News US-Iran crisis intensifies after general assassinated

[VisionofMilotic]

The United States last night attacked Baghdad airport, killing multiple people including it's target one of Iran's top government officials Qassem Soleimani. This CNBC article I think does a fair job of recapping the underlying conflicts between Iran and US over the past couple of years that are coming to a head here.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/03/top...lled-in-us-airstrike-in-baghdad-pentagon.html

Iran's foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif calls the assassination of their top general an act of international terrorism by the United States, and says that the "U.S bears responsibility for all consequences in it's rogue adventurism."

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says that the U.S was performing a pre-emptive strike to defend itself, and that they have intelligence showing Soleimani had planned an "imminent" attack on Americans deployed in the region.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...eo-says-airstrike-response-threat/2802844001/

Pompeo has not disclosed intelligence evidence of a plot at the this time, and UN official Agnes Callamard argues the airstrike is a violation of International Law.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/03/us-ai...n-violates-human-rights-law-un-official-says/

Here are worldwide reactions to this volatile situation.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01...-alarm-we-are-waking-up-more-dangerous-world/

This is arguably an act of war, one that threatens to also engulf Iraq again as this attack was carried out without the approval of the Iraqi government by the United States on Iraq's soil. I would expect some form of response by Iran, and then another response by the United States. I don't know how far this will escalate, but global affairs are not off to a good start in 2020...

 

[EnglishALT]

So far from what I read, Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of over 500 US soldiers, worked on the attack on the US Embassy ( An act of war, as any Embassy is considered the soil of the home country ), and was largely considered the most dangerous terrorist since Osama Bin Laden.

The U.S. has been in a quiet war with Iran for four decades, and been in a proxy war with them in Iraq for over almost two decades, it is good that there was finally a punch back to this monster.

 

[Nanusmightyena]

While what Trump did was probably deserved, there's a good chance it's gonna cause WW3.

 

[gimmepie]

What Trump did, whether the guy deserved it or not, was pretty par for the course for his stupidity and inability to actually follow through on anything he promises.

You do not kill a foreign diplomat on a third party's soil without even informing that country that you will be undertaking military action. Did anyone from Iraq die in the attack? If they did, that's a whole other clusterfuck.

As for Trump's inability to keep a promise, let's not forget that he was supposedly pulling troops out of the Middle East? Now he's sending them back, and let's not pretend he hasn't been spoiling for open war with Iran for months now. Every time the US pokes its nose into the middle-east, things get worse not better and it is high time the US government stopped acting like the world's authority on everything because every country they interlope in ends up worse than where they started.

We don't need yet another Gulf War.

 

[EnglishALT]

Did anyone from Iraq die in the attack?

The only info I have seen is that an Iraqi military/militia commander was also killed in the attack. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, along with Hezbollah commander Naem Qasm.

 

[gimmepie]

The only info I have seen is that an Iraqi military/militia commander was also killed in the attack. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, along with Hezbollah commander Naem Qasm.

Oh good, so this did result in the death of a military official of an allied nation... on that allied nation's soil... without those allies knowing the attack was coming. Truly stupidity knows no bounds.

 

[EnglishALT]

Oh good, so this did result in the death of a military official of an allied nation... on that allied nation's soil... without those allies knowing the attack was coming. Truly stupidity knows no bounds.

Yeah but obviously the counter question is if the situation was a clear and present danger to US troops what else were they supposed to do? Warning Iraq would have ended with the target being informed because of how corrupt Iraq is currently with Iran.

 

[gimmepie]

Yeah but obviously the counter question is if the situation was a clear and present danger to US troops what else were they supposed to do? Warning Iraq would have ended with the target being informed because of how corrupt Iraq is currently with Iran.

Well I'm sure now that they've brought tensions up a few million notches there's no US troops in danger. That fixes that.

 

[EnglishALT]

Well I'm sure now that they've brought tensions up a few million notches there's no US troops in danger. That fixes that.

Wouldn't the attack on the embassy, already suggest an escalation by Iran that put troops and US personal in danger? This attack did not happen out of no where, the embassy attack was a game changer and obviously there were plans for future attacks.

 

[gimmepie]

Wouldn't the attack on the embassy, already suggest an escalation by Iran that put troops and US personal in danger? This attack did not happen out of no where, the embassy attack was a game changer and obviously there were plans for future attacks.

Has he been definitely linked to any of that?
I'm not necessarily saying that there should not have been a strike against this guy, but this was definitely a poorly conceived plan.

 

[EnglishALT]

Has he been definitely linked to any of that?
I'm not necessarily saying that there should not have been a strike against this guy, but this was definitely a poorly conceived plan.

The embassy attack was from an Iranian backed Hezbollah militia, the leader of whom was meeting with the commander when he was killed. I haven't seen a communique from Iran that said they ordered the attack, but obviously Hezbollah isn't going to do something that could lead to war with out getting the okay from their Iranian masters, and the meeting with Iran's number two just days after obviously suggest that they were preparing what to do next.

 

[gimmepie]

The embassy attack was from an Iranian backed Hezbollah militia, the leader of whom was meeting with the commander when he was killed. I haven't seen a communique from Iran that said they ordered the attack, but obviously Hezbollah isn't going to do something that could lead to war with out getting the okay from their Iranian masters, and the meeting with Iran's number two just days after obviously suggest that they were preparing what to do next.

What I'm hearing is a lot of conjecture and not a lot of evidence.
But even if there was conclusive evidence, this particular plan for carrying it out was a bad one for reasons already outlined.

 

[EnglishALT]

What I'm hearing is a lot of conjecture and not a lot of evidence.
But even if there was conclusive evidence, this particular plan for carrying it out was a bad one for reasons already outlined.

Obviously we are not going to get detailed information for security purposes, I mean what evidence are you looking for here? The best the public is going to get is what members of Congress and Administration officials say.

Also if I may ask, how else would you suggest they carry out the plan?

 

[Maedar]

Know how folks complain when Iran citizens shout "DEATH TO THE GREAT AMERICAN SATAN!"?

Well, they surely aren't gonna stop doing that NOW.

 

[gimmepie]

Obviously we are not going to get detailed information for security purposes, I mean what evidence are you looking for here? The best the public is going to get is what members of Congress and Administration officials say.

Also if I may ask, how else would you suggest they carry out the plan?

If they can't even definitively say, at the least "there is concrete proof", I see little reason to believe them.

Either confer with Iraq's government or strike him somewhere else. He's high profile, I doubt they'd have much trouble finding him somewhere that wouldn't cause quite so much trouble. If need be, you can always prep/evacuate likely targets as needed until the operation is over. I don't claim to have all the answers here, but given how much of a mess of things this makes, I can't imagine it's the best way of doing things.

 

[EnglishALT]

If they can't even definitively say, at the least "there is concrete proof", I see little reason to believe them.

What concrete proof are you looking for? He is the top military leader in Iran, he is responsible for crisis and attacks across the Middle East, he was meeting with the top leader of Kata'lb Hizballah days after attacks on the embassy. What further proof do you need?

Either confer with Iraq's government or strike him somewhere else. He's high profile, I doubt they'd have much trouble finding him somewhere that wouldn't cause quite so much trouble. If need be, you can always prep/evacuate likely targets as needed until the operation is over. I don't claim to have all the answers here, but given how much of a mess of things this makes, I can't imagine it's the best way of doing things.

Informing the Iraqi Government could lead to him being tipped off that something was about to happen, there was an Iraqi general there, so it is not impossible to believe that there were members of the Iraqi government sympathetic to the Iranian regime.

Also while he could be targeted elsewhere, as he traveled across the Middle East, doing so would not have taken out the leader of Kata'lb Hizballah as well, and it would potentially allow any plans made during the meeting to go forward.

Know how folks complain when Iran citizens shout "DEATH TO THE GREAT AMERICAN SATAN!"?

Well, they surely aren't gonna stop doing that NOW.

So the choice is to take out one of the worst terrorists in the world, or... make sure the Iranian people hate us less?

 

[Maedar]

Craziest part, Trump is actually stupid enough to think this will incite a rebellion in Iran. How dumb can someone get?

 

[VisionofMilotic]

I am of an age where I can remember the start of the Iraq war. Thwarting the alleged Soleimani plot sounds uncomfortably close to the script used for invading Iraq. We did a "pre-emptive strike" there too, and it was based on false intelligence of weapons of mass destruction in the country. So my default position is skepticism until we can examine all of the evidence ourselves, and not just take Trump's word or Pompeo's.

As much as this situation reminds me of Iraq, Trump's infinitely crazier than Bush, as even George Bush specifically ruled out assassinating Soleimani, understanding that it would be a potentially irreversible point of escalation.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-obama-bush-and-bibi-all-passed-on-killing-qassem-soleimani

Trump also has to know this, but wants to open that Pandora's box.

I cannot see the United States as victims acting only in self-defense though I'm American. I see this as part of a larger pattern of actions by Trump to try to make peace with Iran impossible, starting with tearing up the Iran Nuclear deal and burying them in sanctions, though Iran was abiding by the terms agreed. We took further punitive action against Iran for the Saudi Arabia oil field attack that the Houthis of Yemen actually claimed responsible for, not Iran.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/20/politics/trump-announces-iran-sanctions/index.html?no-st=9999999999

We similarly accused Iran of attacking a Japanese oil tanker, despite protests from the actual owner of the ship that they were not struck by any Iranian mine.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/oil...with-us-that-mine-caused-blast-near-iran.html

I watched a very interesting interview this afternoon on Democracy Now with award-winning journalist Amy Goodman. She invited Ro Khana on her show, and I thought what he had to say was perhaps the most informative of all of the guests. Congressman Khana had an amendment in the national defense authorization that would have prevented any offensive action against Iran and any funding for it, but the Pentagon forced this language to be taken out of the bill, and now Trump just so happens to be doing this very thing, taking offensive action in Iran and can't be held accountable by Congress. Here's the link if anyone wants to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAFr_s4ZOd8

I don't believe the doublespeak by the United States government that they don't want escalation in Iran. Yes, they do.

 

[EnglishALT]

We similarly accused Iran of attacking a Japanese oil tanker, despite protests from the actual owner of the ship that they were not struck by any Iranian mine.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/oil...with-us-that-mine-caused-blast-near-iran.html

Yeah but the mine did bear a striking resemblance to mines that the Iranian military displayed during parades, and did come at a time when Iran was taking over and attacking ships in the area.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-n...inst-iran-in-tanker-attacks-today-2019-06-19/

A Revolutionary Guard boat also approached the tanker later and removed an unexploded mine.

https://apnews.com/6a48842e263541a5b3451f0d41dee01a

I watched a very interesting interview this afternoon on Democracy Now with award-winning journalist Amy Goodman. She invited Ro Khana on her show, and I thought what he had to say was perhaps the most informative of all of the guests. Congressman Khana had an amendment in the national defense authorization that would have prevented any offensive action against Iran and any funding for it, but the Pentagon forced this language to be taken out of the bill, and now Trump just so happens to be doing this very thing, taking offensive action in Iran and can't be held accountable by Congress. Here's the link if anyone wants to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAFr_s4ZOd8.

I doubt this would be considered an offensive action considering it was in retaliation for the embassy attack, and killed two key components of the group that attacked the embassy, thus the Congressman's language would be moot.

 

[VisionofMilotic]

I doubt this would be considered an offensive action considering it was in retaliation for the embassy attack, and killed two key components of the group that attacked the embassy, thus the Congressman's language would be moot.

It would be considered an offensive action for that very reason, If It's retaliatory then it's not strictly defensive. It is also an act of aggression.