Pentagon “Stunned” by Trump’s Decision to Kill Soleimani ???

[QueEx]

Pentagon Officials Reportedly “Stunned” by Trump’s Decision to Kill Soleimani


SLATE
By DANIEL POLITI
JAN 05, 2020

When top American military officials presented President Donald Trump with the option to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani, Iran’s most powerful commander, they didn’t actually think he would take it, reports the New York Times. Pentagon officials usually include a far-out option when they present possibilities to the president in order to make the others seem less extreme. The other options presented to Trump in Mar-a-Lago, his Palm Beach resort, included strikes against Iranian ships or missile facilities or militias backed by Iran that are operating in Iraq. “The Pentagon also tacked on the choice of targeting General Suleimani, mainly to make other options seem reasonable,” reports the Times.


At first, it seemed everything was going according to plan. Trump rejected the option to kill Soleimani to respond to a wave of recent Iranian-sponsored violence in Iraq . Instead, he authorized airstrikes against an Iranian-supported militia group, Kataib Hezbollah. The strikes ended up hitting three locations in Iraq and two in Syria.

Then things changed when protesters gathered outside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday. Iranians saw the U.S. response as disproportionate but Trump became increasingly angry at the images he saw on television as protesters stormed the embassy.

Suddenly, Trump was worried that failing to respond to the protests would look weak. By Thursday, Trump had decided to go forward with the killing of Soleimani and “top Pentagon officials were stunned,” reports the Times. CNN also reportsthat “some officials emerged surprised” when the president decided to target Soleimani as many expected he would go for a less risky option. There was immediate concern about what kind of retaliation that could spark from Iran, but it is unclear whether top military officials pushed back against Trump’s decision.


Although top U.S. national security officials continue to insist that the killing of Soleimani was in response to an imminent threat against Americas, there continues to be skepticism about that claim as the administration has failed to provide convincing evidence to make its case.


“My staff was briefed by a number of people representing a variety of agencies in the United States government and they came away with no feeling that there was evidence of an imminent attack,” Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico said.

Pentagon Officials Reportedly “Stunned” by Trump’s Decision to Kill Soleimani

The assassination was presented as the most extreme option to respond to a wave of recent Iranian-sponsored violence in Iraq.

slate.com

 

[MCP]

See how unpredictable Trump can be, I'm surprised that there are those at the Pentagon who are 'surprised' that Trump decided to do what he did. Did they not see his tweets in regards?

 

[QueEx]

I'm surprised that there are those at the Pentagon who are 'surprised' that Trump decided to do what he did. Did they not see his tweets in regards?

. . . and I'm surprised that there are those in the Republican Party in Congress who are 'surprised'


.

 

[the artist]

. . . and I'm surprised that there are those in the Republican Party in Congress who are 'surprised'


.

I'm surprised no on has made other "arrangements" yet.

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

pentagon stunned... HA!!!!

 

[the artist]

 

[QueEx]

One should be careful of what one wishes for . . .

The answers to our problems lie within US.

.

 

[MCP]

The potential threats to American servicemen and women around the world from what happened in Iraq, I believe is beginning to heighten.

Looks like other terrorist group are now embolden to attack US personnel.

Camp Simba: Three dead in attack on US military base in Kenya

Camp Simba: Three Americans killed in Kenya base

One US military service member and two contractors are killed, and two other Americans are wounded.

www.bbc.com

Al-Shabab has waged a brutal insurgency in East Africa


One US military service member and two contractors were killed in an Islamist attack on a military base in Kenya.
Islamist militant group al-Shabab attacked the base, used by Kenyan and US forces, in the popular coastal region of Lamu on Sunday.

The US military said in a statement that two others from the Department of Defense were wounded.

"The wounded Americans are currently in stable condition and being evacuated," the US military's Africa Command said. Witnesses to the attack reported hearing gunfire and seeing plumes of black smoke emerge from Camp Simba on Manda Island.

Gen Stephen Townsend, commander of US Africa Command, added in a statement: "Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of our teammates who lost their lives today.

"As we honour their sacrifice, let's also harden our resolve. Alongside our African and international partners, we will pursue those responsible for this attack and al-Shabab, who seeks to harm Americans and US interests."

Al-Shabab is linked to al-Qaeda and is headquartered in neighbouring Somalia. The group has carried out a spate of attacks in the region since it was formed more than a decade ago. On 28 December, about 80 people were killed in a bombing in Somalia's capital, Mogadishu.
What happened at Camp Simba?

The Kenyan Defence Forces (KDF) said "an attempt was made to breach security at Manda Air Strip" but the attack was repulsed. Four militants were killed, it added. A fire caused by the attack had been extinguished and the airstrip was now safe, a KDF spokesman said. A nearby airfield used for civilian flights had reopened, aviation officials said.

Al-Shabab said it had "successfully stormed the heavily fortified military base" before taking "effective control of a part of the base".
The group said the Kenyan military used warplanes to repel the attack.
How extensive was the damage?

The Associated Press news agency reported that two aircraft, two US helicopters and multiple vehicles were destroyed at the airstrip.
Al-Shabab said it had killed nine Kenyan soldiers and had inflicted 17 "battle casualties" on US forces. Seven aircraft and five military vehicles had been destroyed, it added. A journalist with Voice of Africa tweeted photos of what the militants said was a US aircraft that had been targeted.

The camp has fewer than 100 US personnel, AP reported. This was the first attack by al-Shabab on US forces in Kenya.
'Audacious assault'

By BBC World Service Africa editor Will Ross
This was an audacious pre-dawn raid by al-Shabab militants. It is not yet possible to verify al-Shabab's version of events, but there are unconfirmed reports that one of the aircraft destroyed in the attack is a US plane used for spying in the region.

The fact that this happened close to the popular tourist destination of Lamu Island is also alarming. Since 2011, when Kenya sent troops to fight al-Shabab in Somalia, the jihadist group has carried out frequent attacks on Kenyan soil. Almost exactly a year ago, 21 people were killed during a raid on the Dusit hotel complex in the capital Nairobi.

In June 2018, a US commando was killed in Somalia during an attack by al-Shabab. The US has stepped up military operations against the militants since Donald Trump became president in 2017. The US military conducted more air strikes in Somalia in 2019 than in any previous year.

 

[QueEx]

The potential threats to American servicemen and women around the world from what happened in Iraq, I believe is beginning to heighten.

Looks like other terrorist group are now embolden to attack US personnel.

Perhaps.

Force Protection (the safety of and measures to protect other deployed forces) in the aftermath of the Soliemani attack should have been considered, BEFORE the attack. The wisdom of the Soleimani attack and lack of force protection in the aftermath -- makes one wonder whether experienced, level-headed advisers are making themselves heard in the Whitehouse -- or whether the Whitehouse is on its own . . . or overruling good advice.


.

 

[QueEx]

Looks like other terrorist groups are now embolden to attack US personnel.

Not surprised. If Soleimani's connections are what we've heard them to be (the coordination & command-and-control of various militia throughout the Muslim World) then it would be reasonable to assume/expect that those groups would be angered by his death and would seek ways and means to show it.

What would surprise me is if ALL of this was not sufficiently taken into consideration, BEFORE THE ATTACK. If it was considered, why would the Pentagon or those in/or observing the White House be "Stunned" ??? -- Unless, somebody ignored good advice ???

.

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

The potential threats to American servicemen and women around the world from what happened in Iraq, I believe is beginning to heighten.

Looks like other terrorist group are now embolden to attack US personnel.

Camp Simba: Three dead in attack on US military base in Kenya

Camp Simba: Three Americans killed in Kenya base

One US military service member and two contractors are killed, and two other Americans are wounded.

www.bbc.com

Al-Shabab has waged a brutal insurgency in East Africa


One US military service member and two contractors were killed in an Islamist attack on a military base in Kenya.
Islamist militant group al-Shabab attacked the base, used by Kenyan and US forces, in the popular coastal region of Lamu on Sunday.

The US military said in a statement that two others from the Department of Defense were wounded.

"The wounded Americans are currently in stable condition and being evacuated," the US military's Africa Command said. Witnesses to the attack reported hearing gunfire and seeing plumes of black smoke emerge from Camp Simba on Manda Island.

Gen Stephen Townsend, commander of US Africa Command, added in a statement: "Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of our teammates who lost their lives today.

"As we honour their sacrifice, let's also harden our resolve. Alongside our African and international partners, we will pursue those responsible for this attack and al-Shabab, who seeks to harm Americans and US interests."

Al-Shabab is linked to al-Qaeda and is headquartered in neighbouring Somalia. The group has carried out a spate of attacks in the region since it was formed more than a decade ago. On 28 December, about 80 people were killed in a bombing in Somalia's capital, Mogadishu.
What happened at Camp Simba?

The Kenyan Defence Forces (KDF) said "an attempt was made to breach security at Manda Air Strip" but the attack was repulsed. Four militants were killed, it added. A fire caused by the attack had been extinguished and the airstrip was now safe, a KDF spokesman said. A nearby airfield used for civilian flights had reopened, aviation officials said.

Al-Shabab said it had "successfully stormed the heavily fortified military base" before taking "effective control of a part of the base".
The group said the Kenyan military used warplanes to repel the attack.
How extensive was the damage?

The Associated Press news agency reported that two aircraft, two US helicopters and multiple vehicles were destroyed at the airstrip.
Al-Shabab said it had killed nine Kenyan soldiers and had inflicted 17 "battle casualties" on US forces. Seven aircraft and five military vehicles had been destroyed, it added. A journalist with Voice of Africa tweeted photos of what the militants said was a US aircraft that had been targeted.

The camp has fewer than 100 US personnel, AP reported. This was the first attack by al-Shabab on US forces in Kenya.
'Audacious assault'

By BBC World Service Africa editor Will Ross
This was an audacious pre-dawn raid by al-Shabab militants. It is not yet possible to verify al-Shabab's version of events, but there are unconfirmed reports that one of the aircraft destroyed in the attack is a US plane used for spying in the region.

The fact that this happened close to the popular tourist destination of Lamu Island is also alarming. Since 2011, when Kenya sent troops to fight al-Shabab in Somalia, the jihadist group has carried out frequent attacks on Kenyan soil. Almost exactly a year ago, 21 people were killed during a raid on the Dusit hotel complex in the capital Nairobi.

In June 2018, a US commando was killed in Somalia during an attack by al-Shabab. The US has stepped up military operations against the militants since Donald Trump became president in 2017. The US military conducted more air strikes in Somalia in 2019 than in any previous year.

sounds like the plan is to have more military bases in africa...

funny how isreal is the biggest enemy of iranians but somehow they are deep in Africa wrecking shop...

 

[QueEx]

Border stops for people of Iranian descent spark outrage

The reaction to the detentions at a Canadian crossing and a New York
airport came after the U.S. killing of an Iranian military commander.

Customs and Border Protection agents. | Mario Tama/Getty Images



P o l i t i c o
By LAUREN GARDNER,
DANIEL LIPPMAN and
ANDY BLATCHFORD
01/05/2020


Reports of Iranians and Iranian-Americans being detained for questioning upon entering the U.S. kicked off a furor on Sunday from Washington state to Washington, D.C., marking a new domestic blowback to the Trump administration’s targeted killing of a key Iranian leader.

The Washington state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a prominent Muslim civil liberties group, said on Sunday that more than 60 people of Iranian descent, including American citizens, were held for hourslong periods of questioning over the weekend at the Peace Arch checkpoint in Blaine, Wash., along the border with Canada. CAIR noted that many Iranian-Americans would continue to approach the port of entry over the weekend as some return to the U.S. after attending an Iranian pop concert Saturday in Vancouver.

The initial reports and the backlash they triggered — with references to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II — highlighted the potential risks inside the U.S. even before the fierce retaliation promised by the Iranian government for the killing of Qassem Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s elite paramilitary forces, by a U.S. military drone on Thursday.

CAIR said in its statement that a source at U.S. Customs and Border Protection had reported that the agency received a national directive from the Department of Homeland Security to “‘report’ and detain anyone with Iranian heritage entering the country who is deemed potentially suspicious or ‘adversarial,’ regardless of citizenship status.”

“We are working to verify reports of a broad nationwide directive to detain Iranian-Americans at ports of entry so that we can provide community members with accurate travel guidance,” Masih Fouladi, executive director of CAIR’s Washington chapter, said in a statement.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations. | Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo


Len Saunders, an immigration attorney in Blaine, said his contacts through CBP indicated that headquarters in Washington had ordered new vetting procedures, which appear to be directed toward people born in Iran, that require port directors to sign off on admitting anyone held for questioning.

A CBP spokesperson denied that DHS or the agency had issued any such directive.

“Social media posts that CBP is detaining Iranian-Americans and refusing their entry into the U.S. because of their country of origin are false,” the spokesperson said.

The agency says it often adjusts operations and staffing to balance security needs with lawful travel and trade. Processing times at the Blaine port of entry reached an average of two hours Saturday evening, though CBP said some travelers waited up to four hours to cross.

Sam Sadr, who lives in North Vancouver, said he was held for nearly nine hours at the Peace Arch border crossing on Saturday after the birthplace printed on his Canadian passport caught the attention of the U.S. customs officer.

Sadr, who was born in Tehran, told POLITICO he was on his way to Seattle for the day with his family. The officer, he said, asked him to pull over and go into the border office to provide more information.

Sadr recalled arriving at the border at 11:07 a.m. Pacific time. He and his family were finally allowed to enter the U.S. around 7:45 p.m.

In between those times, the officers took their passports and asked lots of questions, he said. After a couple of hours, the officers asked the same
questions again.

They wanted to know where they were coming from, where they went to school, whether they had military backgrounds and whether they had firearms licences, Sadr said.

“Why me? Why my parents? Why my sisters, brothers? I don’t know,” said Sadr, a professional photographer who received his Canadian citizenship two years ago.

“We are innocent. … This completely discriminates.”

While he was waiting, he said, he saw many other people of Iranian descent also held up at the border crossing. He said some people, including officers, appeared to be frustrated with the situation.

Sadr, who left Iran more than 12 years ago, said he and his family stayed in the U.S. for only about an hour since it was so late and the stores had closed.

Asked for comment on Sadr’s story and to explain the discrepancy between the “four hours” figure in CBP’s statement and Sadr’s nearly nine hour ordeal, a CBP spokesperson said the agency stood by their earlier statement.


FULL STORY: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/05/reports-detaining-iranian-descent-backlash-094415


.

 

[muckraker10021]

War With Iran

by Chris Hedges | Jan. 3 2020 | https://www.truthdig.com/articles/war-with-iran/
Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, a New York Times best-selling author, and an ordained Presbyterian minister. He has written 12 books. He spent seven years in the Middle East, most of them as the bureau chief for The New York Times. Hedges speaks Arabic, French and Spanish and studied classics, including ancient Greek and Latin.Hedges has taught at Columbia University, New York University, Princeton University and the University of Toronto. He left the Times after receiving a formal reprimand from the newspaper for publicly denouncing the George W. Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq.


The assassination by the United States of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force, near Baghdad’s airport will ignite widespread retaliatory attacks against U.S. targets from Shiites, who form the majority in Iraq. It will activate Iranian-backed militias and insurgents in Lebanon and Syria and throughout the Middle East. The existing mayhem, violence, failed states and war, the result of nearly two decades of U.S. blunders and miscalculations in the region, will become an even wider and more dangerous conflagration. The consequences are ominous. Not only will the U.S. swiftly find itself under siege in Iraq and perhaps driven out of the country—there is only a paltry force of 5,200 U.S. troops in Iraq, all U.S. citizens in Iraq have been told to leave the country “immediately” and the embassy and consular services have been closed—but the situation could also draw us into a war directly with Iran. The American Empire, it seems, will die not with a whimper but a bang.

The targeting of Soleimani, who was killed by a MQ-9 Reaper drone that fired missiles into his convoy as he was leaving the Baghdad airport, also took the life of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias in Iraq known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, along with other Iraqi Shiite militia leaders. The strike may temporarily bolster the political fortunes of the two beleaguered architects of the assassination, Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but it is an act of imperial suicide by the United States. There can be no positive outcome. It opens up the possibility of an Armageddon-type scenario relished by the lunatic fringes of the Christian right.

A war with Iran would see it use its Chinese-supplied anti-ship missiles, mines and coastal artillery to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which is the corridor for 20% of the world’s oil supply. Oil prices would double, perhaps triple, devastating the global economy. The retaliatory strikes by Iran on Israel, as well as on American military installations in Iraq, would leave hundreds, maybe thousands, of dead. The Shiites in the region, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, would see an attack on Iran as a religious war against Shiism. The 2 million Shiites in Saudi Arabia, concentrated in the oil-rich Eastern province, the Shiite majority in Iraq and the Shiite communities in Bahrain, Pakistan and Turkey would turn in fury on us and our dwindling allies. There would be an increase in terrorist attacks, including on American soil, and widespread sabotage of oil production in the Persian Gulf. Hezbollah in southern Lebanon would renew attacks on northern Israel. War with Iran would trigger a long and widening regional conflict that, by the time it was done, would terminate the American Empire and leave in its wake mounds of corpses and smoldering ruins. Let us hope for a miracle to pull us back from this Dr. Strangelove self-immolation.

Iran, which has vowed “harsh retaliation,” is already reeling under the crippling economic sanctions imposed by the Trump administration when it unilaterally withdrew in 2018 from the Iranian nuclear arms deal. Tensions in Iraq between the U.S. and the Shiite majority, at the same time, have been escalating. On Dec. 27 Katyusha rockets were fired at a military base in Kirkuk where U.S. forces are stationed. An American civilian contractor was killed and several U.S. military personnel were wounded. The U.S. responded on Dec. 29 by bombing sites belonging to the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia. Two days later Iranian-backed militias attacked the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, vandalizing and destroying parts of the building and causing its closure. But this attack will soon look like child’s play.

Iraq after our 2003 invasion and occupation has been destroyed as a unified country. Its once-modern infrastructure is in ruins. Electrical and water services are, at best, erratic. There is high unemployment and discontent over widespread government corruption that has led to bloody street protests. Warring militias and ethnic factions have carved out competing and antagonistic enclaves. At the same time, the war in Afghanistan is lost, as the Afghanistan Papers published by The Washington Post detail. Libya is a failed state. Yemen after five years of unrelenting Saudi airstrikes and a blockade is enduring one of the world’s worst humanitarian disasters. The “moderate” rebels we funded and armed in Syria at a cost of $500 million, after instigating a lawless reign of terror, have been beaten and driven out of the country. The monetary cost for this military folly, the greatest strategic blunder in American history, is between $5 trillion and $7 trillion.

So why go to war with Iran? Why walk away from a nuclear agreement that Iran did not violate? Why demonize a government that is the mortal enemy of the Taliban, along with other jihadist groups, including al-Qaida and Islamic State? Why shatter the de facto alliance we have with Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why further destabilize a region already dangerously volatile?

The generals and politicians who launched and prosecuted these wars are not about to take the blame for the quagmires they created. They need a scapegoat. It is Iran. The hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed, including at least 200,000 civilians, and the millions driven from their homes into displacement and refugee camps cannot, they insist, be the result of our failed and misguided policies. The proliferation of radical jihadist groups and militias, many of which we initially trained and armed, along with the continued worldwide terrorist attacks, have to be someone else’s fault. The generals, the CIA, the private contractors and weapons manufacturers who have grown rich off these conflicts, the politicians such as George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, along with all the “experts” and celebrity pundits who serve as cheerleaders for endless war, have convinced themselves, and want to convince us, that Iran is responsible for our catastrophe.

The chaos and instability we unleashed in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, left Iran as the dominant country in the region. Washington empowered its nemesis. It has no idea how to reverse its mistake other than to attack Iran.

Trump and Netanyahu, as well as Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, are mired in scandal. They believe a new war would divert attention from their foreign and domestic crises. But they have no more rational strategy for war with Iran than they did for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria. European allies, whom Trump alienated when he walked away from the Iranian nuclear agreement, will not cooperate with Washington if the U.S. goes to war with Iran. The Pentagon lacks the hundreds of thousands of troops it would need to attack and occupy Iran. And the Trump administration’s view that the marginal and discredited Iranian resistance group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), which fought alongside Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran and is seen by most Iranians as composed of traitors, is a viable counterforce to the Iranian government is ludicrous.

International law, along with the rights of 80 million people in Iran, is ignored just as the rights of the peoples of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria were ignored. The Iranians, whatever they feel about their despotic regime, would not see the United States as allies or liberators. They do not want to be occupied. They would resist.

A war with Iran would be seen throughout the region as a war against Shiism. But these are calculations that the ideologues, who know little about the instrument of war and even less about the cultures or peoples they seek to dominate, cannot fathom. Attacking Iran would be no more successful than the Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon in 2006, which failed to break Hezbollah and united most Lebanese behind that militant group. The Israeli bombing did not pacify 4 million Lebanese. What will happen if we begin to pound a country of 80 million people whose land mass is three times the size of France?

The United States, like Israel, has become a pariah that shreds, violates or absents itself from international law. We launch preemptive wars, which under international law is defined as a “crime of aggression,” based on fabricated evidence. We, as citizens, must hold our government accountable for these crimes. If we do not, we will be complicit in the codification of a new world order, one that would have terrifying consequences. It would be a world without treaties, statutes and laws. It would be a world where any nation, from a rogue nuclear state to a great imperial power, would be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations to others. Such a new order would undo five decades of international cooperation—largely put in place by the United States—and thrust us into a Hobbesian nightmare. Diplomacy, broad cooperation, treaties and law, all the mechanisms designed to civilize the global community, would be replaced by savagery.

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

Pentagon be like..

Wait... No false flag..



None of our innocent people. Being sacrificed first....

No bueno

Anti American

Blood thirsty ass pentagon

Need to have a seat

Their plan wouldve involved dead Americans first

 

[QueEx]

'Terrorist in a suit': Condemnation of Trump's threats to target Iran's cultural sites

Tehran says US president's threat to target sites 'important to... Iranian culture' would be tantamount to war crimes

A relief depicting King Darius at Iran's National Museum in Tehran (AFP)


By MEE staff
Published date: 5 January 2020


There has been condemnation of US President Donald Trump's threat to target Iran's cultural sites if Tehran attacks US assets in the Middle East.

Iran described Trump as a "terrorist in a suit" after he threatened to target 52 sites across the country, including some "important to... Iranian culture" following Tehran's pledge to avenge the death of Qassem Soleimani, who was killed in a US drone strike on Friday.

Trump made his threats in a series of tweets in response to condemnation by Iranian officials after the US president ordered the assassination of Soleimani.

The United States has "targeted 52 Iranian sites," some "at a very high level and important to Iran and the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD," Trump said.

He added that the 52 targets represented the number of American hostages held by Iran in the US embassy in 1979 during the country's Islamic revolution.

​

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo denied on Sunday that Trump said he would target Iranian cultural sites.

"President Trump didn't say he'd go after a cultural site - read what he said," Pompeo said on Fox News.

Responding to Trump's tweets, Javaz Azari-Jahromi, Iran's information minister, tweeted: "Like ISIS, Like Hitler, Like Genghis! They all hate cultures. Trump is a terrorist in a suit. He will learn history very soon that nobody can defeat Iranian national and culture."

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif condemned Trump's comments and said that targeting cultural sites would be tantamount to "war crimes".

"Targeting cultural sites is a war crime," Zarif tweeted on Sunday. "Whether kicking or screaming, end of US malign presence in West Asia has begun."

​

United Nations resolution 2347 condemns the unlawful destruction of cultural heritage.


Tehran also summoned the Swiss ambassador, who represents US interests in Iran, in response to Trump's threats and described his comments as similar to Mongol threats to ransack cultural sites.

'America has gone down this path before'

Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Washington-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Middle East Eye: "Donald Trump's reckless threats to bomb 52 sites in Iran, including cultural sites, constitute another dangerous escalation that may divert headlines from impeachment, but only at the cost of making America less safe.

"Only a few months ago, Trump called off an attack on Iran with 10 minutes to spare, leaving his advisors in shock. Trump showed restraint and insisted - somewhat convincingly - that he did not want war.

​

"Now, however, he seems determined to elicit a violent reaction from Iran so that he can start a full-scale war. The only thing that has changed since this past summer is impeachment," Parsi said.

"It is increasingly difficult to find a logic in Trump's behaviour beyond his desperation to survive politically. But Americans and Iranians should not have to die for his political benefit.

"America has gone down this path before - an administration notoriously known for lying provides 'razor thin’ evidence to justify a military escalation that can spark a war and that puts Americans in peril.

"Last time, thousands of Iraqis and Americans were killed and an entire region was destabilized. This time, it will be worse," Parsi said.

Thousands mourn Soleimani across Iran

The ramping up of threats from both sides came as tens of thousands lined the streets of the Iranian city of Ahvaz on Sunday to mourn Soleimani's death.

Live state TV footage showed thousands of mourners marching through Ahvaz beating their chests.

Local authorities plan to take Soleimani's body to the holy city of Mashhad later on Sunday.

They will then take his body to Tehran and the holy city of Qom on Monday, for public mourning processions, then to his hometown of Kerman for burial on Tuesday.

'Terrorist in a suit': Condemnation of Trump's threats to target Iran's cultural sites

Tehran says US president's threat to target sites 'important to... Iranian culture' would be tantamount to war crimes

www.middleeasteye.net

.

 

[MCP]

What would surprise me is if ALL of this was not sufficiently taken into consideration, BEFORE THE ATTACK. If it was considered, why would the Pentagon or those in/or observing the White House be "Stunned" ??? -- Unless, somebody ignored good advice ???

.

I'm positive that Trump was advised about the ramifications of such actions he has taken, but chose to totally ignore them. Seems the Neo Cons in the White House has the president's ear right now.

 

[QueEx]

I'm positive that Trump was advised about the ramifications of such actions he has taken, but chose to totally ignore them.

I agree. But, where the hell are the “Resignations” from those that that would rather leave in good conscience than stay in silence and watch him imperil us all ???

.

 

[QueEx]

You're Losing All Your Friends, Trump: U.S. Allies Are Not Ok With Iran Strike

Zack Linly
Saturday 12:30PM
January 4, 2020


After President Donald Trump’s decision to authorize the assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani in the airstrike heard around the world late Thursday, US allies are warning against any further escalation of the conflict with Iran, Business Insider reported.

It turns out that, not only did Trump order the airstrike without congressional approval, but it was reportedly launched without consulting US allies. And now several of those allies are understandably unhappy.


Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary of State representing the UK, said that while they “recognized the aggressive threat posed by the Iranian Quds force led by Qasem Soleimani,” it urged “all parties to de-escalate.”

He added that “further conflict is in none of our interests.”

The UK
Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition Labour Partyalso, echoed Raab’s sentimentscalling on the UK government to “stand up to the belligerent actions and rhetoric coming from the United States.” He continued, “All countries in the region and beyond should seek to ratchet down the tensions to avoid deepening conflict, which can only bring further misery to the region, 17 years on from the disastrous invasion of Iraq.”


The French
Raab’s predecessor Jeremy Hunt, told the BBC on Saturday that Trump was engaging in an “increasingly dangerous game of chicken” with Iran and Tom Tugendhat, Raab’s Conservative Party colleague and the chair of Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, exclaimed that “the purpose of having allies is that we can surprise our enemies and not each other.” He added that “it’s been a pattern, sadly, which has been a bit of a shame, that the US administration of late has not shared with us and that is a matter of concern. “I would urge the US administration to share much more closely with allies, particularly those who are fighting alongside in the region, including us.”

The Germans
Joining the UK in their concern and condemnation of Trump’s actions are the French government and, to a lesser degree, Germany.


The secretary of state for European affairs, Amélie de Montchalin, told a French radio station that what the US is doing is dangerous.

“What is happening is what we feared: Tensions between the United States and Iran are increasing,” Montchalin told RTL, according to Reuters and The Guardian. She also said that “at European level, we have to work in collective multilateral frameworks and prevent the powers, one against the other, from playing their game in an unpredictable manner.”

Now the German government does seem to blame the situation mostly on Iran. Spokeswoman Ulrike Demmer said on Friday,“The American action was a reaction to a series of military provocations for which Iran is responsible.” However, just like the UK and French officials, she warns against any further conflict and appears to wag her finger at the US government’s part in everything saying, “We stand before a dangerous escalation.”

Israel
The only US ally that seems to be standing behind Trump’s actions unequivocally is Israel. From Business Insider:

In a statement on Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that “just as Israel has the right of self-defense, the United States has exactly the same right.”

Soleimani “is responsible for the death of American citizens and many other innocent people,” Netanyahu said. “He was planning more such attacks.”

He added: “President Trump deserves all the credit for acting swiftly, forcefully and decisively. Israel stands with the United States in its just struggle for peace, security and self-defense.”

If you ask me, Netanyahu is basically just towing Trump’s narrative.

But what is clear is that Trump, and by extension the US, is alienating most of its main allies in a fight we don’t want to find ourselves alone in should tensions escalate and spiral out of control.

You're Losing All Your Friends, Trump: U.S. Allies Are Not OK With Iran Strike

After President Donald Trump’s decision to authorize the assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani in the airstrike heard around the world late Thursday, US allies are warning against any further escalation of the conflict with Iran, Business Insider reports.

www.theroot.com

.

 

[SPECTRE1]

I think Pres. Trump was trying to send a message about people attacking US embassies or diplomats in the region. How would you like to be working in a US Embassy and angry crowd shows up.

Maybe the US to need change the function of embassies to limit their presence in countries that are hostile. Julian Assange exposed the weaknesses of embassies when seeking political asylum.

 

[MCP]

I agree. But, where the hell are the “Resignations” from those that that would rather leave in good conscience than stay in silence and watch him imperil us all ???

.

In response to why there are no resignations in regards, I would summise that Trump has now surrounded himself with those who agree with him.

 

[SPECTRE1]

Based on my sources they have been sitting on him for awhile and wanted to batch him up with the embassy breach to send a message.

They get rid of him and send a message about breaching a U.S. embassy.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

BREAKING: Former U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice just SLAMMED Trump for starting a war because he'll NEVER live up to Obama. MUST-WATCH!