War Iran-United States Military Crisis of 2020 - US Baghdad embassy under siege, rocket fire in US Baghdad green zone, Ukrainian Airlines flight 752 crash, and more!

January 10th:
Exclusive: Informants in Iraq, Syria helped U.S. kill Iran's Soleimani - sources (archive)(post)
Iraqi Shia cleric whose militia killed American troops says crisis is over following Iran strike and Trump speech (archive)(post)
Iraqi PM tells US to decide mechanism for troop withdrawal (archive)(post)
Mike Pence says Congress might 'compromise sources and methods' if fully briefed on the Soleimani strike (archive)(post)
Unidentified planes hit Iraqi militiamen in Syria, killing 8 (archive)(post)
Iraq: The Master Of Mayhem Meets A Missile (archive)(post)
Eliminating Qasem Soleimani was Donald Trump’s Middle East farewell letter (archive)(post)
Iran uses BULLDOZERS to clear debris from plane crash site while accusing US of ‘big lie’ that they shot it down (archive)(post)
Swiss Back Channel Helped Defuse U.S.-Iran Crisis (post)

January 11th:
UKRAINIAN AIRCRAFT WAS BROUGHT DOWN IN IRAN DUE TO 'HUMAN ERROR' (archive)(post)
Iran minister says 'human error' caused by 'US adventurism' led to deadly crash of Ukrainian jetliner (archive)(post)
Ukrainian aircraft was brought down in Iran due to 'human error' (archive)(post)
Trump, at Ohio rally, says Democrats would have leaked Soleimani attack plans (archive)(post)
The Atlantic's David Frum blames Trump for downing of plane in Iran, deaths of 176 (archive)(post)
Associated Press changes ‘shockingly bad’ headline about Soleimani, Ukrainian plane crash after backlash (archive)(post)
GOP Rep. Doug Collins apologizes for saying Democrats are 'in love with terrorists' (archive)(post)
Iran demands West 'show findings' as new video reveals aircraft was struck before fiery crash (archive)(post)
Warren town hall interrupted by angry protester accusing her of ‘siding with terrorists’ (archive)(post)
Trump administration announces new sanctions on Iran (archive)(post)
Prepare For the Worst From Iran Cyber Attacks, As DHS Issues Warning: Experts (archive)(post)
Trump tells Fox News' Laura Ingraham 'four embassies' were targeted in imminent threat from Iran (archive)(post)
Trump tweets support for Iranian protesters as they demand Khamenei quit (archive)(post)
Trump warns Iran against ‘another massacre’ as protests flare over downed jet (archive)(post)

January 12th:
Trump tweet in Farsi 'the most liked Persian tweet' in history of Twitter (archive)(post)
Iraq warned to keep US troops or risk financial blow-WSJ (archive)(post)
Iran arrests UK ambassador in what Britain calls ‘flagrant violation of international law’ (archive)(post)

January 13th:
Trump authorized Soleimani's killing 7 months ago, with conditions (archive)(post)

edit: This is a WIP. All links are posted in the order they appear in the thread, not in chronological order of their publication.


---Original OP before the merge---
Iraqi supporters of Iran-backed militia attack US Embassy
https://apnews.com/75228a8a607a44863b57021ac33264dc (http://archive.vn/ljm9Y)

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA12 minutes ago

BAGHDAD (AP) — Dozens of angry Iraqi Shiite militia supporters broke into the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad on Tuesday after smashing a main door and setting fire to a reception area, prompting tear gas and sounds of gunfire.

An Associated Press reporter at the scene saw flames rising from inside the compound and at least three U.S. soldiers on the roof of the main building inside embassy. It was not clear what caused the fire at the reception area near the parking lot of the compound. A man on a loudspeaker urged the mob not to enter the compound, saying: “The message was delivered.”

The embassy attack followed deadly U.S. airstrikes on Sunday that killed 25 fighters of the Iran-backed militia in Iraq, the Kataeb Hezbollah. The U.S. military said it was in retaliation for last week’s killing of an American contractor in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base that it had blamed on the militia.

Dozens of protesters marched inside the compound after smashing the gate used by cars to enter the embassy. The protesters, many in militia uniform, stopped in a corridor after about 5 meters (16 feet), and were only about 200 meters away from the main building. Half a dozen U.S. soldiers were seen on the roof of the main building, their guns were pointed at the protesters.

Smoke from the tear gas rose in the area, and at least three of the protesters appeared to have difficulties breathing. It wasn’t immediately known whether the embassy staff had remained inside the main building.

The protesters hanged a poster on the wall: “America is an aggressor.”

Shouting “Down, Down USA,” the crowd tried to push inside the embassy grounds, hurling water and stones over its walls. They raised yellow militia flags and taunted the embassy’s security staff who remained behind the glass windows in the gates’ reception area. They sprayed graffiti on the wall and windows in red in support of the Kataeb Hezbollah militia: “Closed in the name of the resistance.”

Hundreds of angry protesters, some in militia uniforms, set up tents outside the embassy. As tempers rose, the mob set fire to three trailers used by security guards along the embassy wall.

No one was immediately reported hurt in the rampage and security staff had withdrawn to inside the embassy earlier, soon after protesters gathered outside.

The U.S. attack — the largest targeting an Iraqi state-sanctioned militia in recent years — and the subsequent calls by the militia for retaliation, represent a new escalation in the proxy war between the U.S. and Iran playing out in the Middle East.

Tuesday’s attempted embassy storming took place after mourners and supporters held funerals for the militia fighters killed in a Baghdad neighborhood, after which they marched on to the heavily fortified Green Zone and kept walking till they reached the sprawling U.S. Embassy there.

AP journalists then saw the crowd as they tried to scale the walls of the embassy, in what appeared to be an attempt to storm it, shouting “Down, down USA!” and “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Sunday’s strikes send the message that the U.S. will not tolerate actions by Iran that jeopardize American lives.

The Iranian-backed Iraqi militia had vowed Monday to retaliate for the U.S. military strikes. The attack and vows for revenge raised concerns of new attacks that could threaten American interests in the region.

The U.S. attack also outraged both the militias and the Iraqi government, which said it will reconsider its relationship with the U.S.-led coalition — the first time it has said it will do so since an agreement was struck to keep some U.S. troops in the country. It called the attack a “flagrant violation” of its sovereignty.

In a partly televised meeting Monday, Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi told Cabinet members that he had tried to stop the U.S. operation “but there was insistence” from American officials.

The U.S. military said “precision defensive strikes” were conducted against five sites of Kataeb Hezbollah, or Hezbollah Brigades in Iraq and Syria. The group, which is a separate force from the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, operates under the umbrella of the state-sanctioned militias known collectively as the Popular Mobilization Forces. Many of them are supported by Iran.









.
 
Last edited:
Well uh. It DID result in Trump blowing Iran's asshole wide open. So there's that.
I mean yeah, but I didn't think this would be that big of a deal....actually I'm foolish, considering this kind of colludes with Iran's history of being kind to the U.S. and back.

I mean remember when he released MOAB for absolutely no reason....at least this had a motive.
 
Rush Limbaugh interviewed Trump today

"RUSH: Welcome back the EIB Network, and Rush Limbaugh back at it after a couple of weeks off for Christmas. Not much happening. We are happy to have here with us the president of the United States, Donald Trump. It’s so great to have you back here, sir. Thank you for joining us.


THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, Rush, very much.


RUSH: Okay. I have had a lot of people say to me — they’re reacting to the media reaction of the action we took, that you took against the Quds Force commander in Iran. Mr. President, people are being scared to death, their kids are being scared to death out of their minds that somehow this is gonna start World War III, that we are now more unsafe than we have ever been. Could you explain to people why what you’ve done here makes us safer, why it was necessary, and why what we did was right.


THE PRESIDENT: Well, this should have been done for the last 15 to 20 years, him in particular. He was their real military leader. He’s a terrorist. He was designated a terrorist by President Obama, and then Obama did nothing about it except give them $150 billion and — even more incredibly — $1.8 billion in cash. You hear me talking about that all the time, and you talk about it all the time. He gave them all this money. He never wanted to do anything about it. President Bush should have taken him out. He’s responsible for the IEDs.


Those are the roadside bombs and the bombs that blow up all over the place — and then the sister, which is the big one, the big version, that actually knocks out tanks and kills everybody within earshot. A really horrible weapon. He’s responsible for all those incredible young people over at Walter Reed — where they do such a great job, by the way — where they lose their arms and their legs and all. He gave so much of that technology. Much of that stuff was made in Iran. And he should have been taken out a long time ago. And we had a shot at it, and we took him out. And we’re a lot safer now because of it. We’ll see what happens. We’ll see what the response is, if any. But you’ve seen what I said our response will be.


RUSH: Well, yeah.


APP-010620-Trump-Interview-99.jpg



THE PRESIDENT: Our country is a lot safer, Rush.


RUSH: They said they’ve got 21 targets they’re looking at, and you came back and said, “Fine. I’ve got 52 of yours.” I don’t think that they are accustomed to a president like you, sir. I mean, you just mentioned it. Obama basically appeased them. Obama worked with this guy on the Iranian nuclear deal. What…? A lot of things had to surprise you when you assumed office and found out some things that had been done previously in policy. What was the purpose of American policy with Iran prior to your presidency?


THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think they had a purpose. I don’t think they knew what was happening. Why did he give them $150 billion, much of it going back into terror? If you look at what’s happening… When I first came into office, I went to the Pentagon, and they showed me 18 “sites of confliction,” meaning conflict, over there. And every one of them was started by Iran, either their soldiers or they paid for soldiers, soldiers for hire. I have no idea what they tried to do with appeasement.


And I can tell you, the Logan Act… If there was ever an act that should have been used, they should look at the Obama administration and John Kerry, the Logan Act, because what he was doing with Iran and the relationship that they built up and the things that he said, I would certainly love to see that be looked at because I think John Kerry was… Personally, I think he was advising them. I think that the Obama administration was just letting them get away with murder — in the true sense murder.


And, you know, right after they made the deal, it wasn’t like they were respected. They treated the United States worse than ever before. In fact, I said, “At least give him a little respect,” because they treated… They got worse. They actually got more hostile. They took the $150 billion and they took the $1.8 billion in cash, and they got worse. And, if you remember, right before the payment was made, they took 10 sailors.


And they humiliated those sailors, and they humiliated our country with the sailors down on their knees. And the only reason they released them was they wanted their first payment. It was just before the payment. If they had taken them after they got the money, they would have never released them. They’d be there now. Well, they would be there now with me. But they would be there for a long period of time. But you remember the 10 sailors that were —


RUSH: Yeah.


THE PRESIDENT: — 15 feet across the line, probably they weren’t. They don’t even know if they were in Iranian waters. But they said they were slightly in Iranian waters. So they humiliated them. But they released them because the money was due the following day, and they said, “Oh, we don’t want to…” Hey, why should they turn down $150 billion over the 10 sailors? But they humiliated those sailors and our country.


RUSH: Well, he also lifted sanctions on Soleimani as part of the Iran deal. And it looks like, to me, anyway, that Obama looked and that administration looked at building Iran up as some way stabilizing the region. As though Israel’s not the good guys, as though we’re not the good guys, that Iran needs to be made stronger — this is what they believed — otherwise that whole region is kind of a tinderbox. But the thing that really is true about this is the Middle East has changed in priority. Because of the massive improvements made in domestic energy in the United States, we’re no longer dependent on that region.


THE PRESIDENT: Right. Well, it’s right, and one of the things that changed… I know you talk about it. If you go back 10 years or eight years or maybe even five years, Israel was the king of the Congress, right? Our Congress protected Israel and fought for Israel. Now you look at the way the Democrats in Congress are treating them, where you have AOC and you have Tlaib and you have Omar, and they are actually, you know, anti-Semitic. They are totally against Israel. The things that they’ve said…


You go back to the past and you look at the things that they’ve said about Israel and Jewish people, it’s incredible. Ten years ago, that would have been unacceptable. It would have been… It would have been… Nobody could have even believed it. I still can’t believe it! You know, I’m a little bit old-fashioned, right, in that sense, ’cause I’ve grown up and there was always great protection and reverence for Israel, and now it’s the opposite. In the Democrats, it’s almost… It’s almost a negative. They’re going out and what they do for Tlaib and what they do for Omar — Representative Omar, Minnesota — and AOC, I think it’s incredible the way they talk about Israel. It just was unthinkable to do that 10 years ago and sooner.


RUSH: I actually think that you’ve had a role in driving them even more insane than they were. Let me give you some evidence. Let’s go back to the day you came down the escalator and announced your candidacy. You announced the slogan Make America Great Again, and, all of a sudden, Make America Great Again becomes some wildly controversial prospect. And I’m asking myself, “What in the world is controversial at all? How can anybody disagree with America being great, becoming great, remaining great?” and yet it was. How do you explain that?


APP-080118-Trump-Interview-PIC.jpg
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, politics has changed a lot over the last couple of years. For instance, I want low taxes. They want to raise your taxes. How do you think that works? I couldn’t win as a politician. I don’t think Abe Lincoln could win as a politician. Borders. They want open borders. When you see the people that we’re sending back and we’re capturing now at record levels, in many cases they’re murderers and they’re people, they’re drug dealers, and it’s incredible. They want open borders. That means all of these people are gonna be pouring in.


And, of course, good ones will come in too. But you have tremendous numbers of really bad people, including murderers and rapists and others. They want open borders. They want sanctuary cities. They don’t want a strong military based on everything — I mean, we have to fight like crazy to get the strong military, and we have to give up things that we wouldn’t give up if we had the House, as an example, if we were able to have enough. You know, we’ve always needed their vote because it was always very close.


In fact, the first two years we had a very, you know, tiny majority, so we always needed their votes. But when you see they want higher taxes, right? They want much more regulation. You know, I cut regulations more than any president in history by far, even though they were there for four and eight years and, in one case more than that, we’ve got the all-time record, that was probably as important or more important as the tax cuts, the biggest — including Ronald Reagan — the biggest tax cut we’ve ever had.


And we’re actually taking in more revenue now than we did when we had the higher taxes because the economy’s doing so well. But, you know, when you see them with open borders, Rush, you say — and sanctuary cities and all of these other things — you say, “Where are they coming from?” Well, Israel is sort of the same. I put that in that same category. As far as I’m concerned, they’re anti-Israel, totally anti-Israel.


RUSH: Well, it’s always perplexed me that you have drawn them out. They have now — with Twitter in the past two or three days since the attack on Soleimani, you literally have the Democrat Party and elements of that party openly supporting Iran, an enemy of the United States, openly supporting the terrorist actions of that country, and this is a country that beheads homosexuals and transgenders –


THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.


RUSH: — and has no human rights for the very constituency the Democrat Party claims to represent. Yet here they are tweeting their support for these people –


THE PRESIDENT: Right.


RUSH: — simply in opposition to you.


THE PRESIDENT: That’s amazing. Like, as an example, take the wall. They were always for the wall. And then I wanted it, and they went against it. In fact, I said, if I had it to do again, I would have come out totally against the wall and I would have gotten their votes. Okay? All I had to do was come out against the wall. “I am opposed to building the wall.” And we would have gotten all the votes we needed.


No, it’s almost like they’ll try and do whatever is the opposite. I think they’ve lost their minds, you want to know the truth. I really do. It’s a terrible thing to say. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it. Like even impeachment hoax, you take a look at that, and they have nothing, they have nothing. With one of the biggest investigations in history, they found nothing, the Mueller report, they found absolutely — think of it — they spent $45 million, two years, it’s a hoax.


They spent all of that time, all of that money, had brilliant people that happened to be, you know, very, very — they were crazed — they were crazed. I mean, these people were dying to find something on Trump. They found nothing. I think there’s very few people that you’ve ever met who could have had that. They had so many investigators, they were calling people that I haven’t seen in years, and they got nothing.


Think of that, nothing. Very few people — and, by the way, I’m sure they looked at my taxes, they looked at everything you had to look at, they looked at everything. And $45 million, and much more than that in the true sense, you know, the real sense, it was much more than that. And they had 18 — I used to call them 13 angry Democrats, but they increased it to 18 angry Democrats –


RUSH: Full party.


THE PRESIDENT: — and very smart. Many were tied up with Clinton. They were involved with Clinton. But these people couldn’t find anything on Trump. They would have loved — if I had a parking ticket, it would have been a major story. They found nothing. Even I was very impressed with how clean I am, Rush.


RUSH: You ought to be. You may be cleaner than any previous president that we could think of. Anyway, I gotta take a quick timeout. We have President Trump with us for the remaining part of the program, the last of the half hour, and we’ll continue with him right after this.


BREAK TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: And we are back with President Trump. You mentioned the impeachment hoax. Nancy Pelosi has not delivered these two articles of impeachment that are, frankly, both of them are jokes. What do you suspect is happening here with this? What is the politics of this? What are they trying to achieve here? I mean, I know throw you out of office and all, but what’s the point here, not sending these articles over?


THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think what they’re trying to do is affect the election illegally. That’s what they’re trying to do. But the reason that they’re not sending it because they’re — they are a joke. They are not crimes. There is nothing there. They found nothing. We went through two years of a Mueller report, you know that better than anybody, nobody covered it better. And we went through two years —


RUSH: I think I’m more frustrated by it than you are. You’ve had to deal with it. But it makes a lot of us livid —


APP-122319-Turning-Point-Rush-Trump-004.jpg
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.


RUSH: — because there’s nothing, everything to this has been made up. It’s worse than a hoax, the first part of it was a coup, and this is just the continuation of it.


THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, it’s so sad for our country. I mean, think of it. We’re fighting with Iran, we’re fighting with all of these different places, and, in many cases, doing great, making trade deals, doing so good, our country is doing so good, but I have to spend, and my team has to spend, time on this stuff. They found nothing. Just think of that. For two years an unlimited budget, unlimited talent and they found nothing, and they came up with two articles that aren’t even a crime.


RUSH: Well, there was nothing to find. It was all made up. I mean, that’s the frustrating thing here. It was all made up. There was nothing to find. There was nothing to investigate.


THE PRESIDENT: They created a situation that was false, that was fraudulent, and then they investigated the false, fraudulent situation, and they found nothing. It’s hard to believe. The whole thing’s hard to believe. And now, on top of it, they come up with two articles and they put it before — now, what happened is she doesn’t want to get a vote because how can anybody possibly — it’s totally partisan. You know, this is not what they had in mind as they call them the founders, right, they keep saying the founders, founders, but the founders didn’t have this in mind. You understand, it’s like I’ve never heard the word “founders” so much in my life.


RUSH: They don’t have anything in common with the founders anyway.


THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. We got I guess 196 or 197 to nothing with the Republican Party, plus we had three Democrat votes, and one person actually left the Democratic — the Democrat Party over it and joined the Republican Party, as you know.


RUSH: Speaking of which, the Republican Party hasn’t been this unified in I don’t know how long.


THE PRESIDENT: Never. It’s never — they say maybe never. And one thing I gave the Democrats credit for, they’ve always been very vicious, and they — and that’s not necessarily a good thing, but what is a good thing is they always stuck together. And here the Republicans stuck together even better than the Democrats. So we had, like, 196 or 197 to nothing. It’s unheard of. You know that because they’re always breaking off and — I don’t know — and this is really for 70 years, 80 years, you know, for some reason it’s in the DNA, they just don’t seem — and in this case they have been so good. And I think the Senate will be the same way ’cause the Senate knows it’s a hoax. Everybody knows it’s a hoax.


RUSH: The Republican Party’s now the party of Trump, I mean, there’s no question about it.


THE PRESIDENT: Well, I just think it’s the party of common sense. You know, I view it — somebody said, “Are you conservative?” Well, I’m conservative, but I think it’s common sense. It was — like what we did two days ago with this horrible terrorist. He was a terrorist, you know, they don’t want to call him a terrorist. Now the Democrats are trying to make him sound like he was this wonderful human being.


RUSH: He was a poet. Yeah, he was a poet.


APP-010620-Qassem-Soleimani.jpg
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, he’s a poet.


RUSH: He’s reading poetry out there.


THE PRESIDENT: Well, when you read the New York Times and you read the Washington Post, that are totally fake newspapers, by the way, that would have both been out of business except I won, I wonder what happens in — hopefully in five years, right? Hopefully in five years. But I wonder what happens to those newspapers. Who knows. But they do well now, although if you look at the unfunded liability probably they don’t do so well.


But you look at what they write, it’s so fake, it’s so phony, and now they’re trying to build him just like they did al-Baghdadi. Al-Baghdadi was the number-one terrorist in the world. We got him. They wrote very little about it, relatively speaking. That story disappeared very quickly, as you know. But they tried to build him up into a relatively wonderful man. He was a total bad guy –


RUSH: Yeah.


THE PRESIDENT: He founded ISIS. He was doing it again. He was trying to do it again. You know, I wiped out ISIS. During our administration, we wiped out the entire caliphate — a hundred percent of the caliphate — and we wiped him out and, you know, got little credit. But our people know that we did it, Rush, because of people like you and Sean Hannity and Mark Levin and so many others. Your friends at Fox & Friends in the morning are so good. You know, people are getting it. They really get it. And because of social media and my Twitter. Without Twitter, I think we’d be lost. We wouldn’t be able to get the truth out.


RUSH: Yeah, that’s a good point. People still say to me, “You need to ask him to stop tweeting so much.” I tell ’em, “Look, it’s the only way he can get his message out, and it’s not a negative at all.” People say, “He needs to dial back the drama, needs to dial back the chaos.” I disagree with that talk.


THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.


RUSH: I think you’re doing exactly what you have to do, given the circumstances presented to you.


THE PRESIDENT: Well, I wish I didn’t have to do it. I wish we had legitimate newspapers and legitimate media. We don’t. I mean, it’s… Much of it is really… I call it corrupt. It’s the corrupt media. It’s — and, you know, it’s very interesting. You understand this better than anybody. If they do a story on me, I immediately know if it’s false or not false — and I don’t mind a bad story if it’s right. But I know. A person reading the story doesn’t know that it’s false, so I’m able to tell ’em through social media.


RUSH: Right.


THE PRESIDENT: I don’t even call it Twitter. I call it social media, ’cause it goes to everything. You know, it goes to Facebook, it goes to Instagram, and we have hundreds of millions of people. You know, we have a tremendous amount of people. Just on one site I’m up to, I guess, close to 70 million people.


RUSH: Yeah, they’re jealous as they can be of that too.


THE PRESIDENT: Now, for Facebook, I had dinner —


RUSH: Of course they want you to stop.


APP-100119-Zuckerberg.jpg
THE PRESIDENT: I had dinner with Mark Zuckerberg the other day, and he said, “I’d like to congratulate you,” in front of a large group of people. So I’m not… (chuckles) But he said, “I’d like to congratulate you, you’re number one on Facebook,” and, you know, it’s incredible, and that’s —


RUSH: Wait a minute! Wait a minute. You had dinner with Zuckerberg?


THE PRESIDENT: I did. I did. I had dinner with him.


RUSH: Oh-ho! Wait ’til the world finds out about that.


THE PRESDIENT: Oh, I know.


RUSH: I guess they just did.


THE PRESIDENT: You have semi-breaking news. I guess a couple of people might have reported it but they’re not like you. So I just got a list, the TSL Power 50. The number one show on radio has a guy named Rush Limbaugh. Did you ever hear of him, Rush Limbaugh?


RUSH: (laughing)


THE PRESIDENT: Number 1. Have you? This is the 50 “most influential and listened to streaming talk show in the country,” Rush Limbaugh number 1. So I hope you saw that. But now we’ve just made your interview.


RUSH: (laughing)


THE PRESIDENT: But your viewers have to know that. Your listeners have to know that. Number 1. Great job.


RUSH: Thank you, sir. You know, your timing is impeccable. You’re a broadcast specialist from The Apprentice and so forth, and you’ve gotten right up to the break here. I can’t thank you enough for this. I wish we had even more time. People love you, sir —


THE PRESIDENT: Well —


RUSH: — and they are grateful, and they know that you still are focused on them —


THE PRESIDENT: I love ’em.


RUSH: — that you’re still implementing the agenda that you ran on.


THE PRESIDENT: I love ’em. I love ’em, Rush.


RUSH: They know that too. Thank you so much for your time and have a great, great rest of this day and year.


THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you. Thank you.


RUSH: I hope it’s the greatest year of your life, sir.


THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much, Rush, and thank you for everything, and congratulations on your incredible success. I really… It’s so important for this country what you do. Thank you very much, Rush.


RUSH: Thank you, sir.


THE PRESIDENT: Thanks. Bye"
 
I mean yeah, but I didn't think this would be that big of a deal....actually I'm foolish, considering this kind of colludes with Iran's history of being kind to the U.S. and back.

I mean remember when he released MOAB for absolutely no reason....at least this had a motive.

We pissed off Iran something fierce. Killed a man who was effectively the wardog of Iran. It's a huge fucking deal cause this motherfucker has been funding and orchestrating terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen. He's the fucker that has been giving them weapons.
 
That signed part remains disputed. Such diplomatic letters are often simply not signed.
My bullshit detector is going off again.

And there are supposed to be watermarks. None. Nada.
A watermark on a sample image of a sample text on the Internet doesn't mean that there should be watermarks on drafts of physical documents from a state government.

And if you're not basing your argument on that sample image, then your argument is based on literally nothing at all.
 
I can't see how anything about this actually hurts rather than helps Trump get reelected. The people in the age groups that actually show up to vote are in the same age groups that still have a hateboner for Iran. My earliest school memories are 1) watching the first space shuttle launch on a little black and white TV my teacher brought in, 2) being the first kid to touch the brand new Atari 400 computer the school got, and 3) making yellow ribbons and tying them to all the trees, along with every other kid in all the other schools in the area, because we were on the flight path for a local embassy hostage returning (after Iran bitched out and released them because Reagan was scary) on the off chance they could see them as they came into land.

The Soviets were background noise, but Iran was fucking evil. If you weren't alive at the time you can't really grasp that. I'm not sure even al Qaeda/bin Laden brought out the same reaction. bin Laden was going to be got because he was just a porn addicted terrorist.

Hell, I remember the hijacking fears were so strong in the 80's, it even filtered into games like Police Quest 2.
 
Rush Limbaugh interviewed Trump today

"RUSH: Welcome back the EIB Network, and Rush Limbaugh back at it after a couple of weeks off for Christmas. Not much happening. We are happy to have here with us the president of the United States, Donald Trump. It’s so great to have you back here, sir. Thank you for joining us.


THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, Rush, very much.


RUSH: Okay. I have had a lot of people say to me — they’re reacting to the media reaction of the action we took, that you took against the Quds Force commander in Iran. Mr. President, people are being scared to death, their kids are being scared to death out of their minds that somehow this is gonna start World War III, that we are now more unsafe than we have ever been. Could you explain to people why what you’ve done here makes us safer, why it was necessary, and why what we did was right.


THE PRESIDENT: Well, this should have been done for the last 15 to 20 years, him in particular. He was their real military leader. He’s a terrorist. He was designated a terrorist by President Obama, and then Obama did nothing about it except give them $150 billion and — even more incredibly — $1.8 billion in cash. You hear me talking about that all the time, and you talk about it all the time. He gave them all this money. He never wanted to do anything about it. President Bush should have taken him out. He’s responsible for the IEDs.


Those are the roadside bombs and the bombs that blow up all over the place — and then the sister, which is the big one, the big version, that actually knocks out tanks and kills everybody within earshot. A really horrible weapon. He’s responsible for all those incredible young people over at Walter Reed — where they do such a great job, by the way — where they lose their arms and their legs and all. He gave so much of that technology. Much of that stuff was made in Iran. And he should have been taken out a long time ago. And we had a shot at it, and we took him out. And we’re a lot safer now because of it. We’ll see what happens. We’ll see what the response is, if any. But you’ve seen what I said our response will be.


RUSH: Well, yeah.


APP-010620-Trump-Interview-99.jpg



THE PRESIDENT: Our country is a lot safer, Rush.


RUSH: They said they’ve got 21 targets they’re looking at, and you came back and said, “Fine. I’ve got 52 of yours.” I don’t think that they are accustomed to a president like you, sir. I mean, you just mentioned it. Obama basically appeased them. Obama worked with this guy on the Iranian nuclear deal. What…? A lot of things had to surprise you when you assumed office and found out some things that had been done previously in policy. What was the purpose of American policy with Iran prior to your presidency?


THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think they had a purpose. I don’t think they knew what was happening. Why did he give them $150 billion, much of it going back into terror? If you look at what’s happening… When I first came into office, I went to the Pentagon, and they showed me 18 “sites of confliction,” meaning conflict, over there. And every one of them was started by Iran, either their soldiers or they paid for soldiers, soldiers for hire. I have no idea what they tried to do with appeasement.


And I can tell you, the Logan Act… If there was ever an act that should have been used, they should look at the Obama administration and John Kerry, the Logan Act, because what he was doing with Iran and the relationship that they built up and the things that he said, I would certainly love to see that be looked at because I think John Kerry was… Personally, I think he was advising them. I think that the Obama administration was just letting them get away with murder — in the true sense murder.


And, you know, right after they made the deal, it wasn’t like they were respected. They treated the United States worse than ever before. In fact, I said, “At least give him a little respect,” because they treated… They got worse. They actually got more hostile. They took the $150 billion and they took the $1.8 billion in cash, and they got worse. And, if you remember, right before the payment was made, they took 10 sailors.


And they humiliated those sailors, and they humiliated our country with the sailors down on their knees. And the only reason they released them was they wanted their first payment. It was just before the payment. If they had taken them after they got the money, they would have never released them. They’d be there now. Well, they would be there now with me. But they would be there for a long period of time. But you remember the 10 sailors that were —


RUSH: Yeah.


THE PRESIDENT: — 15 feet across the line, probably they weren’t. They don’t even know if they were in Iranian waters. But they said they were slightly in Iranian waters. So they humiliated them. But they released them because the money was due the following day, and they said, “Oh, we don’t want to…” Hey, why should they turn down $150 billion over the 10 sailors? But they humiliated those sailors and our country.


RUSH: Well, he also lifted sanctions on Soleimani as part of the Iran deal. And it looks like, to me, anyway, that Obama looked and that administration looked at building Iran up as some way stabilizing the region. As though Israel’s not the good guys, as though we’re not the good guys, that Iran needs to be made stronger — this is what they believed — otherwise that whole region is kind of a tinderbox. But the thing that really is true about this is the Middle East has changed in priority. Because of the massive improvements made in domestic energy in the United States, we’re no longer dependent on that region.


THE PRESIDENT: Right. Well, it’s right, and one of the things that changed… I know you talk about it. If you go back 10 years or eight years or maybe even five years, Israel was the king of the Congress, right? Our Congress protected Israel and fought for Israel. Now you look at the way the Democrats in Congress are treating them, where you have AOC and you have Tlaib and you have Omar, and they are actually, you know, anti-Semitic. They are totally against Israel. The things that they’ve said…


You go back to the past and you look at the things that they’ve said about Israel and Jewish people, it’s incredible. Ten years ago, that would have been unacceptable. It would have been… It would have been… Nobody could have even believed it. I still can’t believe it! You know, I’m a little bit old-fashioned, right, in that sense, ’cause I’ve grown up and there was always great protection and reverence for Israel, and now it’s the opposite. In the Democrats, it’s almost… It’s almost a negative. They’re going out and what they do for Tlaib and what they do for Omar — Representative Omar, Minnesota — and AOC, I think it’s incredible the way they talk about Israel. It just was unthinkable to do that 10 years ago and sooner.


RUSH: I actually think that you’ve had a role in driving them even more insane than they were. Let me give you some evidence. Let’s go back to the day you came down the escalator and announced your candidacy. You announced the slogan Make America Great Again, and, all of a sudden, Make America Great Again becomes some wildly controversial prospect. And I’m asking myself, “What in the world is controversial at all? How can anybody disagree with America being great, becoming great, remaining great?” and yet it was. How do you explain that?


APP-080118-Trump-Interview-PIC.jpg
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, politics has changed a lot over the last couple of years. For instance, I want low taxes. They want to raise your taxes. How do you think that works? I couldn’t win as a politician. I don’t think Abe Lincoln could win as a politician. Borders. They want open borders. When you see the people that we’re sending back and we’re capturing now at record levels, in many cases they’re murderers and they’re people, they’re drug dealers, and it’s incredible. They want open borders. That means all of these people are gonna be pouring in.


And, of course, good ones will come in too. But you have tremendous numbers of really bad people, including murderers and rapists and others. They want open borders. They want sanctuary cities. They don’t want a strong military based on everything — I mean, we have to fight like crazy to get the strong military, and we have to give up things that we wouldn’t give up if we had the House, as an example, if we were able to have enough. You know, we’ve always needed their vote because it was always very close.


In fact, the first two years we had a very, you know, tiny majority, so we always needed their votes. But when you see they want higher taxes, right? They want much more regulation. You know, I cut regulations more than any president in history by far, even though they were there for four and eight years and, in one case more than that, we’ve got the all-time record, that was probably as important or more important as the tax cuts, the biggest — including Ronald Reagan — the biggest tax cut we’ve ever had.


And we’re actually taking in more revenue now than we did when we had the higher taxes because the economy’s doing so well. But, you know, when you see them with open borders, Rush, you say — and sanctuary cities and all of these other things — you say, “Where are they coming from?” Well, Israel is sort of the same. I put that in that same category. As far as I’m concerned, they’re anti-Israel, totally anti-Israel.


RUSH: Well, it’s always perplexed me that you have drawn them out. They have now — with Twitter in the past two or three days since the attack on Soleimani, you literally have the Democrat Party and elements of that party openly supporting Iran, an enemy of the United States, openly supporting the terrorist actions of that country, and this is a country that beheads homosexuals and transgenders –


THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.


RUSH: — and has no human rights for the very constituency the Democrat Party claims to represent. Yet here they are tweeting their support for these people –


THE PRESIDENT: Right.


RUSH: — simply in opposition to you.


THE PRESIDENT: That’s amazing. Like, as an example, take the wall. They were always for the wall. And then I wanted it, and they went against it. In fact, I said, if I had it to do again, I would have come out totally against the wall and I would have gotten their votes. Okay? All I had to do was come out against the wall. “I am opposed to building the wall.” And we would have gotten all the votes we needed.


No, it’s almost like they’ll try and do whatever is the opposite. I think they’ve lost their minds, you want to know the truth. I really do. It’s a terrible thing to say. Nobody’s ever seen anything like it. Like even impeachment hoax, you take a look at that, and they have nothing, they have nothing. With one of the biggest investigations in history, they found nothing, the Mueller report, they found absolutely — think of it — they spent $45 million, two years, it’s a hoax.


They spent all of that time, all of that money, had brilliant people that happened to be, you know, very, very — they were crazed — they were crazed. I mean, these people were dying to find something on Trump. They found nothing. I think there’s very few people that you’ve ever met who could have had that. They had so many investigators, they were calling people that I haven’t seen in years, and they got nothing.


Think of that, nothing. Very few people — and, by the way, I’m sure they looked at my taxes, they looked at everything you had to look at, they looked at everything. And $45 million, and much more than that in the true sense, you know, the real sense, it was much more than that. And they had 18 — I used to call them 13 angry Democrats, but they increased it to 18 angry Democrats –


RUSH: Full party.


THE PRESIDENT: — and very smart. Many were tied up with Clinton. They were involved with Clinton. But these people couldn’t find anything on Trump. They would have loved — if I had a parking ticket, it would have been a major story. They found nothing. Even I was very impressed with how clean I am, Rush.


RUSH: You ought to be. You may be cleaner than any previous president that we could think of. Anyway, I gotta take a quick timeout. We have President Trump with us for the remaining part of the program, the last of the half hour, and we’ll continue with him right after this.


BREAK TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: And we are back with President Trump. You mentioned the impeachment hoax. Nancy Pelosi has not delivered these two articles of impeachment that are, frankly, both of them are jokes. What do you suspect is happening here with this? What is the politics of this? What are they trying to achieve here? I mean, I know throw you out of office and all, but what’s the point here, not sending these articles over?


THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think what they’re trying to do is affect the election illegally. That’s what they’re trying to do. But the reason that they’re not sending it because they’re — they are a joke. They are not crimes. There is nothing there. They found nothing. We went through two years of a Mueller report, you know that better than anybody, nobody covered it better. And we went through two years —


RUSH: I think I’m more frustrated by it than you are. You’ve had to deal with it. But it makes a lot of us livid —


APP-122319-Turning-Point-Rush-Trump-004.jpg
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.


RUSH: — because there’s nothing, everything to this has been made up. It’s worse than a hoax, the first part of it was a coup, and this is just the continuation of it.


THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, it’s so sad for our country. I mean, think of it. We’re fighting with Iran, we’re fighting with all of these different places, and, in many cases, doing great, making trade deals, doing so good, our country is doing so good, but I have to spend, and my team has to spend, time on this stuff. They found nothing. Just think of that. For two years an unlimited budget, unlimited talent and they found nothing, and they came up with two articles that aren’t even a crime.


RUSH: Well, there was nothing to find. It was all made up. I mean, that’s the frustrating thing here. It was all made up. There was nothing to find. There was nothing to investigate.


THE PRESIDENT: They created a situation that was false, that was fraudulent, and then they investigated the false, fraudulent situation, and they found nothing. It’s hard to believe. The whole thing’s hard to believe. And now, on top of it, they come up with two articles and they put it before — now, what happened is she doesn’t want to get a vote because how can anybody possibly — it’s totally partisan. You know, this is not what they had in mind as they call them the founders, right, they keep saying the founders, founders, but the founders didn’t have this in mind. You understand, it’s like I’ve never heard the word “founders” so much in my life.


RUSH: They don’t have anything in common with the founders anyway.


THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. We got I guess 196 or 197 to nothing with the Republican Party, plus we had three Democrat votes, and one person actually left the Democratic — the Democrat Party over it and joined the Republican Party, as you know.


RUSH: Speaking of which, the Republican Party hasn’t been this unified in I don’t know how long.


THE PRESIDENT: Never. It’s never — they say maybe never. And one thing I gave the Democrats credit for, they’ve always been very vicious, and they — and that’s not necessarily a good thing, but what is a good thing is they always stuck together. And here the Republicans stuck together even better than the Democrats. So we had, like, 196 or 197 to nothing. It’s unheard of. You know that because they’re always breaking off and — I don’t know — and this is really for 70 years, 80 years, you know, for some reason it’s in the DNA, they just don’t seem — and in this case they have been so good. And I think the Senate will be the same way ’cause the Senate knows it’s a hoax. Everybody knows it’s a hoax.


RUSH: The Republican Party’s now the party of Trump, I mean, there’s no question about it.


THE PRESIDENT: Well, I just think it’s the party of common sense. You know, I view it — somebody said, “Are you conservative?” Well, I’m conservative, but I think it’s common sense. It was — like what we did two days ago with this horrible terrorist. He was a terrorist, you know, they don’t want to call him a terrorist. Now the Democrats are trying to make him sound like he was this wonderful human being.


RUSH: He was a poet. Yeah, he was a poet.


APP-010620-Qassem-Soleimani.jpg
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, he’s a poet.


RUSH: He’s reading poetry out there.


THE PRESIDENT: Well, when you read the New York Times and you read the Washington Post, that are totally fake newspapers, by the way, that would have both been out of business except I won, I wonder what happens in — hopefully in five years, right? Hopefully in five years. But I wonder what happens to those newspapers. Who knows. But they do well now, although if you look at the unfunded liability probably they don’t do so well.


But you look at what they write, it’s so fake, it’s so phony, and now they’re trying to build him just like they did al-Baghdadi. Al-Baghdadi was the number-one terrorist in the world. We got him. They wrote very little about it, relatively speaking. That story disappeared very quickly, as you know. But they tried to build him up into a relatively wonderful man. He was a total bad guy –


RUSH: Yeah.


THE PRESIDENT: He founded ISIS. He was doing it again. He was trying to do it again. You know, I wiped out ISIS. During our administration, we wiped out the entire caliphate — a hundred percent of the caliphate — and we wiped him out and, you know, got little credit. But our people know that we did it, Rush, because of people like you and Sean Hannity and Mark Levin and so many others. Your friends at Fox & Friends in the morning are so good. You know, people are getting it. They really get it. And because of social media and my Twitter. Without Twitter, I think we’d be lost. We wouldn’t be able to get the truth out.


RUSH: Yeah, that’s a good point. People still say to me, “You need to ask him to stop tweeting so much.” I tell ’em, “Look, it’s the only way he can get his message out, and it’s not a negative at all.” People say, “He needs to dial back the drama, needs to dial back the chaos.” I disagree with that talk.


THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.


RUSH: I think you’re doing exactly what you have to do, given the circumstances presented to you.


THE PRESIDENT: Well, I wish I didn’t have to do it. I wish we had legitimate newspapers and legitimate media. We don’t. I mean, it’s… Much of it is really… I call it corrupt. It’s the corrupt media. It’s — and, you know, it’s very interesting. You understand this better than anybody. If they do a story on me, I immediately know if it’s false or not false — and I don’t mind a bad story if it’s right. But I know. A person reading the story doesn’t know that it’s false, so I’m able to tell ’em through social media.


RUSH: Right.


THE PRESIDENT: I don’t even call it Twitter. I call it social media, ’cause it goes to everything. You know, it goes to Facebook, it goes to Instagram, and we have hundreds of millions of people. You know, we have a tremendous amount of people. Just on one site I’m up to, I guess, close to 70 million people.


RUSH: Yeah, they’re jealous as they can be of that too.


THE PRESIDENT: Now, for Facebook, I had dinner —


RUSH: Of course they want you to stop.


APP-100119-Zuckerberg.jpg
THE PRESIDENT: I had dinner with Mark Zuckerberg the other day, and he said, “I’d like to congratulate you,” in front of a large group of people. So I’m not… (chuckles) But he said, “I’d like to congratulate you, you’re number one on Facebook,” and, you know, it’s incredible, and that’s —


RUSH: Wait a minute! Wait a minute. You had dinner with Zuckerberg?


THE PRESIDENT: I did. I did. I had dinner with him.


RUSH: Oh-ho! Wait ’til the world finds out about that.


THE PRESDIENT: Oh, I know.


RUSH: I guess they just did.


THE PRESIDENT: You have semi-breaking news. I guess a couple of people might have reported it but they’re not like you. So I just got a list, the TSL Power 50. The number one show on radio has a guy named Rush Limbaugh. Did you ever hear of him, Rush Limbaugh?


RUSH: (laughing)


THE PRESIDENT: Number 1. Have you? This is the 50 “most influential and listened to streaming talk show in the country,” Rush Limbaugh number 1. So I hope you saw that. But now we’ve just made your interview.


RUSH: (laughing)


THE PRESIDENT: But your viewers have to know that. Your listeners have to know that. Number 1. Great job.


RUSH: Thank you, sir. You know, your timing is impeccable. You’re a broadcast specialist from The Apprentice and so forth, and you’ve gotten right up to the break here. I can’t thank you enough for this. I wish we had even more time. People love you, sir —


THE PRESIDENT: Well —


RUSH: — and they are grateful, and they know that you still are focused on them —


THE PRESIDENT: I love ’em.


RUSH: — that you’re still implementing the agenda that you ran on.


THE PRESIDENT: I love ’em. I love ’em, Rush.


RUSH: They know that too. Thank you so much for your time and have a great, great rest of this day and year.


THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you. Thank you.


RUSH: I hope it’s the greatest year of your life, sir.


THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much, Rush, and thank you for everything, and congratulations on your incredible success. I really… It’s so important for this country what you do. Thank you very much, Rush.


RUSH: Thank you, sir.


THE PRESIDENT: Thanks. Bye"
I like this interview because it shows a bit of ground in Tramp. Yeah, he says the same shit in the snippets the media uses when they try to take him out of context, but I learned something more from reading. What I learned from reading this is that he has some ground. When Rush tries to suck his dick saying "the Republican Party is the party of Trump", he dials back and although saying it's the "common sense" party, he doesn't really claim himself to be the savior of anything. In fact, he only really seems to do this at his rallies, as sort of a method to try to appeal to his audience thinking of him as a savior, but he would never go out of his way to be like that in a conversation. He really seems to be a tactical person.
 
I'm not interested in the partisan bickering and fake twitter trends here because the real thing is so eventful. Pentagon generals blind sighting the President with an 'accidental' Iraq withdrawal, which becomes a draft even though the document has no draft indicators written on it, followed by a pentagon official resigning followed by the US breaking its signatory UN commitment by blocking iranian diplomat from visiting UN hq, (last time it tried this in 89 against arafat UN threatened to move to geneva and the US promptly backed down-here's hoping trump lets the UN migrate to Beijing). The hilarity goes on to the detriment of cancer ridden uncle sam.
The asset, trying desperately to avoid having his organs harvested along with those Falun Gong cultists for failing to be worth the $5.00 he gets for shitting up this site, tries to muddy the waters on a document that can't even be passed anyway due to no executive signing of it being possible and half the congress missing when it voted.

He then desperately tries to find a win to prove that the US is shit, because he is fully aware that this site can and will mock the ever loving shit out of China because of how embarrassing it is as a country and how it can't taut its false successes anymore.

That signed part remains disputed. Such diplomatic letters are often simply not signed. And there are supposed to be watermarks. None. Nada.

eg;

Word-2016-draft-watermark.png


xj73abr3s7941.jpg


I believe on the back side is the arabic translation, you can see it through the paper. YOU DON'T TRANSLATE DRAFTS.
And the asset shows a fake copy of the paper that uses incorrect letter heading, thus proving once and for all that China can't even bootleg that well anymore, showing their industrial weakness to the world since their only export is copying mindlessly others works off the back semi-slave labor.
 
so really, what was the deal with this
Given the way that everything unfolded, it's not really important now anyways. Whether he was dead already or was legitimately killed in the blast, it doesn't really change the way that events have progressed so I'm just rolling with Option B now since trying to tell everyone about Option A is too much of a headache and it doesn't change anything.

Soleimani got martyred by the Mullahs and he got the "hero's funeral", so that's all that really matters. The important thing is that he's finally been confirmed as deceased. Maybe I'm just fucking nuts, who knows.
 
Kyle the founder of the Justice Dems weights in. A quick summary, msm will shill for war, fox news still has neocons hanging around and Solemani was on a mission of peace before Trump blew him to the moon. Also that we have no business there and quotes Wesley Clark over America's plans to turn Iran into a client state, though that is true.

 
Here are a couple interesting think pieces:
Civil war in Iraq? Quite possibly. World War III? Forget about it.
The United States may now face pandemonium in Iraq, but Iran will not necessarily be the beneficiary.
My response to the news that US forces had assassinated Iran’s paramilitary foreign intelligence chief Major General Qassim Soleimani on Thursday was, “Good riddance. Now what?”

No tears should be shed for Soleimani. As the mastermind of Iran’s multiple proxy wars beyond the Islamic Republic’s borders, he had the blood of countless people on his hands, including hundreds of American soldiers killed in Iraq and Syria by the Shia militias he helped to train and finance. Second only to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in terms of his personal power, Soleimani had come to personify the ruthless, bloodthirsty spirit of the regime in Tehran.

But what will the consequences be of his assassination? Let us begin by dismissing that hardy perennial, “Oh no! Reckless Trump has lit the fuse for World War III.” At a time like this, commentators in need of a facile historical analogy inevitably reach for the murder of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in June 1914, generally regarded as the catalyst for World War I.

But Soleimani was no Franz Ferdinand. First, it was Bosnian Serb terrorists backed by Serbian military intelligence who carried out the hit on the legitimate heir to the august Austro-Hungarian imperial throne. Soleimani’s career as a sponsor of terrorism puts him closer to the Sarajevo assassin, Gavrilo Princip, than to his victim.

Second, the Middle East in January 2020 is not Europe in June 1914. The great powers then were quite evenly matched; each made the mistake of thinking that it might gain from a full-scale European war. Today, Iran’s leaders are under no illusions. They cannot risk a war with the vastly superior United States, which numbers among its allies both the richest state in the region (Saudi Arabia) and the most technologically advanced (Israel).

A better analogy might be with the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, “the man with the iron heart” (Hitler’s grim accolade), the founding head of the Nazi Sicherheitsdienst (security service), the creator of the genocidal Einsatzgruppen, and the brutal tyrant of the dismembered Czechoslovakia, who was fatally wounded by British-trained agents of the Czech government in exile in May 1942.

The British government’s decision to train and send Heydrich’s killers was made in the full knowledge that there would be harsh reprisals. There were. In the (erroneous) belief that the assassins were connected to the towns of Lidice and Ležáky, Hitler ordered the execution of all their male inhabitants over 16 as well as all the women of Ležáky. In all, 1,300 Czechs perished in this orgy of vengeance.

Churchill, who was fond of the kind of “dirty war” waged by the Special Operations Executive, favored further retaliation, pledging to the Czechs that the Royal Air Force would wipe out three German villages. Only with difficulty did the other members of the War Cabinet dissuade him.

In much the same way, President Trump and his advisers knew when they took the decision to drop a bomb on Soleimani that there would be reprisals. There will be. On Friday, Ayatollah Khameini tweeted the hashtag #SevereRevenge. Stand by for attacks by Iranian forces and their Shia proxies on US personnel, as well as against US allies, all over the Middle East. The question is: will the benefits of executing Soleimani outweigh those costs, which will bring agony to who knows how many families?

Benjamin Disraeli, England’s first Jewish prime minister, famously observed, in response to President Abraham Lincoln’s murder, that “assassination has never changed the history of the world.” He was wrong. As Benjamin Jones and Benjamin Olken show in my favorite economics paper on this subject — which covers all 298 assassination attempts on national leaders from 1875 to 2004 — successful assassinations tend to increase the intensity of small-scale conflicts. However, when an autocrat is killed, the probability of a transition to democracy rises.

The downside of killing Soleimani is that Iraq will now blow up. Whereas Czechoslovakia had been partitioned and subordinated to Nazi rule, Iraq today is in a kind of limbo. Freed from Saddam Hussein’s tyranny by the 2003 US invasion, it is a democracy with only limited US security support. However, Iranian penetration of Shia militias and political parties means that it is dangerously close to becoming a vassal of Tehran. Significantly, the Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, has condemned the US strike against Soleimani. The danger is a return to civil war.

This assassination does nothing to solve the problem that was created by Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, when he decided to liquidate the US presence in Iraq in excessive haste, squandering all that had been achieved in the “surge” that ended the last Iraqi civil war.

The upside of killing Soleimani is that the Iran regime’s bluff has been called and its vulnerability exposed for everyone in the region to see.

Iran is in dire economic straits, largely thanks to US sanctions, which the Trump administration tightened last year. Oil production is down by close to half since April 2018. The International Monetary Fund estimates that the Iranian economy shrank by 9.5 percent in 2019. The Statistical Center for Iran puts the inflation rate at 47.2 percent.

A 200 percent fuel price hike on Nov. 15 triggered mass protests in two-thirds of Iran’s provinces. Approximately 1,000 protesters and 200 security personnel were killed. The regime was forced to shut down the Internet twice to maintain control.

The country’s beleaguered rulers gambled that they could force the United States to relax sanctions by exerting force, in the belief that Trump would not risk war in an election year. Wrong.

The United States may now face pandemonium in Iraq, but Iran will not necessarily be the beneficiary. There is a good deal of anti-Iranian sentiment in the country; indeed, there have been numerous anti-Iranian protests since October, and many Iraqis celebrated Soleimani’s death last week.

It is in the wider regional struggle for mastery, however, that Iran is most obviously at a disadvantage.

In July last year, Israel struck Iranian targets in Iraq, where Iran is believed to have stockpiled missiles. In September it was the turn of Hezbollah, Iran’s clients in Lebanon. The Israelis have also been hitting Iran’s forces in Syria. On Dec. 18, Israeli Defense Minister Naftali Bennett threatened to turn Syria into “Iran’s Vietnam.”

Aside from Qatar, the Arab states are uniformly hostile to Tehran. Not only are the Saudis still smarting from Iran’s attack on their oil facilities in September; they also bitterly resent Iranian support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Meanwhile, the Europeans are finding it harder to keep the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action alive, as Iranian violations grow ever more flagrant.

As for the other major players in the region — Russia and Turkey — they are increasingly antagonistic toward Iran. With the Syrian civil war all but over, Moscow is intent on squeezing out the Iranians.

Civil war in Iraq? Quite possibly. World War III? Forget about it. The unanswered question is what, if anything, can be done to reverse the biggest trend of the past decade, which has been for Russia — not Iran — to take over from the United States as the Middle East’s powerbroker. The assassination of Qassem Soleimani changes many things. It doesn’t change that.

-End of Article-
Petraeus Says Trump May Have Helped ‘Reestablish Deterrence’ by Killing Suleimani
The former U.S. commander and CIA director says Iran’s “very fragile” situation may limit its response.
As a former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and a former CIA director, retired Gen. David Petraeus is keenly familiar with Qassem Suleimani, the powerful chief of Iran’s Quds Force, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad Friday morning.

After months of a muted U.S. response to Tehran’s repeated lashing out—the downing of a U.S. military drone, a devastating attack on Saudi oil infrastructure, and more—Suleimani’s killing was designed to send a pointed message to the regime that the United States will not tolerate continued provocation, he said.

Petraeus spoke to Foreign Policy on Friday about the implications of an action he called “more significant than the killing of Osama bin Laden.” This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Foreign Policy: What impact will the killing of Gen. Suleimani have on regional tensions?

David Petraeus: It is impossible to overstate the importance of this particular action. It is more significant than the killing of Osama bin Laden or even the death of [Islamic State leader Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi. Suleimani was the architect and operational commander of the Iranian effort to solidify control of the so-called Shia crescent, stretching from Iran to Iraq through Syria into southern Lebanon. He is responsible for providing explosives, projectiles, and arms and other munitions that killed well over 600 American soldiers and many more of our coalition and Iraqi partners just in Iraq, as well as in many other countries such as Syria. So his death is of enormous significance.

The question of course is how does Iran respond in terms of direct action by its military and Revolutionary Guard Corps forces? And how does it direct its proxies—the Iranian-supported Shia militia in Iraq and Syria and southern Lebanon, and throughout the world?

FP: Two previous administrations have reportedly considered this course of action and dismissed it. Why did Trump act now?

DP: The reasoning seems to be to show in the most significant way possible that the U.S. is just not going to allow the continued violence—the rocketing of our bases, the killing of an American contractor, the attacks on shipping, on unarmed drones—without a very significant response.

Many people had rightly questioned whether American deterrence had eroded somewhat because of the relatively insignificant responses to the earlier actions. This clearly was of vastly greater importance. Of course it also, per the Defense Department statement, was a defensive action given the reported planning and contingencies that Suleimani was going to Iraq to discuss and presumably approve.

This was in response to the killing of an American contractor, the wounding of American forces, and just a sense of how this could go downhill from here if the Iranians don’t realize that this cannot continue.

FP: Do you think this response was proportionate?

DP: It was a defensive response and this is, again, of enormous consequence and significance. But now the question is: How does Iran respond with its own forces and its proxies, and then what does that lead the U.S. to do?

Iran is in a very precarious economic situation, it is very fragile domestically—they’ve killed many, many hundreds if not thousands of Iranian citizens who were demonstrating on the streets of Iran in response to the dismal economic situation and the mismanagement and corruption. I just don’t see the Iranians as anywhere near as supportive of the regime at this point as they were decades ago during the Iran-Iraq War. Clearly the supreme leader has to consider that as Iran considers the potential responses to what the U.S. has done.

It will be interesting now to see if there is a U.S. diplomatic initiative to reach out to Iran and to say, “Okay, the next move could be strikes against your oil infrastructure and your forces in your country—where does that end?”

FP: Will Iran consider this an act of war?

DP: I don’t know what that means, to be truthful. They clearly recognize how very significant it was. But as to the definition—is a cyberattack an act of war? No one can ever answer that. We haven’t declared war, but we have taken a very, very significant action.

FP: How prepared is the U.S. to protect its forces in the region?

DP: We’ve taken numerous actions to augment our air defenses in the region, our offensive capabilities in the region, in terms of general purpose and special operations forces and air assets. The Pentagon has considered the implications the potential consequences and has done a great deal to mitigate the risks—although you can’t fully mitigate the potential risks.

FP: Do you think the decision to conduct this attack on Iraqi soil was overly provocative?

DP: Again what was the alternative? Do it in Iran? Think of the implications of that. This is the most formidable adversary that we have faced for decades. He is a combination of CIA director, JSOC [Joint Special Operations Command] commander, and special presidential envoy for the region. This is a very significant effort to reestablish deterrence, which obviously had not been shored up by the relatively insignificant responses up until now.

FP: What is the likelihood that there will be an all-out war?

DP: Obviously all sides will suffer if this becomes a wider war, but Iran has to be very worried that—in the state of its economy, the significant popular unrest and demonstrations against the regime—that this is a real threat to the regime in a way that we have not seen prior to this.

FP: Given the maximum pressure campaign that has crippled its economy, the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, and now this assassination, what incentive does Iran have to negotiate now?

DP: The incentive would be to get out from under the sanctions, which are crippling. Could we get back to the Iran nuclear deal plus some additional actions that could address the shortcomings of the agreement?

This is a very significant escalation, and they don’t know where this goes any more than anyone else does. Yes, they can respond and they can retaliate, and that can lead to further retaliation—and that it is clear now that the administration is willing to take very substantial action. This is a pretty clarifying moment in that regard.

FP: What will Iran do to retaliate?

DP: Right now they are probably doing what anyone does in this situation: considering the menu of options. There could be actions in the gulf, in the Strait of Hormuz by proxies in the regional countries, and in other continents where the Quds Force have activities. There’s a very considerable number of potential responses by Iran, and then there’s any number of potential U.S. responses to those actions

Given the state of their economy, I think they have to be very leery, very concerned that that could actually result in the first real challenge to the regime certainly since the Iran-Iraq War.

FP: Will the Iraqi government kick the U.S. military out of Iraq?

DP: The prime minister has said that he would put forward legislation to do that, although I don’t think that the majority of Iraqi leaders want to see that given that ISIS is still a significant threat. They are keenly aware that it was not the Iranian supported militias that defeated the Islamic State, it was U.S.-enabled Iraqi armed forces and special forces that really fought the decisive battles.
-End of Article-
 
If someone told me post Jon Stewart, that the only anti war host on mainstream media was Tucker Carlson ffs, I would have thought you were trying to be edgy but here we are.


Edit: Now Kyle covers Tucker's view of this affair, his view is that this will hurt Trump leading to a backlash against him.

 
Last edited:
y'all would have been cheering on the Iraq invasion in 2003. lol. history repeats itself
A friend of mine linked me a good documentary on the Iraq war, I was too young to really remember it at the time but it is horrifying to hear how certain everyone was about the Weapons of Mass destruction knowing the reality of the situation that it was a giant lie; It leaves an even greater taste of ash in my mouth to realize the people cheering in the later part of the documentary are probably Shi'ites that could soon be leading an insurgency against the US; However, the absolute worst part of all was hearing the Soldiers think they would get home soon.

 
Last edited:
Back