I’m willing to bet this tweet was crucial for ordering the strike on Soleimani.
One simply does not brazenly challenge Trump on his turf that is Twitter:
Did we have some kind of unwritten agreement not to touch this bastard? You mentioned Al-Sadr. I remember when they battled his Militia during the Iraq conflict, I saw on 60 Minutes troop video of Sadr actually fleeing American forces. They could have shot or captured him, but he ran off like a dog with his tail between his legs and our forces let him go. I wonder if there was such an agreement with Soleimani.
Sounds almost like Khamenei was trying to reason with Trump. Maybe Trump should have just asked to bury the hatchet, or is that out of the question like someone said about these guys?
Yes, and he is now part of the Iraqi government, the same Iraqi government US is supposedly protecting from their other government coalition partners and Iran.
It’s worth noting that Sadr is…wait for it…now a critic of Iranian influence in Iraq, so technically US troops are indirectly protecting him and his political party.
Well, during the anti-ISIS offensive in Iraq he was moving around Iraq freely, doing photo ops with the Iraqi government forces, so I’d say yes.
1 Like
Yes. They called on Iraqi Shia to show restraint, believe it or not. Don’t know if it was him, but a high ranking Cleric, so I’m assuming. Is al-Sistani still around?
Well, the Iranian regime will push the Iraqi government to request the US troops to leave. Will see how that plays out with the ever shifting world of Iraqi politics.
This is an extremely detailed expose of Soleimani from six years ago. It’s worth noting initial US-Iranian cooperation in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
The coöperation between the two countries lasted through the initial phase of the war. At one point, the lead negotiator handed Crocker a map detailing the disposition of Taliban forces. “Here’s our advice: hit them here first, and then hit them over here. And here’s the logic.” Stunned, Crocker asked, “Can I take notes?” The negotiator replied, “You can keep the map.” The flow of information went both ways. On one occasion, Crocker said, he gave his counterparts the location of an Al Qaeda facilitator living in the eastern city of Mashhad. The Iranians detained him and brought him to Afghanistan’s new leaders, who, Crocker believes, turned him over to the U.S. The negotiator told Crocker, “Haji Qassem is very pleased with our coöperation.”
After Saddam’s regime collapsed, Crocker was dispatched to Baghdad to organize a fledgling government, called the Iraqi Governing Council. He realized that many Iraqi politicians were flying to Tehran for consultations, and he jumped at the chance to negotiate indirectly with Suleimani. In the course of the summer, Crocker passed him the names of prospective Shiite candidates, and the two men vetted each one. Crocker did not offer veto power, but he abandoned candidates whom Suleimani found especially objectionable. “The formation of the governing council was in its essence a negotiation between Tehran and Washington,” he said.
The good will didn’t last. In January, 2002, Crocker, who was by then the deputy chief of the American Embassy in Kabul, was awakened one night by aides, who told him that President George W. Bush, in his State of the Union Address, had named Iran as part of an “Axis of Evil.” Like many senior diplomats, Crocker was caught off guard. He saw the negotiator the next day at the U.N. compound in Kabul, and he was furious. “You completely damaged me,” Crocker recalled him saying. “Suleimani is in a tearing rage. He feels compromised.” The negotiator told Crocker that, at great political risk, Suleimani had been contemplating a complete reëvaluation of the United States, saying, “Maybe it’s time to rethink our relationship with the Americans.” The Axis of Evil speech brought the meetings to an end. Reformers inside the government, who had advocated a rapprochement with the United States, were put on the defensive. Recalling that time, Crocker shook his head. “We were just that close,” he said. “One word in one speech changed history.”
1 Like
So is this a case where we can trust intelligence officials? I’m just trying to find out when they are deep state witch hunting and when we can point at them to say we killed a dickhead who planned to kill more?
3 Likes
A stupid move. I always thought so. Idiotic.
2 Likes
Trump continues to follow his Israel First policies.
The US should have no involvement in the Middle East at all beyond selling guns and buying oil.
Instead, it spends trillions of taxpayer dollars and sends thousands of its own white Christian soldiers to fight for Jews against their enemies.
1 Like
You sure it’s not the Saudis he’s fighting for?
It seems everyone understands the concept of “blowback” now. LOL
I read a good point somewhere. Someone was wondering why we didn’t bomb the Saudis after they killed an American journalist.
To be fair, starting wars has become kinda a republican special lately. They love them some defense spending. Imagine what they’ll get to do if we can actually be at war.
I was wondering it after they shot up a US base on our own soil. I’ll be honest I don’t understand our current allegiances with SA at all
3 Likes
Or after they killed a few thousand Americans on 9/11.
6 Likes
So, as very much a non-expert on Iran, I have some thoughts.
- Good riddance to the fucker. He killed and maimed many British squadies, and our yank allies.
- This guy was in British sights as well, and the SAS were apparently called off by David Milliband in 2007 (according to the Telegraph today)
- This is a serious change and will necessitate an Iranian response, but I don’t think the regime wants open war, because they aren’t suicidal.
- I have zero clue as to whether Trump’s attempt to re-establish a deterrent will work, and I don’t think anyone will honestly say they do.
- Based on what he had done before, Iran and the USA/UK are already at war. I don’t support an escalation into a full blown hot war, but seeing the US ship seized was a disgrace and the U.K. shipping attacks were, for my money, an act of war.
So, fuck knows. Bye bye bad guy, but yikes the celebration may have a hangover.
Edit: added source for Milliband.
https://twitter.com/maajidnawaz/status/1213552682927054862?s=21
Maajid Nawaz is, as usual, excellent on the issue.
3 Likes
My problem with this killing is that it isn’t a question of whether or not he deserved it or it was justified but that it is a sign we have picked sides when it comes to the ongoing conflict in the region between Shias and Sunnis. We have chosen the Saudis over the Iranians.
So we are going to kill terrorists and war criminals provided they are Iranians. The Saudis, who are exporters of terrorism and fanaticism and were behind 9/11, get a free pass as well as someone to do their dirty work.
4 Likes
Well, Trump did say he wanted to take our forces out of the Middle East…
1 Like