra layer of security. However, Trump’s decision not to respond when Iranian drones attacked Saudi oil facilities and temporarily disrupted half the country’s oil production (roughly 5 percent of global output) changed the calculus of what constituted a traditional “red line.” Trump made it clear that threats to allied security are no longer important for the United States.

Now allies are preparing to go their own way; Riyadh has even made overtures to Tehran, though it is likely to back away while the risk of a greater US-Iran conflict is high. Saudi Arabia wants the United States to take a strong stand against Iran politically, but its leaders worry that they will get caught in the crossfire if the shooting war escalates.

Nature abhors a vacuum

Not surprisingly, others are stepping into the void created by the weak and confusing US position. Russia, in particular, is stepping up its role. Fresh from helping the Assad regime secure victory in the Syrian civil war, Russian aid and mercenaries have made Haftar’s forces in Libya even more formidable. Even staunch US allies like Israel are now courting Moscow as an important regional actor. Iran, long a pariah, held joint naval exercises with Russia and China just before the latest round of conflict began.

All these problems might be forgivable if they followed a broader logic and reflected a considered decision to reduce the US role in the region and, therefore, try to achieve less.

However, the Trump administration remains as long on ambitious policy declarations as it is short on commitment. Nowhere has this been more clear than with Iran.

Under Trump, the administration withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Iranian nuclear deal that the president has described as “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.” Subsequently, the United States embarked on a campaign of “maximum pressure” against Iran, and indeed, the increased sanctions and financial pressure have hit Tehran hard. Iran has now declared it will not abide by the nuclear deal, though it has refrained from saying it will take the next steps to build a bomb.

However, it is not clear what, exactly, the United States seeks from Tehran, as the Trump administration has never laid out a realistic set of goals.

Trump claims not to want regime change, but his administration has never laid out a serious negotiating position detailing its goals. After the Soleimani killing, any such talks will be off indefinitely. Moreover, by drawing down forces in Syria, not responding to Iran’s attack on Saudi Arabia, and railing against a military presence in general, US leverage with allies and adversaries alike has decreased. Similarly, the administration has failed to rally US regional allies around a common strategy, instead letting them get sidetracked in Syria (and now, Libya) into fighting each other. By killing Soleimani, the United States has upped the stakes dramatically, but it has done so at a time when allies are angry and confused and US goals are unclear.

The future looks grim, as neither Iran nor the United States is pulling back. Iran is widely expected to retaliate for the death of its iconic military leader. Trump’s threats against Iran and the additional attacks on pro-Iran militant groups in Iraq, as well as threats to sanction Iraq if it tells American forces to leave, make it seem that the United States wants to escalate the situation. Iran may try to hit American bases and troops, diplomatic facilities, or even the US homeland. The large number of US military outposts and official facilities give it plenty of locations to target.

Trump has used limited force in the Middle East before, such as his one-off strike against Syria for its use of chemical weapons, or continuing the Obama administration’s campaign against ISIS. In taking on Iran, however, the consequences are far more grave. Iran is far more capable of projecting violence abroad than Syria or ISIS, and it has more tools to punch back. In addition, Trump acted with the support of US allies in previous cases, whereas this time most allies are hesitant, believing the United States escalated without good reason.

What a reasonable, strategic administration would do

As the likelihood of a confrontation with Iran grows, it would be an opportune time for the United States to take stock of its position in the Middle East and determine its realistic goals there.

Another administration, say that of George W. Bush or Barack Obama, would quickly prioritize US goals and determine the price the country would pay to achieve them. This could either involve trying to deescalate the situation by continuing to support a low-level troop presence or even reducing it further. Or it might mean preparing for a greater confrontation, courting allies to win their support while sending an array of forces to the region and coordinating with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other countries currently at odds. It could also mean recognizing that alienating Iraq and making Iran even more of an enemy hinders the fight against ISIS.

Such careful thinking is unlikely during Trump’s time in office. Unfortunately, it is more likely that this administration will move from crisis to crisis, from tweet to tweet, without developing an overall game plan. In so doing, it will be caught flat-footed each time with the wrong size force and without the necessary allies.

Under another administration, there might even be long-term advantages to the Soleimani killing. It’s possible to imagine after an additional round or two of attacks, a mix of coercion and inducements could bring Iran back to the negotiating table on conditions more favorable to the United States. Doing so, however, would require a clear strategic vision and ability to bring allies together around it — plus a willingness to shift the US regional posture to back up both threats and diplomacy. Trump’s record suggests none of these conditions are likely.

Nor will the US relations with Iran necessarily improve significantly should Trump lose the 2020 election. A new administration cannot set the clock back to the pre-Trump era, and Iran’s vengeance is going to be against the United States, not any particular administration. The connections that regional states are forging to Russia, and the disruption among traditional allies, cannot be easily remedied. Indeed, Trump has greatly weakened the US position. Having skill, resources, and dedication would no doubt help a future administration, but the hole Trump has dug is deep and growing deeper.

 

 

[alexava 6,973]

The guy who wants you to think Iran was an imminent threat used a sharpie to make you think a hurricane was a threat to Alabama.

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, alexava said:

The guy who wants you to think Iran was an imminent threat used a sharpie to make you think a hurricane was a threat to Alabama.

I know you are not this clueless. 

You really think DT is sitting around picking out military targets?   I doubt any President since Lyndon Johnson has tried to micro-manage the actions of our military.   Recommendations come from the Pentagon and or CIA and a President says "yes" or "no" to them.   JMO but two Presidents said "no" about this guy when they should have said "yes" and many Americans have died as a result.    He was a terrorist leader given the dignity of a military rank and uniform.  Good riddance to him.      

[alexava 6,973]

9 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I know you are not this clueless. 

You really think DT is sitting around picking out military targets?   I doubt any President since Lyndon Johnson has tried to micro-manage the actions of our military.   Recommendations come from the Pentagon and or CIA and a President says "yes" or "no" to them.   JMO but two Presidents said "no" about this guy when they should have said "yes" and many Americans have died as a result.    He was a terrorist leader given the dignity of a military rank and uniform.  Good riddance to him.      

Are you so clueless as to see how people can distrust this man? He slandered the intelligence agencies for three years. He blatantly and childishly lied about the path of a ******* hurricane. And then criticized the national weather service for not backing him. 
      I don’t know s*** about this Iranian he assassinated. I just know I want someone who is more honest and trustworthy to make those decisions. I don’t know about the “ many Americans that have died as a result “ either. 

[bigbird 60,533]

10 minutes ago, alexava said:

. I just know I want someone who is more honest and trustworthy to make those decisions.

Agreed

[AU64 10,122]

3 hours ago, alexava said:

I just know I want someone who is more honest and trustworthy to make those decisions.

Agreed

OK...that's a reasonable point....so who out of the previous lot or current lot of likely electable candidates would you suggest is more trustworthy?  

 

[TexasTiger 12,897]

4 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Agreed

OK...that's a reasonable point....so who out of the previous lot or current lot of likely electable candidates would you suggest is more trustworthy?  

 

Most any are less impulsive. Impulsivity is inherently untrustworthy.

[alexava 6,973]

12 hours ago, AU64 said:

Agreed

OK...that's a reasonable point....so who out of the previous lot or current lot of likely electable candidates would you suggest is more trustworthy?  

 

I can think of no person who is not more trustworthy.

[alexava 6,973]

I don’t think assasination of a military leader is going to stop anything that is going on. The military takes orders from above. The person assassinated will be replaced and take orders from the same it would be like killing our defense secretary and thinking his replacement was unable to attack you. It’s not a terror organization it’s a sovereign nation. 
 

Check out this story on CNN: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/01/06/rand-paul-iran-trump-bolton-vpx.cnn

[AUFAN78 3,910]

On 1/5/2020 at 5:58 PM, Brad_ATX said:

It's like none of you read an entire thread before commenting.

Did the IG report remove everyone in our intelligence community?

I read it and laughed.

"Everyone" needed not to be removed. Only the corrupt leaders of said community. 

[AUFAN78 3,910]

On 1/5/2020 at 8:14 PM, TexasTiger said:

State directed terrorism in the case of Iran.

The guy deserved it. But that can be said for many bad actors who are official state figures.

Folks can argue over the legality— the ultimate question for us is whether it was wise? Was it yet another impulsive act without adequate regard to consequences?

If the IC including generals say go for it, you approve and go for it generally speaking. Trump approved and went for it.

Next question.

[TexasTiger 12,897]

4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

If the IC including generals say go for it, you approve and go for it generally speaking. Trump approved and went for it.

Next question.

That’s not how it works. They tell you what’s feasible, not what’s advisable. Leaders make that call.

[AUFAN78 3,910]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

That’s not how it works. They tell you what’s feasible, not what’s advisable. Leaders make that call.

LOL. You've been in that room?

[TexasTiger 12,897]

16 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

LOL. You've been in that room?

If that’s how it works, we don’t need a President. Not surprised you think the decision to knock off an official of another country belongs to the military/CIA.

[AUFAN78 3,910]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

If that’s how it works, we don’t need a President. Not surprised you think the decision to knock off an official of another country belongs to the military/CIA.

Okay. LOL.

[AUDub 11,149]

Iran is lobbing ballistic missiles at bases in Iraq this evening. 

Avoid a war, indeed. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

6 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I read it and laughed.

"Everyone" needed not to be removed. Only the corrupt leaders of said community. 

Well then this would certainly poke a hole in the "Deep State" theory, right?  The whole point of that is that there are people at multiple levels working against Trump.

[TexasTiger 12,897]

4 hours ago, AUDub said:

Iran is lobbing ballistic missiles at bases in Iraq this evening. 

Avoid a war, indeed. 

Lobbing sounds like one’s heart is not in it.