| Tucker Carlson Comes Out Against Trump’s Iran Strike Posted: 03 Jan 2020 05:29 PM PST  One of the most prominent figures on Fox News isn't joining in on the cheerleading of President Donald Trump's assassination of Iran's most important military leader.During his show on Friday, host Tucker Carlson delivered a lengthy monologue criticizing the escalation of tensions with Iran sparked by the killing of Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, who died in a U.S. airstrike in Iraq on Thursday. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades," Carlson said. "They still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it."During his show on Thursday, the Fox News host laid out the ways that Soleimani had destabilized the region and helped encourage attacks on the U.S. But he also argued that war with Iran was pointless, saying the benefits of conflicts in the Middle East have been mostly "nonexistent" and have "turned out to be longer, bloodier, and more expensive than we were promised.""No one in Washington is in the mood for big-picture questions right now," he said. "Questions like: Is Iran really the greatest threat we face? And who's actually benefiting from this?And why are we continuing to ignore the decline of our country in favor of jumping into another pointless quagmire, from which there's no obvious exit?"Carlson largely avoided criticizing Trump directly. But he singled out many of the administration's current and former national security hawks, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former National Security Adviser John Bolton. He also admonished Sen. Ben Sasse, mocking the senator's statement that the circumstances leading to Soleimani's death were "very simple.""Soleimani was a bad guy. But does that make killing him 'very simple?'" Carlson said. "Of course not. Nothing in life, and certainly not killing is ever 'very simple.' Any politician who tells you otherwise is dumb or lying."Carlson was one of the only major figures on Fox News to criticize Soleimani's killing. Fox News hosts Sean Hannity, Pete Hegseth, and the hosts of Fox & Friends all praised the move. Fox Business Network host Stuart Varney went further, repeatedly asking guests how Trump could possibly be impeached during a military crisis.Throughout Trump's time in office, Carlson has been a booster of many of the president's policies and drawn the ire of critics for his comments about race, homelessness, poverty, white supremacy, and numerous other topics.But he has also occasionally used his influence and platform to both publicly and privately lobby the president against foreign entanglements abroad.Though he doesn't have the kind of bond the president shares with fellow hosts Hannity and Lou Dobbs, who use their daily programs to shower the president with praise, Trump watches Carlson's show and occasionally calls the Fox News anchor.In June, The Daily Beast reported that Carlson had advised Trump against going to war with Iran, at the time seeming to prevail over other hawkish voices including Pompeo and Bolton.On the air, Carlson repeatedly slammed and mocked Bolton, saying during a show last year that a potential conflict would "be like Christmas, Thanksgiving, his birthday wrapped into one." He's reminded viewers of the faulty intelligence that the Bush administration used to justify the war in Iraq. And during an increase in hostilities last year, the Fox News host questioned whether war with Iran would be "in anyone's interest."Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
|
| Airstrikes kill Iraqi militia near Baghdad one day after attack on Qassim Soleimani - latest news Posted: 03 Jan 2020 05:22 PM PST  Donald Trump says killing of Soleimani was to 'stop a war' with Iran What next? The possible targets for Iran's 'crushing revenge' US President ate meatloaf and ice cream as Soleimani was neutralised Revealed: David Miliband called off SAS strike on Soleimani in 2007 Con Coughlin: This shows Iran that it cannot act with impunity A new air strike targeted a commander in Iraq's Hashed al-Shaabi paramilitary force on Saturday, state television reported, a day after an American drone strike killed Qassim Soleimani, a top Iranian general. The Iraqi army told Reuters that airstrikes targeting Iraq's Popular Mobilisation Forces - an umbrella grouping of Iran-backed Shi'ite militias - struck near Taji, north of Baghdad, killing five people and critically wounded three, an Iraqi army source said late on Friday. A US official denied that the attack was carried out by the Americans. Two of the three vehicles making up a militia convoy were found burned, the source said, as well as six burned corpses. The strikes took place at 1.12am local time. The Iran-backed Hashed confirmed the strike, saying it hit one of its medical convoys near a stadium in Taji. The group said none of its top leaders were killed. The attack comes less than 24 hours after the Americans killed Soleimani, the head of Iran's Quds Force and only hours after Donald Trump insisted that the US "took action last night to stop a war.... not to start a war." Qassim Soleimani drone strike | Read more On Friday night, the White House insisted it acted in response to clear threats against Americans. Robert O'Brien, the US national security adviser, said Soleimani had arrived in Baghdad from Damascus and had been moving around the Middle East plotting imminent attacks on US diplomats and military personnel. Iran has vowed to retaliate against the US airstrike, calling the move America's "biggest mistake in west Asia" and threatening "severe vengeance". 1:22AM Sanders tables bill to stop war with Iran Bernie Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate, has tweeted that he will put a bill before Congress "to stop Donald Trump from illegally taking us to war against Iran." "It's working-class kids who will have to fight and die in a disastrous new Middle East conflict—not the children of billionaires," Sanders said. I am introducing a bill with Rep. Khanna to stop Donald Trump from illegally taking us to war against Iran. It's working-class kids who will have to fight and die in a disastrous new Middle East conflict—not the children of billionaires. https://t.co/H6ZHjijCnj— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 4, 2020 1:07AM Iran ambassador: war has entered a new stage The United States' killing of Iran's most prominent military commander, Qassem Soleimani, is virtual to starting a war and "the response for a military action is a military action," Iran's UN ambassador has said. Majid Takht Ravanchi told CNN that by "assassinating" Soleimani, the US had entered a new stage after starting an "economic war" by imposing tough sanctions on Iran in 2018. "So that was ... a new chapter which is tantamount to opening a war against Iran," Ravanchi said. Mr Ravanchi, echoing Iranian leaders, said there would be harsh revenge. "The response for a military action is a military action," he said. Earlier on Friday, the ambassador told the UN Security Council and that Iran reserves the right to self-defence under international law. In a letter, Mr Ravanchi said the killing of Soleimani "is an obvious example of State terrorism and, as a criminal act, constitutes a gross violation of the fundamental principles of international law, including, in particular ... the Charter of the United Nations." Read more: How might Iran respond? Possible targets for 'revenge' 12:52AM Trump ate ice cream and meatloaf at Mar-a-Lago as Soleimani died Trump addressed the media about the attack from Florida yesterday Credit: TOM BRENNER/REUTERS Donald Trump was enjoying a meal of meatloaf and ice cream at his Mar-a-Lago resort when he learnt that Gen Qassim Soleimani had been killed in Baghdad. Shortly after the president finished his dessert, he used his phone to tweet a photograph of the American flag. Mr Trump's risky gamble to launch a decapitation strike against Iran's second most powerful man had gone like clockwork. Read more: How the attack unfolded 12:28AM Breaking: Iran will respond, says its UN ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi, Iran's UN ambassador, has told CNN that the US attack on Soleimani was "tantamount to opening a war against Iran". "The response for a military action is a military action," he said. 12:01AM Watch: The US attack on Soleimani 11:59PM Airstrikes kill five - Iraqi army source An Iraqi official says an airstrike has hit two cars carrying Iran-backed militia north of Baghdad, one day after US attack on Qassem Soleimani. The official said five members of the militia were killed. He said the identity of those killed was not immediately known. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to talk to reporters. Reports of an airstrike targeted a vehicle carrying important Iraqi (Hashd al-Shaabi) figures near Taji northern Baghdad.Iraqpic.twitter.com/zjOD0zmt7k— Baxtiyar Goran (@BaxtiyarGoran) January 3, 2020
|
| New air strike on pro-Iran convoy in Iraq ahead of Soleimani funeral Posted: 03 Jan 2020 05:18 PM PST  A fresh air strike hit pro-Iran fighters in Iraq early Saturday, as fears grew of a proxy war erupting between Washington and Tehran a day after an American drone strike killed a top Iranian general. It came hours ahead of a planned a mourning march for Iranian Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi paramilitary heavyweight Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, slain in a precision drone strike by the US in Baghdad on Friday. The assassination was the most dramatic escalation yet in spiralling tensions between Iran and the US, which pledged to send more troops to the region even as US President Donald Trump insisted he did not want war.
|
| Trump Told Mar-a-Lago Pals to Expect ‘Big’ Iran Action ‘Soon’ Posted: 03 Jan 2020 05:00 PM PST  In the five days prior to launching a strike that killed Iran's most important military leader, Donald Trump roamed the halls of Mar-a-Lago, his private resort in Florida, and started dropping hints to close associates and club-goers that something huge was coming.According to three people who've been at the president's Palm Beach club over the past several days, Trump began telling friends and allies hanging at his perennial vacation getaway that he was working on a "big" response to the Iranian regime that they would be hearing or reading about very "soon." Two of these sources tell The Daily Beast that the president specifically mentioned he'd been in close contact with his top national-security and military advisers on gaming out options for an aggressive action that could quickly materialize."He kept saying, 'You'll see,'" one of the sources recalled, describing a conversation with Trump days before Thursday's strike. U.S. Braces for Iran's 'Counterpunch' After Slaying of SoleimaniTrump's gossipy whispers regarding a "big" response in Iraq foreshadowed what was to come. After hours of silence, senior officials in the Trump administration argued that what had taken place in Iraq was not an act of aggression. Instead, they said both publicly and behind closed doors on the Hill that killing Qassem Soleimani was designed to "advance the cause of peace," as U.S. Special Envoy for Iran Brian Hook put it in a Friday interview. Those Mar-a-Lago guests received more warning about Thursday's attack than Senate staff did, and about as much clarity. A classified briefing on Friday, the first the administration gave to the Hill, featured broad claims about what the Iranians were planning and little evidence of planning to bring about the "de-escalation" the administration says it wants. According to three sources either in the room or told about the discussion, briefers from the State Department, Pentagon, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence claimed that killing Soleimani was designed to block Iranian plans to kill "hundreds" or even thousands of Americans in the Mideast. That would be a massive escalation from the recent attack patterns of Iran and its regional proxies, who tend to kill Americans in small numbers at a time. "This administration has absolutely not earned the benefit of the doubt when it makes these kinds of claims. When you're taking action that could lead to the third American war in the Middle East in 20 years, you need to do better than these kinds of assertions," said a Senate aide in the room. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has also said publicly that the Iranians planned to kill hundreds of Americans before Soleimani's killing.Nor, said four sources who requested anonymity to discuss a classified briefing, did the briefers provide detail on a key question surrounding an act of war against a regional power: what next? Administration representatives didn't provide specifics. Instead, they reiterated that the U.S. seeks to de-escalate tensions with Iran after killing one of its top military officials —a major emphasis for Pompeo in his calls to foreign dignitaries Friday. How the Trump administration plans to do that remains unknown, particularly now that the Pentagon confirmed the 82nd Airborne's Immediate Response Force brigade will deploy to Kuwait. Administration officials provided instead "a vague expression of wanting to de-escalate but no clarity on what de-escalatory steps look like," according to the Senate aide. "To talk about de-escalation now is absurd, in a way, because Iran will react," said Rob Malley, a senior Mideast official in the Obama White House. "The de-escalation decision should have been taken before the assassination of Qassem Soleimani." Iranian officials on Friday threatened the U.S. with a military response following the killing of Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the leader of the Iranian-backed Popular Mobilization Units militia in Iraq. It remains unclear exactly how Tehran will strike back, but current and former U.S. and Iraqi officials say Iran has a range of options at its disposal. And Tehran's ability to strike doesn't depend on Soleimani to lead the Quds Force, sources say. "Soleimani was a bad guy, but it's not like the [Quds Force] depended on him to operate," said Jarrett Blanc, a former State Department official who worked on Iran policy. "The idea that the Quds Force had attacks in the works and now it doesn't because he's dead is obviously false. It's not clear why killing Suleimani changes the threat profile."But on Friday, the Trump administration continued to portray the killing of a military commander of a country the U.S. is formally not at war with as an act that would lead to peace. In an interview with BBC radio, State Department official Brian Hook said the strike was "a very necessary thing to do." And from a podium in Florida, Trump said the U.S. "took action last night to stop a war," he said. "We did not take action to start a war." Then Vice President Mike Pence falsely suggested Iran was behind 9/11. Pence tweeted that Soleimani and his Quds Force "assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States." Not only were there 19 attackers, but an incredulous ex-CIA counterterrorism analyst wearily noted that it "sounds like he's directly tying Soleimani to 9/11." The 9/11 Commission, as a different ex-CIA analyst tweeted, found that Iran had no advance knowledge of the attacks. According to two sources familiar with the Senate briefing, another item of discussion was the prospect of Iraqi parliamentarians forcing the U.S. to withdraw–something they did in 2011 against the desires of a previous administration. But that isn't the only major decision Iraqis have to take in the wake of the Soleimani and Muhandis killings. An Iraqi official, speaking on background, told The Daily Beast that the strike on Thursday seriously complicates the already-arduous process of forming a new government after mass protests forced U.S.-backed Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mehdi to resign in November. Abdul Mehdi currently acts as a caretaker PM. "At the very least, it furthers division in the country and raises the political temperature," the Iraqi official said. "We need de-escalation and this is the mother of all escalations." Back at the Pentagon, spokeswoman Alyssa Farah portrayed the Soleimani killing as an "opportunity" for Iran "to turn from its terrorist past and cease its unlawful, aggressive escalatory attacks." Why Obama, Bush, and Bibi All Passed on Killing SoleimaniIn a statement summarizing the Senate briefing and a companion one in the House, Farah said the administration briefers made the point that "we do not seek escalation with Iran, and have taken appropriate measures to ensure the safety and security of U.S. citizens, forces, partners and interests in the region. They also reinforced our commitment to allies and partners in the region." Iran may have other plans. Ali Khedery, a hawkish former U.S. adviser in Iraq, expected the Quds Force to "aim to assassinate either a [CIA] station chief or an American flag officer, somewhere in the region."—with additional reporting by Sam BrodeyRead more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
|
| Mike Pence pushes 9/11 conspiracy theories to justify Suleimani killing Posted: 03 Jan 2020 04:40 PM PST  In a series of tweets, US vice-president falsely claims Iran general assisted in travel of terrorists behind September 11 attacksIn defense of his administration's decision to assassinate Qassem Suleimani, Mike Pence has been promoting conspiracy theories that link September 11 terrorists to Iran.In a series of tweets, the US vice-president called Suleimani "an evil man who was responsible for killing thousands of Americans". Among other things, Pence insisted that the general "assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States", misstating the number of 9/11 hijackers – there were 19 – and insinuating Suleimani's involvement despite a lack of evidence.Foreign policy experts were quick to point out on social media that Pence's assertions were unsubstantiated.The official 9/11 commission report found there was "no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack", and that 15 out of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and the remainder were from the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and Egypt. Moreover, Suleimani's name is never mentioned in the nearly 600-page report.Experts have also pointed out that Suleimani, a Shia leader, would have been an unlikely ally to the Sunni militants that carried out the attacks. This isn't the first time that the Trump administration and supporters have promoted a link between al-Qaida – the group that launched the 9/11 attack – and Iran. Insisting that these groups are in cahoots could be key in legally justifying a war against Iran.A 2001 law allows the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons" – without waiting for congressional approval.Though Iran, and its proxy group Hezbollah in Lebanon, has cooperated with al-Qaida before, both the 9/11 commission report and a 2018 study by the New America thinktank, based on roughly 470,000 declassified files found that the groups didn't work together to commit terrorist acts.Despite criticism from policy experts, Pence's press secretary, Kate Walderman, later doubled down on the claim that Suleimani somehow assisted the 9/11 hijackers, but did not offer evidence.
|
| Republicans have wanted the US to go to war with Iran for years despite Trump's claims to the contrary Posted: 03 Jan 2020 04:38 PM PST  Hawks in Washington, particularly on the right, have long pushed for more hostile US action against Iran, including war with the Middle Eastern power.
|
| US killing of Soleimani: what we know Posted: 03 Jan 2020 04:38 PM PST  The American raid that killed top Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad on Friday opens a period of uncertainty for both the Middle East and the US. A US defense official told AFP that the strike targeting Soleimani, the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps' foreign operations arm, was carried out by a drone. The mission was conducted "at the direction of" President Donald Trump, the Pentagon said.
|
| Pentagon to deploy roughly 3,500 more troops to Middle East with others placed on alert status, amid tensions with Iran Posted: 03 Jan 2020 04:35 PM PST  The Pentagon is deploying roughly 3,500 more troops to the Middle East in response to rising tensions in the region with Iran and one day after a U.S. airstrike killed a top Iranian military commander. The soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division could leave Fort Bragg in North Carolina for the Middle East as early as this weekend, two U.S. officials told ABC News. On Tuesday night, 750 soldiers from the same brigade -- what the Pentagon calls the Immediate Response Force -- were deployed to Kuwait following violent protests at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
|
| How Will Iran Respond To Trump's Assassination Of Soleimani? Posted: 03 Jan 2020 04:33 PM PST  Iran is vowing retaliation, but it's unclear what form that might take and what its consequences might be.
|
| Airstrike Pushes National Security to Forefront of 2020 Race Posted: 03 Jan 2020 04:30 PM PST ![Airstrike Pushes National Security to Forefront of 2020 Race]( "Airstrike Pushes National Security to Forefront of 2020 Race") The U.S. strike in Baghdad that killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani thrust foreign policy to the center of the Democratic presidential race, drawing expressions of grave concern from the leading candidates and stoking a new debate in the party about the U.S. military presence in the Middle East.The party's presidential field reacted to the attack with a measure of unity, at least on the surface level, condemning Soleimani's role directing violence against Americans but criticizing what they called the Trump administration's penchant for reckless action and the threat of all-out war.But during a series of campaign events Friday, the top Democrats began to signal their differences on matters of national security, opening the way for what could become the party's most serious conversation of the race about war and peace. Former Vice President Joe Biden, whose long diplomatic resume and global stature have been seen as crucial assets to his campaign, seized the occasion to remind voters of his experience, pressing them to elect a president who could "command the world stage with no on-the-job training."Delivering stern remarks in Dubuque, Iowa, Biden said President Donald Trump was risking nuclear proliferation and "direct conflict with Iran." On Twitter, he described the president as "erratic, unstable and dangerously incompetent.""The threat to American lives and interests in the region and around the world are enormous," Biden said in Iowa.But elsewhere in the state, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., called not just for the replacement of an impulsive president but for a wholesale overhaul of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Opening a town-hall-style meeting in Anamosa, Iowa, with a somber address, Sanders urged a total military pullback from the region and noted at length that he had forcefully opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, without explicitly mentioning that Biden had voted to authorize the war."We need to firmly commit to ending the U.S. military presence in the Middle East in an orderly manner, not through a tweet," Sanders said, reiterating his past calls for a pullout from Afghanistan and an end to cooperation with Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. "Instead of provoking more volatility in the region, the United States must use its power, its wealth and its influence to bring the regional powers to the table to resolve conflicts."And Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who in the past has urged a pullout of all U.S. combat troops from the Middle East, echoed that sentiment on Twitter, warning that the country was "on the brink of yet another war" and urging Americans to mobilize against military escalation. "No more Middle East Wars," she wrote.Both Sanders and Warren used the word "assassination" to describe the killing of Soleimani, a term that has significant legal and diplomatic implications. One of the prominent centrists in the race, Michael Bloomberg, rebuked Sanders for that description, calling it "outrageous." He described the felled general as a fair target, questioning instead whether Trump was prepared for the fallout.Whether military matters come to dominate the primary in the remaining month before the Iowa caucuses is likely to depend on events in Iraq and Iran -- and perhaps in neighboring countries -- and how severe and visible any ensuing clash with Iran turns out to be. Foreign affairs have so far played a strictly limited role in the Democratic race.There have been major debate-stage duels over health care, taxation, immigration, criminal justice and gun control but only glancing disagreements about the role of the United States abroad and the proper way to resolve U.S. military engagements in the Middle East and Central Asia.On Friday, much of the Democratic field proceeded with -- and recommended -- caution. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., called on the Trump administration to consult with Congress about a "strategy for preventing a wider conflict."And in North Conway, New Hampshire, Pete Buttigieg -- the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana -- called the Baghdad attack "an extremely provocative act," noting that Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush had both considered but opted against attempting to kill Soleimani."If we have learned nothing else from the Middle East in the last 20 years, it's that taking out a bad guy is not a good idea unless you are ready for what's coming next," said Buttigieg, who referred several times to his own service in the military.The possibility of a new and protracted conflict abroad could well reshape the general election even beyond the Democratic race. Trump ran for president on a pledge to pull back the United States from foreign wars, drawing support from unconventional quarters for a Republican because of the perception that he would pursue an "America First" policy of relative isolationism and national self-interest.But Trump had already drawn criticism from his Democratic rivals and even within his own party for presiding over a chaotic pullback from Syria, and the eruption of large-scale violence in Iran and Iraq could profoundly complicate his aim to seek a second term on a message of peace and prosperity. After Thursday's attack, the Trump administration announced that thousands more troops would deploy to the region in anticipation of Iranian action.At Democratic campaign events Friday, there was already a strong ripple of anxiety running through the primary electorate as voters who turned out to see several candidates voiced alarm as they imagined what Trump might do next."Nobody wants war, and that's what I am afraid of -- is that there is going to be war," said Brenda Bachman, a 63-year-old from Marengo, Iowa, who had come to see Sanders. "We don't need war."Ross Mercer, 37, a disabled Navy veteran in New Hampshire who served two tours in Iraq, said at Buttigieg's event that he was worried about Iranian retaliation."We attacked their country first, and I'm scared that they're going to come back and attack our country," Mercer said.There is some precedent for events overseas reshaping U.S. primary elections, often to the benefit of a candidate regarded as a figure of experience -- in this case, perhaps Biden. In December 2003, the capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq formed a backdrop for the final phase of a Democratic presidential primary that yielded the quick nomination of John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran who served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.Four years later, in 2007, the troop surge in Afghanistan and the December assassination of a former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, in Pakistan pushed national security to the center of an unsettled Republican primary that ended with the nomination of John McCain, the war hero whose campaign focused overwhelmingly on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.Kevin Madden, a political strategist who advised Bush and Mitt Romney's presidential campaigns, said national security tended to become an election issue in response to major external developments. He cited the Benghazi attack in the fall of 2012 and the Paris nightclub massacre in 2015 as other recent examples."Every recent contest has had one of these events," Madden said, "where everything seems to stop and cause all the participants, from the candidates and campaigns to the voters and the media, to recalibrate the stakes of the election through the lens of national security and foreign policy."But an intensifying debate over foreign policy could have the effect of both spotlighting Biden's extensive track record in the Middle East and subjecting it to new scrutiny. There have been signs in recent days that several of the leading Democratic candidates were angling for a foreign policy debate with Biden even before the outbreak of violence in Iraq and the Soleimani killing came to consume the news.Sanders has campaigned consistently on his anti-war record, and he has repeatedly highlighted Biden's past support for the Iraq War, warning Democrats that Trump would use that record against the former vice president in a general election. On Friday morning, an aide to Sanders posted images on Twitter showing the progressive lawmaker speaking out against war in Iraq in 1991, 1998, 2002 and 2014.Biden told reporters in Iowa on Friday that he would not respond to Sanders' criticism, calling it "ridiculous" and countering that Sanders had his own "baggage." He did not specify what he meant by that.Buttigieg, meanwhile, has attempted to counter questions about his own relative inexperience by pointing to Biden's stances on Iraq as an example of how experience was not always an asset in campaigning or governing."He supported the worst foreign policy decision made by the United States in my lifetime, which was the decision to invade Iraq," Buttigieg said in an Iowa television interview.Sanders' speech Friday also indicated how he might use foreign policy to separate himself from other senators who are running for president: He pointed out that he has voted against all of Trump's military budgets, a distinction that Warren and Klobuchar cannot claim.It is impossible to predict precisely how an extended debate over foreign affairs might alter the dynamics of the Democratic race. On Friday, some voters said they yearned for a candidate with Biden-like credentials, while others said they wanted one with a Sanders-like aversion to war."I don't think it would have escalated to this point if he was the current president," Craig Bruxvoort, a 62-year-old Iowa voter, said of Sanders.At Biden's event in Dubuque, Karen Sudmeier, a retired teacher, said she had begun the day considering several options -- including Klobuchar and Buttigieg -- but after hearing Biden speak about the Middle East, she had decided to support him."Joe knew everything about it," said Sudmeier, 72. "He had a plan. And the consequences he laid out of what could happen, I thought, were frightening."This article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2020 The New York Times Company
|
| Killing Soleimani: Trump acted where other US leaders saw big risks Posted: 03 Jan 2020 03:58 PM PST  President Donald Trump did Friday what previous presidents did not dare to do -- eliminate a top Iranian general who aggressively expanded Tehran's power while obstructing US efforts across the Middle East. Trump's predecessors thought killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force, would risk another war in the region while US troops were bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soleimani was killed in a drone strike just outside the Baghdad airport shortly after flying in to meet with local Iran allies.
|
| UN chief calls again for an immediate cease-fire in Libya Posted: 03 Jan 2020 03:51 PM PST ![UN chief calls again for an immediate cease-fire in Libya]( "UN chief calls again for an immediate cease-fire in Libya") U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Friday called again for an immediate cease-fire in Libya and a return to talks by all the warring parties. Guterres' comments followed Thursday's authorization by Turkey's parliament to deploy troops to Libya to support the U.N.-backed government in Tripoli that is battling forces loyal to a rival government seeking to capture the capital.
|
| Another Strike On Pro-Iran Convoy Reported North Of Baghdad Posted: 03 Jan 2020 03:48 PM PST  The strike on the Iran-linked Popular Mobilization Forces comes a day after the Pentagon admitted to killing Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
|
| US-Iran tensions thrust foreign policy into Democrats' race Posted: 03 Jan 2020 03:43 PM PST  Democratic presidential candidates are lambasting President Donald Trump's decision to kill Iran's top general in an airstrike, a move that has thrust foreign policy to the forefront of the primary and revived intraparty disputes over military intervention in the Middle East. Leading candidates in the Democratic primary were united in describing Gen. Qassem Soleimani as a murderer responsible for the deaths of Americans.
|
| Trump’s Biggest Fox News Boosters Suddenly Stop Railing Against ‘Deep State’ Intelligence Posted: 03 Jan 2020 03:41 PM PST  Suddenly, it appears the U.S. intelligence community is back in good standing over at Fox News.Since Trump's election, an inescapably common refrain of the president and his biggest boosters in conservative media has been to rail against the "deep state." The Russian election interference probe, they've repeatedly said, was nothing more than a coup or disinformation campaign perpetrated by the anti-Trump intelligence community.Over the past 24 hours, however, incessant Fox griping over "deep state" suddenly went quiet, replaced by sober pleas that—when it comes to the info allegedly justifying Trump's ordered airstrike killing Iran's top general Qassem Soleimani—the U.S. intelligence community's findings should be heeded and taken seriously as unimpeachably correct information.Immediately after the Pentagon confirmed U.S. responsibility for the strike, claiming it "was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans," Fox News host Sean Hannity—perhaps the most well-known "deep state" critic in media—heaped praise upon the intelligence community."The ability of the military, our intelligence community, the State Department, and the president making the call, very quickly, you know, understood that the Iranian forces on the ground bore a direct threat to the American people," said Hannity, calling into his own show on Thursday night. "Once the intelligence was confirmed, once the understanding that they were there to sow the discord and discontent, the president acted as quickly as possible, taking out this top general.""But I will say the big headline is, this is a huge victory for American intelligence, a huge victory for our military, a huge victory for the State Department, and a huge victory and total leadership by the president," the primetime host, who has spent more than two years and countless on-air segments railing against shadowy "deep state" intelligence, concluded.By Friday morning, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went even further than the Pentagon, saying that it was necessary to take out Soleimani as it disrupted an "imminent attack," adding that "the risk doing nothing was enormous" and the "intelligence community made that assessment and President Trump acted decisively last night."Following Pompeo's assertions, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade—who last month chastised a Daily Beast writer for not asking Lisa Page about a deep-state conspiracy theory—openly defended and applauded the intelligence community.After Fox News star Geraldo Rivera sarcastically noted the "U.S. intelligence has been excellent since 2003 when we invaded Iraq, disrupted the entire region, for no real reason," he told Kilmeade not to "start cheering this on" while claiming his colleague "never met a war you didn't like.""I will cheer it on. I am elated," Kilmeade exclaimed, adding that it's "not true" that he loves war.During a later appearance on Fox News' The Daily Briefing, host Dana Perino—a former Bush White House press secretary—repeatedly claimed an attack was "imminent," asking Kilmeade what the consequences would have been if Trump didn't act."What everyone is missing, it's not our choice," the Fox & Friends host replied. "These things are happening. It's how we react to what is happening."Kilmeade—no longer skeptical of intelligence officials—also insisted that the president didn't need to brief Congress before killing the Iranian leader because he needed to act quickly due to the information obtained."But if you want him to get congressional approval over a strike that is time sensitive when an attack is imminent and he landed at the airport? Are you kidding me?" Kilmeade huffed.During Friday's broadcast of Fox Business Network's Varney and Co., anchor Stuart Varney also seemed a bit amnesiac over his previous missives against the intelligence community. Despite claiming in the past that the "deep state" was trying to undermine Trump's presidency, the pro-Trump host credulously touted Pompeo's "imminent attack" claim throughout his show."That's what Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, told Fox News earlier this morning, that there was an imminent attack and the president ordered the killing to stop that imminent attack," Varney proclaimed at one point. "Good cause to do it."In a later segment, Fox & Friends Weekend host and unofficial Trump adviser Pete Hegseth—who once noted that the "American people didn't vote for the Deep State"—also found newfound praise for the intel community, adding that Trump likely waited until the "intelligence lined up."A Fox News guest, however, seemed to reveal one of the biggest self-contradictions.Former Trump adviser Christian Whiton lamented Friday on Fox News' Outnumbered Overtime that it is "really sad" that Democrats "aren't willing to give our president and our military the benefit of the doubt in a crisis." A few weeks ago, though, Whiton gave no such benefit of the doubt to a member of both the military and intelligence community. During an interview with Fox Business host Lou Dobbs, Whiton called former National Security Council member and impeachment witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman a "deep state crybaby" who "poured himself into an Army outfit to go and frankly speak contemptuous things against the commander-in-chief."Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
|
| Donald Trump ate meatloaf and ice cream as Qassim Soleimani was neutralised Posted: 03 Jan 2020 03:39 PM PST  Donald Trump was enjoying a meal of meatloaf and ice cream at Mar-a-Lago when he learnt that Gen Qassim Soleimani, Iran's shadowy military mastermind, had been blown to smithereens by a US drone in Baghdad. Some time after the president finished his dessert, he used his phone to post a photograph of the American flag. Mr Trump's risky gamble to launch a decapitation strike against Iran's second most powerful man had gone like clockwork. Soleimani disembarked in darkness from his plane at Baghdad airport in Iraq, just after midnight local time. Unbeknown to him, hovering highabove was an MQ-9 Reaper "hunter-killer" drone, remotely piloted from a US base. Qassim Soleimani drone strike | Read more The $64 million (£49 million) drone, with a 66ft (20m) wingspan, circled silently and waited for him to emerge. Soleimani was greeted by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, an Iraqi militia commander with the Popular Mobilisation Forces [PMF]. Muhandis pulled up to the aircraft steps in two cars and Soleimani got in one of them. Also in the cars were Mohammed Ridha Jabri, the PMF public relations chief, and eight others. Moments later, the vehicles passed through a cargo area and headed for an access road leading out of the airport. The drone swooped in, unleashing four missiles, which struck the targets, killing all the occupants. Pictures taken by drivers passing on a nearby road showed the wreckage still burning on the slip road next to a concrete wall. The bodies of Soleimani and the others were badly mutilated, but he was quickly identified by a distinctive red ring on his finger. The burnt wreckage of the car carrying Soleimani Credit: REUTERS Mr Trump had spent the days before the audacious strike holed up in unusual seclusion at Mar-a-Lago, eschewing public appearances, and mulling over his response to recent Iranian-inspired attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad. He was believed to have seen photographs of graffiti left by rioters at the embassy, in which they pledged allegiance to Soleimani. Mr Trump began consulting with trusted advisers early in the week about how to respond. Joe Biden said the attack "tosses a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox" Credit: ANDREW HARNIK/AP Among them was Lindsey Graham, the senator and Iran hawk, who was spotted playing golf with the president and later confirmed he had been briefed ahead of the strike. Mr Trump's mind was made up after he was briefed that Soleimani was planning what US intelligence officials called a "significant" action against US interests, with the potential to kill hundreds in Iraq, and possibly elsewhere. The US had been tracking Soleimani's movements for years, using sophisticated electronic surveillance. The best opportunity in a while to neutralise him came as his plane arrived at Baghdad airport, from either Lebanon or Syria. US intelligence had learnt of the trip through a combination of highly classified information from human sources, electronic intercepts and reconnaissance aircraft. At a glance | General Qassim Soleimani Mr Trump had warned on Twitter in recent days that Iran would "pay a very BIG PRICE!" for the embassy siege, and that he was making a "threat". But, according to US officials, Soleimani had become blasé and his convoy had little security. Bill Roggio, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies in Washington, said: "US military officials and officers have told me that they have been able to track Soleimani for years. "He became careless and complacent as his influence in Iraq grew. His actions indicate he felt the US would never target him." Previous US presidents had decided against killing him, fearing the potential repercussions in the Middle East. As part of the Iranian state apparatus, he represented a very different prospect than terror leaders Osama bin Laden or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. However, Mr Trump, and Mike Pompeo, the US secretary of state, had become increasingly keen to neutralise him. The intelligence that Soleimani was planning a major attack, meant his killing could be justified as a "defensive action" by the US. pic.twitter.com/VXeKiVzpTf— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2020 But analysts warned that the assassination would now plunge the region into the unknown. Charles Lister, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, said: "The killing of Qassim Soleimani is one of thebiggest developments in the Middle East for decades. It far eclipses the deaths of Bin Laden or Baghdadi in terms of strategic significance and implications. "With Soleimani dead, war is coming - that seems certain, the only questions are where, in what form and when?" America was split over Mr Trump's decision as it braced for Iranian revenge attacks. Marco Rubio, the Republican senator, said Mr Trump had "exercised admirable restraint while setting clear red lines and the consequences for crossing them. Iran chose the path of escalation." Iran and the West | Comment and analysis But Joe Biden, the Democrat presidential candidate, accused Mr Trump of "tossing a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox". The most fervent opponents of Iran in Washington pressed the White House to make the death of Soleimani a step toward regime change. But officials familiar with Mr Pompeo's thinking said that he hoped the general's demise would lead to"behavioural change" by the Iranian regime, and ultimately a de-escalation of tensions. In Iraq, some residents of predominantly Shia areas in Baghdad and Basra were seen cheering the death of the man they accuse of ordering the killing of hundreds of protesters in both Iraqi cities in recent weeks.
|
| Trump stirs Mideast tensions despite talk of 'endless wars' Posted: 03 Jan 2020 03:36 PM PST  With a single drone strike, President Donald Trump did more than just take out an avowed enemy of the United States. The Friday strike that killed the most prominent Iranian general may have ended any chance that he would get the United States out of the "endless wars" in the Middle East that he has railed against since taking office. The killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad has the world bracing for a possible retaliation, with many fearing it could lead to a wider conflict.
|
| Iran faces dilemma in avenging general's death: To strike back without starting a war Posted: 03 Jan 2020 03:05 PM PST  Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, vowed to exact "severe revenge" for the Thursday night U.S. airstrike that killed the country's most famous general, but the Iranian regime will have to walk a fine line to respond strongly without provoking a war with the United States, former intelligence officials familiar with the region said Friday. Qassem Soleimani headed the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps' Quds Force, which combines intelligence gathering, covert action and special operations. Also killed in the airstrike, which hit two vehicles, was Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the leader of the Iraqi Shiite militia group Kataib Hezbollah, along with several other Quds Force and militia members.
|
| Airstrike that killed Iran's top general not bad for financial markets ... yet Posted: 03 Jan 2020 03:00 PM PST ![Airstrike that killed Iran's top general not bad for financial markets ... yet]( "Airstrike that killed Iran's top general not bad for financial markets ... yet") Billionaire investor Marc Lasry said the U.S. killing Iran's top general won't hurt financial markets as long as the economy remains strong.
|
| The Path to War? Posted: 03 Jan 2020 02:56 PM PST  Is the U.S. on a path to war with Iran? Neither side may want it, but fears of a new war in the Middle East have surged after President Trump ordered the targeted military strike that killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, who commanded the elite Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and reportedly was the architect behind nearly every major Iranian intelligence and military operation over the course of two decades."We took action last night to stop a war," Trump said Friday. "We did not take action to start a war." He added that the U.S. is not seeking regime change in Iran.Trump and the Pentagon said the strike was aimed at deterring imminent Iranian attacks, though they did not provide further details. Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reportedly said Friday that a Soleimani-planned attack against Americans "might still happen." The Pentagon said that it will deploy about 3,000 more troops to the Middle East after Iran vowed "harsh retaliation."Republicans and Democrats alike called Soleimani a terrorist, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said "no one should shed a tear" over his death. But Schumer and other Democrats said that congressional leaders should have been notified about the strike, and Democrats warned that the Soleimani's killing could lead to a further escalation of hostilities that would put American lives at risk.The fiscal factor: While other considerations — human life, national security and Americans' faith in their government — all take precedence, the fiscal impact of a potential full-scale war with Iran can't be entirely ignored. "Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said.So here's a reminder of how much the post-9/11 wars are expected to cost in the long run. According to an annual report published in November by the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, the U.S. will have spent $5.4 trillion by the end of this year on what was once called the "global war on terror" – a nearly two-decade conflict that has involved operations in more than 80 countries. Add another $1 trillion for the care of military veterans over the coming decades, and the total cost comes to an estimated $6.4 trillion.Like what you're reading? Sign up for our free newsletter.
|
| Trump’s Iran strike puts 2020 primary on edge Posted: 03 Jan 2020 02:51 PM PST  The scramble to confront the president on Iran laid bare how quickly the situation had metastasized into a potentially campaign-altering development.
|
| Jess Phillips Starts Bid to Win U.K. Labour Party Leadership Posted: 03 Jan 2020 02:49 PM PST ![Jess Phillips Starts Bid to Win U.K. Labour Party Leadership]( "Jess Phillips Starts Bid to Win U.K. Labour Party Leadership") (Bloomberg) -- Maverick politician Jess Phillips said Labour needs a "different kind of leader" as she launched her bid to succeed Jeremy Corbyn, following the U.K. opposition party's worst electoral defeat since 1935.Labour needs to regain support from "huge parts" of the working class base it has lost and is in "big trouble" if it fails, Phillips, 38, said in a statement Friday, according to the Press Association.Corbyn said in the aftermath of the crushing defeat on Dec. 12 he would stand down as leader following a "period of reflection" to determine the direction the party should take. Labour's National Executive Committee is due to outline a timetable for the leadership election next week."Now is not the time to be meek: Boris Johnson needs to be challenged, with passion, heart and precision," Phillips said. "We need to recognize that politics has changed in a fundamental way by electing a different kind of leader. More of the same will lead to more of the same result."Lisa Nandy, 40, another member of parliament, late Friday tweeted that she is running because "it has to be different and it can be better."The leadership race is shaping up as a clash between opposing wings of the party. Corbyn supporters want to install a new leader in his left wing, socialist mold to push on with an agenda of wealth redistribution and the nationalization of key industries. But moderates want to steer the party back toward the center ground from where Tony Blair led it to victory in three successive elections between 1997 and 2005.Life After Corbyn? The Politicians Vying to Become Labour LeaderThe two early favorites, Labour's Brexit spokesman Keir Starmer and business spokeswoman Rebecca Long Bailey, have yet to formally declare their candidacies -- though both have said they are considering a bid. A YouGov poll of Labour party members published on Jan. 2 showed that Starmer, a moderate who remained loyal to Corbyn, would comfortably beat Long Bailey -- viewed as the current leadership's preferred candidate -- with Phillips in third.Phillips has been a fierce critic of Corbyn and is known in Parliament for her no-nonsense, blunt style. A Remainer who backed a second referendum on Brexit, she held her Leave-backing Midlands seat of Birmingham Yardley in the election with a comfortable majority of more than 10,000 votes, even as Labour lost dozens of similarly pro-Brexit seats in central and northern England.In her statement, she criticized Corbyn's "woeful response" to the party's antisemitism crisis as well as the ambiguous position he adopted on Brexit. Phillips is a member of the Labour Friends of Israel parliamentary group.Phillips adds her name to Labour's foreign affairs spokeswoman, Emily Thornberry, and a junior economy spokesman, Clive Lewis, in formerly declaring her leadership bid. Party Chairman Ian Lavery has also suggested he'll stand, as has backbencher David Lammy.Nandy, who represents Wigan, a community between Liverpool and Manchester in northwest England, sent a letter to her local newspaper to announce her plans."I'm standing because I know too many people in places like Wigan no longer feel they have a voice in our national story," she said. "So many of you have told me you believe many leaders are not interested in what you have to say and are unable - or unwilling - to understand your lives. I believe you are right."(Updates with Lisa Nandy candidacy in fifth and final paragraphs)To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Morales in London at amorales2@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tim Ross at tross54@bloomberg.net, Stuart Biggs, Jessica ShanklemanFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Trump warns Iran about retaliation Posted: 03 Jan 2020 02:49 PM PST ![Trump warns Iran about retaliation]( "Trump warns Iran about retaliation") President Trump speaking at the inaugural gathering of "Evangelicals for Trump" warned Iran about taking action against the U.S. following Thursday's military strike.
|
| Was the drone attack on Iranian general an assassination? Posted: 03 Jan 2020 02:39 PM PST  After Friday's targeted killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, newsrooms struggled with the question: Had the United States just carried out an assassination? Although the United States and Iran have long been adversaries and engaged in a shadow war in the Middle East and elsewhere, the U.S. has never declared formal war on Iran.
|
| Congress Leaders Briefed on Airstrike But Await Written Report Posted: 03 Jan 2020 02:38 PM PST  (Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration will give Congress a written justification of the airstrike that killed a top Iranian general, a Republican senator said Friday, amid warnings from Democrats that President Donald Trump must seek congressional authorization for direct military action against Iran.Republican Senator James Risch, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he expects the White House to send the notification required under the War Powers Act to provide the legal rationale for the targeting of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, who administration officials said was plotting an imminent attack against U.S. interests."This is long, long, long overdue," Risch said of the strike to kill Soleimani. Risch, who said he spoke with an administration official about the attack, told reporters that "we had very clear, very solid information from the intelligence community that indeed there were going to be imminent attacks that could involve hundreds of people, could involve even thousands of people, all orchestrated by this person."Defense Secretary Mark Esper briefed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell about the strike near Baghdad, and a handful of other lawmakers also obtained briefings from the administration. Democratic leaders were informed of the action after the fact, and Republican leaders declined to say when they were briefed.Reaction to the raid fell mostly along party lines, with Republicans hailing the president's action to eliminate a terrorist leader and Democrats questioning whether Trump has a broader strategy or plan to deal with the aftermath. The strike also comes as Congress is in the midst of a bitter partisan debate over Trump's impeachment by the Democratic-led House and a coming trial in the Republican-controlled Senate.Democrats were furious that the leaders of both parties in the House and Senate as well as the top lawmakers on the intelligence committees -- together known as the "Gang of 8" -- weren't given advance notice. An official familiar with the situation said they were being briefed by telephone on Friday.Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Congress needs answers about what legal basis Trump relied on to target Soleimani and how the administration plans to avoid a larger war."No one should shed a tear for Soleimani," he said on the Senate floor, but "it is my view that the president does not have the authority for a war with Iran."House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Congress must be "fully apprised as to what happened, why it happened and what our strategy is." He said the strike could pose "substantial dangers" and any future action directed at Iran must have the consent of Congress."If the president wants to take action against Iran, he does in fact need an authorization for the use of military force absent a direct attack on our forces," the Maryland Democrat said in an interview.Representative Steve Scalise, the second-ranking Republican in the House, said Trump's actions so far were appropriate uses of his powers as commander-in-chief to defend the nation even without a congressional authorization. He added that Congress will have a say in what comes next."We can all discuss once we see more intelligence what the next steps are," he said. "Clearly there is going to be a role for Congress."Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Friday he expects administration officials to discuss the lethal action with the full Senate early next week.Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said he was briefed in advance about a potential operation against Soleimani when he was with Trump over the holiday break at the president's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida."The intelligence was very strong that Soleimani was orchestrating chaos in Iraq at our expense and throughout the region," Graham, a close Trump ally, said Friday on Fox News. "The president was informed of these potential attacks and he acted. This is a defensive strike to neutralize future attacks that were being planned" by Soleimani and others.House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, who was briefed on the strike by administration officials, said he was concerned about whether Trump is prepared for Iranian retaliation.Retaliation Risk"I have yet to be fully satisfied that the administration has a strategy," the California Democrat said. "I think the dangers are going up not going down."There was no immediate sign that the U.S. military action was markedly affecting the debate over impeachment. McConnell and Chuck Schumer, the chamber's Democratic leader, addressed both topics separately in remarks Friday."Now — predictably enough, in this political environment — the operation that led to Soleimani's death may prove controversial or divisive," McConnell said. Schumer complained Trump may have brought the U.S. closer to "an endless war" which he promised he would never do.They remained at an impasse over the terms of a trial for Trump on two articles of impeachment -- abuse of power and obstructing Congress -- that were adopted by the House in September. Pelosi has delayed transmitting the impeachment articles to the Senate as Democrats angle for a deal to include new witnesses and documents for the trial.Historical PrecedentDemocratic Representative Gerry Connolly of Virginia said the killing of Soleimani shouldn't affect the impeachment proceedings. He also dismissed any notion that holding the trial would undercut the commander in chief as the U.S. is confronting potential conflict with Iran."That's something Donald Trump and his acolytes should have thought about when they committed impeachable offenses," Connolly said in an interview. "Donald Trump put himself in this place. He is squarely where the blame lies."Republican Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina, a close Trump ally, said the potential escalation of tensions with Iran should remind lawmakers there are "more important priorities" than impeachment."Hopefully, this jolts us to turn our attention more to our enemies who would seek to destroy us," Meadows said.There has never been a precisely comparable set of circumstances before in the nation's history. But there are some parallels to the situation 21 years ago when then-President Bill Clinton had been impeached by the House and his impeachment trial was getting underway in the Senate. Then the U.S. was threatening Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic in January 1999 with airstrikes after a massacre in Kosovo.By March 24, after the Senate acquitted Clinton, the Kosovo air war began. Clinton, however, was already facing criticism from some for not acting earlier, in ways that could have prevented Milosevic from moving troops and equipment into Kosovo to carry out the massive "ethnic cleansing."\--With assistance from Laura Litvan, Travis Tritten and Kathleen Miller.To contact the reporters on this story: Billy House in Washington at bhouse5@bloomberg.net;Erik Wasson in Washington at ewasson@bloomberg.net;Steven T. Dennis in Washington at sdennis17@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at jsobczyk@bloomberg.net, Anna EdgertonFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Christians cheer Trump in Miami as he says Soleimani’s ‘bloody rampage’ is over Posted: 03 Jan 2020 02:24 PM PST  Speaking from the pulpit of a Miami-Dade County megachurch, President Donald Trump bragged to an audience of thousands Friday that he'd killed Iran's top general and declared himself the greatest friend Christians ever had in the White House.
|
| Mike Pence crams 3 inaccuracies about 9/11 into 1 tweet while trying to justify Soleimani strike Posted: 03 Jan 2020 02:24 PM PST  Vice President Mike Pence may want to check a middle-school history textbook for this one.The U.S. carried out an airstrike Friday morning that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's elite Quds Force and one of the country's top leaders. After President Trump gave his first remarks acknowledging the strike, Pence tweeted out a thread outlining Soleimani's "worst atrocities," including one that wasn't exactly accurate.Pence's most questionable tweet outlined Soleimani's alleged role in the 9/11 attacks. Soleimani, Pence said, "assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States."The most obviously incorrect bit of information here is the number of hijackers: There were 19, and "8-10" of them "traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001," per the 9/11 commission report. And while the report does conclude "there is strong evidence Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11," Charlotte Clymer of the Human Rights Campaign says Soleimani probably wouldn't have been involved in that.> Wow, where to start with how wrong this is... > > 1\. There were 19 hijackers on 9/11, not twelve. > > 2\. Soleimani, an Iranian Shiite, would not have assisted Sunnis. > > 3\. Soleimani quite literally helped the U.S. with post-9/11 intelligence in Afghanistan because he hated the Taliban. https://t.co/a9t5pKePcK> > — Charlotte Clymer️ (@cmclymer) January 3, 2020A New Yorker article from 2013 also points out that the U.S. actually worked with Soleimani "to help the United States destroy their mutual enemy, the Taliban." That lasted until former President George W. Bush declared Iran part of his "Axis of Evil" in the Middle East.More stories from theweek.com America is guilty of everything we accuse Iran of doing 4 reasons to beware Trump's decision to kill Soleimani United Methodist Church leader calls historic plan to split over same-sex marriage 'a welcome relief'
|
| Your Evening Briefing Posted: 03 Jan 2020 02:13 PM PST  (Bloomberg) -- Want to receive this post in your inbox every afternoon? Sign up here Some fear U.S. President Donald Trump's order to assassinate the second most powerful man in Iran may augur another major conflict in the Middle East. But the two nations have been effectively at war for some time. Since America's 2003 invasion of Iraq, Qassem Soleimani has challenged U.S. power with proxy militias in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. From a remove, he prosecuted a hybrid war against America without triggering a direct response from Washington. Now, the whole world awaits how, and where, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei will deliver his grave promise of "severe retaliation." Here are today's top storiesBobby Ghosh writes in Bloomberg Opinion that Soleimani, as the puppet-master of militias and terrorist groups, had the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands.The Trump administration contends the assassination was to prevent what Secretary of State Michael Pompeo labeled an "imminent attack." No evidence supporting the assertion, however, has been made public. Congress, with the exception of one Republican senator who was with Trump at his Florida resort, wasn't consulted beforehand. Oil prices spiked and stocks fell.On Capitol Hill, senators debated whether Trump should have briefed them first and whether he needs authorization for further attacks, given Congress's war powers. They also discussed another constitutional issue: Trump's looming Senate impeachment trial. Republican leader Mitch McConnell sought to defend his decision to coordinate the trial with the White House, despite his role as a juror.If the Senate acquits Trump over his effort to have Ukraine interfere in the 2020 presidential race, Thomas Geoghegan writes in Bloomberg Opinion that Democrats can sue to prevent him "from going to any foreign government to fix the election."Federal Reserve officials said the U.S. economy will keep growing at a healthy pace despite the Iran confrontation and continuing weakness in the manufacturing sector. There are some who may differ: Nine states will likely slide into contraction in the next six months—the most since the financial crisis. The decline in manufacturing is also the worst since, you guessed it, the Great Recession.McClatchy, the latest American newspaper publisher facing financial calamity, decided to hold off on paying some of its pensioners.What's Luke Kawa thinking about? The Bloomberg cross-asset reporter is considering inflation; specifically the kind that may result from rising oil prices after the killing of Soleimani. An uptick could impact headline pressures and crimp spending on other discretionary items, Luke warns. At the Federal Open Market Committee on Dec. 10-11, Fed officials said their monetary policy was likely to remain appropriate "for a time" even amid what they saw as persistent downside risks.What you'll need to know tomorrowWhy Soleimani's assassination may help Joseph Biden's campaign. America won't give up its vulnerable wireless voting machines. Tesla set a record for electric automobile deliveries. Businessweek: Venezuela's latest problem is too many dollars. Turkey's state banks are scrambling to prop up the lira. This billionaire mortgaged her company to get a $1 billion loan. Ex-Sequoia partner wins an extortion suit against ex-exotic dancer.What you'll want to read tonightEver wonder which are the safest, most on-time airlines? They are largely in one specific region of the world. A ratings group said it took into account factors including audits by government and industry bodies, crashes and serious incidents, profitability and fleet age. These are the winners. To contact the author of this story: David Rovella in New York at drovella@bloomberg.netFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Why Obama, Bush, and Bibi All Passed on Killing Soleimani Posted: 03 Jan 2020 01:59 PM PST  Until the Trump administration blew him away in Baghdad in the pre-dawn dark of Friday morning, Qassem Soleimani had made the very fact of his survival part of his considerable mystique. The powerful Iranian general commanded forces that had become the scourge of Iran's adversaries abroad, especially the United States and Israel. Yet he came and went to the war fronts of the Middle East unscathed.In fact, conscious decisions were taken under the George W. Bush administration, even when Soleimani was in the crosshairs, not to pull the trigger. Gen. Stanley McChrystal wrote last year, he had a shot in 2007 but let Soleimani go: "The decision not to act is often the hardest one to make—and it isn't always right."Ali Khedery, a former U.S. adviser in Iraq, told The Daily Beast that not striking Soleimani when they had the chance was an "enormous frustration to me and many of my colleagues.""I remember during the [2007 Iraq troop] surge sitting with Ambassador Ryan Crocker and [Gen.] David Petraeus and saying, 'Wouldn't it be a shame if Soleimani ran into one of his own EFPs," Khedery added, using the acronym for Explosively-Formed Projectiles, the Iranian-made bombs that killed dozens and dozens of American troops in Iraq. "But obviously, this was a decision that had to be taken by the president personally because of its implications."Under the Barack Obama administration, the assassination of the most famous general in the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps appears not to have been considered seriously.There was never any manhunt, according to Derek Chollet, assistant secretary of defense from 2012 to 2015. "To my knowledge there was never a decision of 'We've gotta go find this guy and get him.'" Nobody could begin to be sure what would come next if Soleimani were killed, and no scenario looked good. And in those days the priority was stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon without having to go to war. The murder of Soleimani could have scuttled the negotiations.The calculus was a fairly simple one, says Chollet: "Do the potential risks of taking an action like this outweigh the gain of taking him off the battlefield?" The answer was yes.U.S. Braces for Iran's 'Counterpunch' After Slaying of SoleimaniAccording to Patricia Ravalgi, who served as a civilian analyst at U.S. Central Command from 2008 to 2019, concerns at the operational level went beyond declined opportunities to terminate Soleimani. There was often the worry among military planners and Washington policymakers that with Iranian-backed militias and American troops operating in close proximity in Iraq, especially during the campaigns against the so-called Islamic State, Soleimani would be in the wrong place at the wrong time, get killed by accident, "and all hell would break loose.""There was even wishful thinking that Soleimani would stay out of Iraq more, to keep such an accident from occurring," says Ravalgi.But why didn't the Israelis target Soleimani?According to Soleimani, in an interview given just three months ago, they did. Speaking to Iranian television last year, the head of the élite Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed that Israeli aircraft targeted him and Lebanese Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in 2006, while Soleimani commanded forces in Beirut during the Second Lebanon War."Israeli spy planes were constantly flying overhead," he said as he began his war story. Hezbollah, an Iranian backed militia, had its situation room in the heart of Dahiyeh, a Beirut neighborhood, and the Israelis were "watching every movement," Soleimani said. Then late one night, he and Imad Mughniyeh, Hezbollah's most notorious terrorist operative, decided to remove Nasrallah to safety in a separate building. Shortly after their arrival, two Israeli bombardments struck nearby, he said. "We felt that these two bombings were about to be followed by a third one… so we decided to get out of that building. We didn't have a car, and there was complete silence, just the Israeli régime planes overflying Dahiyeh," he recalled. Soleimani said he hid under a tree with Nasrallah from what appeared to be heat-seeking drones while Mughniyeh went in search of a car. Afraid the car was also being tracked, they eventually switched cars in an underground garage, supposedly confounding the Israelis.Mughniyeh's luck did not last long. He was blown up in Damascus in 2008 in an operation later attributed jointly to the CIA and Israel's Mossad. An Israeli military officer with knowledge of Israel's Iran preparedness told The Daily Beast that when the Americans took out Soleimani this week, "It wasn't a surprise, not really."The officer, who spoke without attribution because he was not authorized to speak with the media, said there had been previous Israeli and American efforts to eliminate Soleimani, though it wasn't clear to what extent the plans had advanced.The Obama administration "asked us not to proceed," he said. "It was clear the implications could be much greater than a localized war, the repercussions could affect the whole world."This time around, "We're not involved in the American operation," said the Israeli officer. "But the Iranians always put us together, the big Satan and the little Satan. You see people on the streets screaming death to America and death to Israel. Could we potentially get hit? Of course. We are secondary, seen as a proxy for the United States."Iran's Qasem Soleimani is the Mastermind Preparing Proxy Armies for War With AmericaIn Trump's remarks from his Mar-a-Lago resort on Friday, he claimed, "We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war." But as his predecessors understood well, the decision to assassinate Soleimani has opened the door into the unknown and the unknowable."We need de-escalation," one anxious Iraqi official told The Daily Beast, "and this is the mother of all escalations." —with additional reporting by Spencer AckermanRead more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
|
| US strike on Iran's Soleimani saved hundreds of American lives, disrupted attacks in three countries: State Dept Posted: 03 Jan 2020 01:57 PM PST  President Donald Trump's decision to authorize the killing of Iran's top general came after new U.S. intelligence showed an "imminent" threat to U.S. personnel in three Middle Eastern countries, according to senior State Department officials.
|
| United Methodist Church leader calls historic plan to split over same-sex marriage 'a welcome relief' Posted: 03 Jan 2020 01:51 PM PST  The United Methodist Church is now literally divided over the matter of same-sex marriage. Leaders of the Church announced a plan to formally split into two denominations in a nine-page document released Friday.The proposal, hoping to achieve "reconciliation and grace through separation," creates a new "Traditionalist Methodist" denomination that would uphold the ban on same-sex marriages and the ordination of LGBT clergy.This fracture within the church will restructure the nation's second-largest Protestant denomination. This news is not entirely shocking, since a heated global conference took place last February, and leaders voted to reinforce the ban on gay marriage, CNN noted. The continued internal debate since then made a separation seem almost inevitable.A representative of the group in opposition to same-sex discrimination, Rev. Thomas Berlin said of the schism: "the solution that we received is a welcome relief to the conflict we have been experiencing," reports The New York Times. "I am very encouraged that the United Methodist Church found a way to offer a resolution to a long conflict," said Berlin, who was part of the 16-member group who signed the proposal.New York Conference Bishop Thomas Bickerton, also a member of the group, told The United Methodist News Service, "It became clear that the line in the sand had turned into a canyon. The impasse is such that we have come to the realization that we just can't stay that way any longer."More stories from theweek.com Mike Pence crams 3 inaccuracies about 9/11 into 1 tweet while trying to justify Soleimani strike America is guilty of everything we accuse Iran of doing 4 reasons to beware Trump's decision to kill Soleimani
|
| What Soulemani’s death might mean for the National Defense Strategy and the next budget Posted: 03 Jan 2020 01:50 PM PST  The National Defense Strategy called for redirecting resources from the Middle East to invest in high-end technologies. Rising tensions with Iran threaten to pull the U.S. further into regional conflict.
|
| Donald Trump says killing of Qassim Soleimani was to 'stop a war' with Iran Posted: 03 Jan 2020 01:47 PM PST  Donald Trump said he was not seeking a war with Iran, or "regime change," after assassinating the country's top general in an audacious drone strike. The US president said he had acted to prevent a plot against America by General Qassim Soleimani, who he called a "sick monster"and "the number one terrorist anywhere in the world." Mr Trump said: "We took action last night to stop a war, we did not take action to start a war. "Soleimani made the death of innocent people his sick passion, contributing to terror plots as far away as New Delhi and London. His reign of terror is over. "He was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and and personnel but we caught him in the act and terminated him." At a glance | General Qassim Soleimani The president added: "We do not seek regime change. However, the Iranian regime's aggression, including use of proxy fighters to destabilise neighbours, must end, and it must end now." If Americans anywhere were targeted by Iran he had "targets already identified and I am ready and prepared to take whatever action is necessary." On Friday night, the White House insisted it acted in response to clear threats against Americans. Robert O'Brien, the US national security adviser, said Soleimani had arrived in Baghdad from Damascus and had been moving around the Middle East plotting imminent attacks on US diplomats and military personnel. Iran has vowed to retaliate against the US airstrike, calling the move America's "biggest mistake in west Asia" and threatening "severe vengeance". Soleimani, head of Iran's elite Quds Force, was killed in the US airstrike at Baghdad's international airport early on Friday, a move that has provoked a major escalation in US-Iran tensions. Iran's Supreme National Security Council has issued a statement vowing to retaliate "in the right place and time". "America should know that its criminal attack on General Soleimani has been the country's biggest mistake in west Asia, and America will not avoid the consequences of this wrong calculation easily," it said. "These criminals will face severe vengeance... in the right place and time," it added. The strike also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, or PMF. In his first comments on the strike, Mr Trump tweeted on Friday morning: "General Qassem Soleimani has killed or badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill many more...but got caught! "He was directly and indirectly responsible for the death of millions of people, including the recent large number of PROTESTERS killed in Iran itself. "While Iran will never be able to properly admit it, Soleimani was both hated and feared within the country. They are not nearly as saddened as the leaders will let the outside world believe. He should have been taken out many years ago!" The Pentagon said the Mr Trump ordered the killing of Soleimani "in a decisive defensive action to protect US personnel abroad". "General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more," the Department of Defence said. After the attack, Mr Trump tweeted a picture of the American flag. pic.twitter.com/VXeKiVzpTf— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2020 The killing of Soleimani is a major blow for Iran. Together with the death of Muhandis, the attack could mark a potential turning point in the Middle East and is expected to draw severe retaliation from Iran and the forces it backs in the Middle East against Israel and American interests. Several hours after the strike the US embassy in Baghdad urged all American citizens to leave Iraq "immediately". American oil workers also began evacuating. Mr Pompeo appeared to stress that the US was trying to "de-escalate tensions with Iran," while Mr Trump later tweeted: "Iran has never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!" Iran warns of 'harsh retaliation' Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned that a "harsh retaliation is waiting" for the US. Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani Credit: Getty The Iranian state TV carried a statement by Khamenei also calling Soleimani "the international face of resistance." Khamenei declared three days of public mourning for the general's death. President Hassan Rouhani said Iran and the "free nations of the region" will take revenge on the United States. "There is no doubt that the great nation of Iran and the other free nations of the region will take revenge for this gruesome crime from criminal America," Mr Rouhani said in a statement posted on the Iranian government website. Government spokesman Ali Rabiei warned on Twitter that retaliation was "not too far away". Tens of thousands of angry Iranians took to the streets of Tehran chanting "Death to America" and holding up posters of Soleimani. A destroyed vehicle on fire after a US strike at Baghdad international airport Credit: AFP Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called the assassination "an extremely dangerous and foolish escalation". "The US bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism," he said in a post on Twitter. On Friday morning Iraqi paramilitary groups said three rockets hit Baghdad International Airport, killing five members of Iraqi paramilitary groups and two "guests." Iranian assassination | Read more Iran's Revolutionary Guard said Soleimani was "martyred" in an attack by US helicopters near the airport, without elaborating. The statement was carried on state television, which interrupted its programming to announce the death. A black ribbon was displayed on the screen and a photo montage was shown with images of Soleimani smiling and praying, while the news anchor recited the Islamic prayer for the dead. Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, posted a video on Twitter purporting to show Iraqis dancing in the streets celebrating news of the death. Iraqis — Iraqis — dancing in the street for freedom; thankful that General Soleimani is no more. pic.twitter.com/huFcae3ap4— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) January 3, 2020 A high-level Iraqi security official told AP that Muhandis had arrived at the airport in a convoy to welcome Soleimani whose plane had arrived from either Lebanon or Syria. The airstrike occurred as soon as he descended from the aircraft to be greeted by Muhandis and his companions, killing them all. A PMF official said the dead also included its airport protocol officer, identifying him as Mohammed Reda. A senior Iraqi politician told AP that Soleimani's body was identified by the ring he wore. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a commander in the Popular Mobilization Forces Credit: Reuters Oil prices soared more than four percent on Friday while Asian shares fell on Friday, erasing early gains. Soleimani seen as future potential leader of Iran Both Muhandis and Soleimani have been sanctioned by the United States. Soleimani, who has led the foreign arm of the Revolutionary Guards and has played a central role in fighting in Syria and Iraq, acquired celebrity status at home and abroad. Seen as a potential future leader of Iran, he was instrumental in the spread of Iranian influence in the Middle East. He survived several assassination attempts against him by Western, Israeli and Arab agencies over the past two decades. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei greets Qassim Soleimani during a ceremony in Tehran Credit: Rex Soleimani had been rumoured dead several times, including in a 2006 airplane crash that killed other military officials in northwestern Iran and following a 2012 bombing in Damascus that killed top aides of embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad. More recently, rumours circulated in November 2015 that Soleimani was killed or seriously wounded leading forces loyal to Assad as they fought around Syria's Aleppo. The attack came amid tensions with the United States after a New Year's Eve attack by Iran-backed militias on the US Embassy in Baghdad. The two-day embassy attack, which ended on Wednesday, prompted Mr Trump to order about 750 US soldiers deployed to the Middle East. Mr Trump said on Tuesday that Iran would "be held fully responsible" for the attack on the embassy. News of the killing received a mixed response in the US. Trump has ' tossed stick of dynamite into tinderbox' Adam Schiff, the Democratic chair of the House intelligence committee, said Congress did not authorise the strike. "Soleimani was responsible for unthinkable violence and world is better off without him," he said on Twitter. "But Congress didn't authorise and American people don't want a war with Iran. All steps must now be taken to protect our forces against the almost inevitable escalation and increased risk." Joe Biden, a Democratic presidential candidate, said "no American will mourn Solemani's passing". But he warned that the move would likely have significant ramifications in the region. "President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox, and he owes the American people an explanation of the strategy and plan to keep safe our troops and embassy personnel, our people and our interests, both here at home and abroad, and our partners throughout the region and beyond." But former US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said that Soleimani's death "should be applauded by all who seek peace and justice." Lindsey Graham, senator of South Carolina, threatened Iran with attacks on its oil refineries if it continues to target US interests. To the Iranian government: If you want to stay in the oil business leave America and our allies alone and stop being the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) January 3, 2020 "Thank you, Mr. President, for standing up for America," Mr Graham said. "If Iran continues to attack America and our allies, they should pay the heaviest of prices, which includes the destruction of their oil refineries." The breach at the embassy followed US airstrikes on Sunday that killed 25 fighters of the Iran-backed militia in Iraq, the Kataib Hizbollah. The US military said the strikes were in retaliation for last week's killing of an American contractor in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base that the U.S. blamed on the militia.
|
| Could gas prices rise after US killed Iran general? Here’s what you need to know Posted: 03 Jan 2020 01:43 PM PST  It depends on how Iran reacts, according to experts.
|
| Trump says U.S. killed Soleimani 'to stop a war,' not 'to start a war' Posted: 03 Jan 2020 01:15 PM PST  President Trump just suggested there's an ongoing war the rest of the world knows nothing about.On Friday, Trump gave his first remarks since an American missile strike killed Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's elite Quds Force. The strike has been widely condemned by people on both sides of the aisle, but Trump showed no signs of backing down from the decision.Trump started by outlining several terror acts Soleimani has been responsible for, saying "what the United States did yesterday should've been done long ago." "We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war," Trump then confusingly said. After all, the U.S. isn't at war with Iran right now, so exactly which war was he trying to stop?> Trump speaks following U.S. drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani: "What the United States did yesterday should have been done long ago ... We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war." pic.twitter.com/nHcdItFOu7> > — Axios (@axios) January 3, 2020Trump then said "the United States has the best military" and "intelligence ... in the world," and added he was "ready and prepared to take whatever action is necessary," specifically referring to Iran.More stories from theweek.com Mike Pence crams 3 inaccuracies about 9/11 into 1 tweet while trying to justify Soleimani strike America is guilty of everything we accuse Iran of doing 4 reasons to beware Trump's decision to kill Soleimani
|
| With the US and Iran on the brink of war, the dangers of Trump's policy of going it alone become clear Posted: 03 Jan 2020 01:09 PM PST  President Donald Trump's policy toward Iran is in deep crisis. The president's approach has the support neither of America's allies nor of its strategic rivals, China and Russia. And his policy – made even more confrontational by the shooting of a high-ranking Iranian official – has boxed him into a situation where, short of dramatic reversal, Washington and Tehran are edging close to war. By failing to forge policies in cooperation with allies, the U.S. was robbed of advice and expertise in how to tackle the problems posed by Iran. Above all, it led to the dangerous deterioration of relations between the U.S. and Iran after the U.S. became the sole country to withdraw from the 2015/16 Iran nuclear deal. That deal was painstakingly negotiated by the Obama administration in cooperation with five other world powers.Instead of Trump's harsh policy imposing maximum pressure on Iran, Iran has turned the tables and has put pressure on a freshly impeached U.S. president whose reelection is by no means assured and whose international diplomatic isolation and weakness is no secret in the region. And once again, Trump took unilateral action early on Friday morning. The killings of Iran's revered and powerful military commander, General Qassem Soleimani, and Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in a U.S. drone strike on Baghdad airport has further escalated tension in the region. The killings immediately caused huge anti-American protests in Iran and led to the rise of global oil prices and the fall of stock markets around the world. Iran has vowed "harsh revenge" for the assassination of Soleimani, the strategic mastermind behind Tehran's entire ambitious Middle East policy. He also coordinated Iran's widespread covert operations program and provided much of the strategic expertise for President Bashar Assad's war in Syria. Wishful thinking?Since coming to office in January 2017, President Trump's approach to resolve America's longstanding quarrel with Iran has consisted of two stages. The politics of maximum pressure – imposing stiff economic sanctions – combined with harsh rhetoric toward Tehran's leaders was to be followed by a second stage of intense personal diplomacy that would culminate in the signing of a great new deal of cooperation with longtime enemy Iran. It would turn Trump into one of America's greatest foreign policy presidents and might even, or so he hoped, earn him a Nobel Peace Prize. As an international relations scholar and former diplomatic and foreign policy adviser at the German embassy in Beijing, I believe this approach consisted of a lot of wishful thinking.Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei simply refused to engage with Washington on the conditions laid down by Trump. Those conditions included Iran halting all uranium enrichment and ceasing support for the region's militant groups. Tables turnedTrump's unorthodox idea – conducting the nation's diplomacy singlehandedly and without asking for much advice from experts in the State Department or from his allies – has been revealed as untenable. Trump's withdrawal from the 2015/16 multi-party nuclear deal with Iran was caused by his unhappiness that the deal was not meant to restrain Iran's aggressive politics in the region. Trump also believed it would not effectively prevent Tehran's ability to manufacture nuclear weapons in the long run. But his policy toward Iran appears not to have contained and intimidated the country's leaders. It has instead emboldened the country to aggressively challenge U.S. policies in the Middle East.U.S. withdrawal from the deal was deeply resented by both Iran and the international community. And it started the rapid deterioration of relations with Tehran. The recent siege of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad by violent protesters who were clearly directed by the Tehran regime recalled the Iranian hostage crisis 40 years ago that decisively contributed to President Jimmy Carter's electoral defeat. The shooting down of an expensive American drone by Iran in June as well as Tehran's open support of the Assad regime in Syria and the Hezbollah terrorist organization in Lebanon were further indications of Iran's challenge to the U.S. It appears that Trump's airstrike on the Baghdad airport was an attempt to demonstrate America's power and to break out of a largely self-inflicted foreign policy failure. New tackI believe that President Trump's diplomacy toward Iran requires urgent course corrections. The only option left – and one not yet seriously considered by the Trump administration – is to fall back on cooperation with other great powers, not least with Washington's many allies, such as the U.K., France and Germany, who are still anxious for American global leadership. The Trump administration has little option but to return to the Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran, though perhaps it could be somewhat modified to enable Trump to save face. The administration could then embark on a unified Western policy to restrain both Iranian leadership ambitions in the Middle East and Tehran's nuclear ambitions.The killing of Soleimani and the angry reaction to his death, however, has made this almost impossible in the short run. But tempers may cool. Despite recent joint Russian-Chinese-Iranian naval maneuvers, Moscow and Beijing are also still interested in containing Iranian ambitions. Iranian dominance in the Middle East and the resulting further tension and escalating rivalry with Saudi Arabia for regional control would hardly benefit the great powers and the stability of the region. Whether or not the Trump administration is capable of and willing to embark on such a major change of course is unclear. But I believe it is the only way out of a crisis largely caused by Trump's unilateral policies.[ Insight, in your inbox each day. You can get it with The Conversation's email newsletter. ]This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.Read more: * What does the Trump administration want from Iran? * Trump's new Iranian oil sanctions may inflict pain at home without serving strategic objectivesKlaus W. Larres does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
|
| Trump says the US killed a top Iranian general to 'stop a war' as Tehran vows revenge Posted: 03 Jan 2020 01:08 PM PST  In the aftermath of the strike on Soleimani, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that "harsh retaliation" would be waiting for the US.
|
| Florida Republicans offer full-throated support for Trump’s strike on Soleimani Posted: 03 Jan 2020 12:59 PM PST  Florida Republicans spent Thursday evening and Friday morning doing a victory lap after a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad killed Qassem Soleimani, one of Iran's top military figures, even as Democrats warned that the action by President Donald Trump without congressional authorization could have vast repercussions across the Middle East.
|
| Trump Says Iran Strike Has Made The World 'A Safer Place' Posted: 03 Jan 2020 12:59 PM PST  The U.S. will take "whatever action is necessary" with Iran, the president added.
|
| Senate Leaders Extend Impasse on Trump Impeachment Trial Posted: 03 Jan 2020 12:55 PM PST ![Senate Leaders Extend Impasse on Trump Impeachment Trial]( "Senate Leaders Extend Impasse on Trump Impeachment Trial") (Bloomberg) -- Congress is set to return to Washington next week with leaders still at a stalemate on the terms for the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.Although most lawmakers remained on break, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Democratic leader Chuck Schumer began the congressional year on Friday addressing a mostly empty chamber to trade accusations of partisanship and breaking with historical precedent.McConnell stuck to his demand that senators agree to basic terms to get a trial underway, but delay the tough decisions about new witnesses for weeks -- an approach that gives him time to pressure Republicans to stick together in opposing new testimony. Such a two-step approach was used during the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.Schumer slammed that as a "poorly disguised trap," and accused McConnell of siding with a president who blocked the witnesses and documents during the House's investigation of allegations the president coerced Ukraine's president to probe former Vice President Joe Biden and his son."Leader McConnell reminds us today and in previous days that rather than acting like a judge and a juror, he intends to act as the executioner of a fair trial," Schumer said in his first floor speech of 2020.The two leaders set a sharply partisan tone for Congress in a year that will be bookended by an escalating conflict with Iran and a presidential election. McConnell left the Capitol without meeting with Schumer, dashing any expectations that the leaders would work out an agreement on the ground rules for the impeachment trial before senators return to work on Monday.McConnell scoffed at the suggestion from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she will delay sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, and said he is more than content to continue with normal Senate business in the meantime. He said any attempt by Democrats to dictate the terms of the Senate trial is "obviously a nonstarter."The Democrat-led House impeached Trump last month on charges of abuse of power and obstructing Congress. Every House Republican voted against both articles of impeachment.Trump AcquittalThere was no immediate indication that the U.S. airstrike that killed a top Iranian general in Iraq -- or the potential for retaliation -- was altering the debate on impeachment.Democratic Representative Gerry Connolly of Virginia said that the airstrike shouldn't have an impact on the impeachment proceedings, even if the action might ultimately "unleash the dogs of war.""The bigger concern is: where does this lead?" Connolly said of the airstrike. "How does this unravel?"Republican Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina, a Trump ally, said the escalating tensions with Iran should serve as a reminder of "more important priorities" for lawmakers than impeachment.McConnell has been charting the course for a quick trial to acquit Trump, even declaring that he isn't an impartial juror and that he is coordinating his strategy with the White House. McConnell has said there is no chance that the president would be convicted and removed from office at the trial's conclusion. Conviction would require 67 Senate votes.Pelosi responded to McConnell's floor speech Friday by saying the House was able to "obtain compelling evidence of impeachable conduct," despite the White House's stonewalling. "Today, Leader McConnell made clear that he will feebly comply with President Trump's cover-up of his abuses of power and be an accomplice to that cover-up," Pelosi said in a statement. "The GOP Senate must immediately proceed in a manner worthy of the Constitution and in light of the gravity of the President's unprecedented abuses."Only four GOP senators would need to side with Democrats to force more evidence or witnesses in the trial, but no Republican so far has indicated they would do so. Two moderate Republicans who potentially could side with Democrats on procedural votes -- Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine -- recently said they were uncomfortable with McConnell's declaration that he isn't an impartial actor.Even though senators traditionally take an oath of impartiality at the beginning of an impeachment trial, McConnell on Friday pushed back on the suggestion that senators should be held to the same standard as jurors in a court case."All of us would be disqualified" as jurors in a normal trial, McConnell said. "This is a political body. We do not stand apart from the issues of the day."'Partisan Passions'While criticizing the House's inquiry as rushed and unfair, McConnell said it is the unique character of the Senate as a chamber that makes it the appropriate place for an impeachment trial."We exist because the founders wanted an institution that could stop momentary hysterias and partisan passions from damaging our republic," McConnell said. "An institution that could be thoughtful, be sober, and take the long view and that is why the Constitution puts the impeachment trial in this place."McConnell has ripped Schumer's call for testimony from four witnesses, including acting White House chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former national Security Adviser John Bolton, as a "fishing expedition."Schumer cited several recent reports to bolster his demands for additional testimony, including a trove of administration emails that show officials questioned the legality of delaying aid to Ukraine. The website Just Security, operated out of the New York University School of Law, said the unredacted emails released as part of a lawsuit show Pentagon officials had growing concerns about the Trump's hold on Ukraine aid.(Updates with lawmaker comment beginning in the 11th paragraph.)\--With assistance from Steven T. Dennis and Billy House.To contact the reporter on this story: Laura Litvan in Washington at llitvan@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at jsobczyk@bloomberg.net, Anna EdgertonFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| US cities ramp up security in wake of killing of Iran's top general Posted: 03 Jan 2020 12:55 PM PST  Cities around the United States are ramping up security in the wake of an American airstrike that killed Iran's top military commander in Baghdad. "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stands ready to confront and combat any and all threats facing our homeland," DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf said in a statement. Wolf, who said he "commend[s] the President's decisive action to protect American lives both abroad and at home," added that senior DHS leadership met Thursday night and Friday morning "to assess potential new threats" and responses to them.
|
| Iran Options Seem Narrow as It Seeks to Avenge Slain General Posted: 03 Jan 2020 12:38 PM PST  (Bloomberg) -- Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei threatened "severe retaliation" against the U.S. for the assassination of the country's most prominent military commander, but he may be limited in what he can do.While Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told state TV that the Islamic Republic's response can come "at any time and by any means," U.S. sanctions have hobbled his nation's economy. Any action that triggered a conventional war with the U.S. would put the Shiite Muslim power at a severe disadvantage.Anti-government protests have also challenged the regime's dominance in Iraq, Lebanon and at home. Now, in Al Quds commander Qassem Soleimani, Iranians have lost the very man they would have relied upon to craft an effective response.Tehran's strategy since President Donald Trump pulled out of the landmark 2015 nuclear deal that had promised rapprochement between Iran and the West suggests any retaliation will likely be measured. It needs to be significant enough to reflect Soleimani's stature, though not enough to invite an unbridled conflict with the world's military superpower. Such controlled reprisals could include a strike at diplomatic staff or cyberattacks."I don't think either the U.S. or Iran want all-out war," said Sir Tom Beckett, a former lieutenant general in the British Army and now executive director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies-Middle East. "The U.S. needed to assert its willingness to take military action alongside its campaign of exerting maximum economic pressure." That has now been done. The bigger question is whether the removal of Soleimani, a national hero to many Iranians, proves to have been part of a wider strategy.The U.S. and Iran are effectively already at war. Since at least the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Soleimani's approach to challenging American power was to assemble and strengthen proxy Shiite militias in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. He then used these to prosecute a hybrid war against the U.S. and its regional allies at arm's length, without triggering a direct response from Washington.The Trump administration plans to send about 2,800 troops from the Army's 82nd Airborne division to Kuwait to act as an additional deterrent against Iran. The new U.S. contingent will join about 700 troops dispatched to Kuwait earlier this week as part of the division's rapid-reaction "ready battalion," according to two U.S. officials who asked not to be identified discussing the deployment. The U.S. already had about 60,000 personnel.Game ChangerSuccessive administrations underGeorge W. Bush and Barack Obama chose not to risk an escalation despite Soleimani's responsibility for U.S. fatalities. Now it's Iran that will have to weigh the risks of a determined response. As U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper put it hour before the drone strike in Baghdad: "The game has changed."Yet despite Khamenei's stark threat, Iran is unlikely to reach for a maximal option, such as a missile strike on American bases in Bahrain or elsewhere in the Gulf. To do so would invite suicide, analysts say."This is an intensely dangerous moment, but as always with Iran, we should be wary of hyperbolic predictions," said Suzanne Maloney, deputy director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. "Tehran is well practiced at calibrating retaliation around its real interests, which ultimately concern regime survival and targeting its reprisals with deliberation and precision."QuickTake: How Qassem Soleimani Helped Shape the Modern MideastIn the past, it was Soleimani who made those calibrations. A veteran of the Iran-Iraq war, Soleimani ran the elite unit of the Revolutionary Guard Corps that specialized in unconventional warfare and overseas operations.They included a series of pinpoint attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf last year that culminated with a daring attack on a Saudi oil facility. No fatalities were reported in any of the attacks and neither the U.S. nor Saudi Arabia had a response.Militia NetworkSoleimani's network of militias appear to have triggered his death. They shelled a U.S. base in Iraq, killing a U.S. contractor, and then stormed the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, evoking memories of the 1979 U.S. hostage crisis in Tehran.On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the U.S. had struck out at Soleimani because it had information he was planning further attacks against U.S. personnel.Those militias remain the most effective and usable military tool at Iran's disposal. Soleimani's deputy, who was quickly named as the new Quds force chief, said the group's strategy would not change.The question, according to British military strategist Beckett and others, is where Khamenei will opt to strike and at what level -- with a single dramatic action, or multiple much smaller attacks that would make it harder for the U.S. to escalate again."Iranian leaders are unlikely to lash out blindly," said Maloney. "Instead, they will indulge in the short-term opportunity to whip up nationalism and wait for the best opportunity to inflict damage on U.S. interests and allies."Not SarajevoPolitical risk consultancy Eurasia Group predicted on Friday that Iran's immediate response would likely involve low to moderate level clashes inside Iraq, with Iranian-backed militias attacking U.S. bases, renewed harassment of shipping in the Gulf and other strikes around the world that could be hard to anticipate. A cyberattack is one option Iranian officials are almost certainly considering, according to some experts.Zarif said Friday that the consequences of the U.S. killing Soleimani will be "broad" and will be out of Iran's hands because of the general's widespread popularity in the region.QuickTake: Iran Is Big on Cyberwarfare. How Does That Work?Unlike the political assassination in the Balkans that triggered World War I, the fallout out from Thursday's attack is likely to be far less widespread, according to Emile Hokayem, senior fellow for Middle East Security at the London-based IISS."This is not a Franz Ferdinand moment," said Hokayem. "It's at best an inflection point. Hundreds of thousands have been dying in the region over the last 10 years or so, including at the hands of Soleimani. The U.S. and Iran are already at war."(Updates with Zarif's comment, U.S. troops dispatched starting in second paragraph)\--With assistance from Lin Noueihed, Glen Carey and Polina Noskova.To contact the reporter on this story: Marc Champion in London at mchampion7@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Flavia Krause-Jackson at fjackson@bloomberg.net, Rodney JeffersonFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Adam Schiff says he still hasn't gotten an 'adequate answer' about why Trump authorized the Soleimani strike now Posted: 03 Jan 2020 12:35 PM PST  House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) says he's still waiting on a satisfying answer about why President Trump determined now was the right time to authorize a drone strike killing Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.After receiving a briefing Friday, Schiff told CNN's Manu Raju there is one thing he is "not yet satisfied on": why the Trump administration chose to act against Soleimani now."Soleimani has been a risk to the United States for a long time. Soleimani has been engaged in deadly and malevolent action throughout the region for a long time. The question is why the administration chose this moment ... when other administrations, both parties, decided that would escalate the risks, not reduce them. I've yet to get an adequate answer to that question." Schiff also told CNN Friday that he isn't "fully satisfied that the [Trump] administration has a strategy" or "a broader coherent plan," and this "greatly concerns me."Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Friday that the strike against Soleimani was necessary to disrupt an "imminent attack" in the region. Asked after his briefing about the nature of this imminent threat, Schiff said he could not provide specifics. Trump spoke not long after Schiff's comments and said that the strike against Soleimani should have "been done long ago." > Just asked Schiff what the "imminent" threat was to the US. "The question is .. why this administration made the decision ... when other administrations in both parties decided that would escalate the risks not reduce them. I have yet to get an adequate answer to that question." pic.twitter.com/SZ5kS7bTXk> > -- Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 3, 2020More stories from theweek.com Mike Pence crams 3 inaccuracies about 9/11 into 1 tweet while trying to justify Soleimani strike America is guilty of everything we accuse Iran of doing 4 reasons to beware Trump's decision to kill Soleimani
|
| Trump has considered killing Iran’s Soleimani since last summer, sources say Posted: 03 Jan 2020 12:34 PM PST  Trump's audacious decision to kill Iran's Qassem Soleimani was under consideration for months
|
| Russian State Media Blames Impeachment for Trump’s Iran Strike Posted: 03 Jan 2020 12:33 PM PST  The Kremlin and its state-run media are none too happy with Donald Trump and his decision to order the killing of Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani, head of the elite Quds Force. In an official statement, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the decision to liquidate Soleimani as a foolhardy "adventurist" step by the Trump administration, predicting that it will increase tensions in the entire region. "Soleimani was devoted to protecting Iran's national interests. We express our sincere condolences to the Iranian people," Russian Foreign Ministry said. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov went even further, stressing that Soleimani's extrajudicial killing "grossly violates international law" and will result in serious consequences for regional peace and stability. Lavrov said that "the targeted actions of a UN member state to eliminate officials of another UN member state, moreover, on the territory of a third sovereign state without its knowledge, flagrantly violate the principles of international law and deserve condemnation." In a freshly-created news section, "The conflict between the U.S. and Iran," Russian state media outlet Vesti hailed Soleimani as an Iranian lion and lashed Trump as a weakling. Other members of the Kremlin-backed press snickered that America, which once stood astride the world stage, is now merely capable of the odd assassination.Echoing Tehran's government-backed press, a Russian state television reporter, Stanislav Khamdokhov of RIA Novosti, described the assassination of Soleimani as "a terrorist act" by the United States of America. While the Kremlin is displeased with President Trump's risky foreign policy undertaking, Russian lawmakers and analysts credit his unilateral decision to eliminate Soleimani to ignorance and a desire for a distraction from the ongoing impeachment proceedings. A member of the Russian State Duma's International Affairs Committee, Elena Panina, attributed the seeming ease with which President Trump ordered the killing of Soleimani to the American president's ignorance about the major general's stature in the region. Panina speculated that President Trump was "set up" by U.S. intelligence agencies and had no idea of Soleimani's status "as a national hero" in Iran. RIA Novosti columnist Irina Alksnis opined that the strike "lays bare the weakness of the United States." She wrote, "Geopolitically, the US is weakening before our very eyes. They are hopelessly bogged down in their previous military adventures (Afghanistan, Iraq) and do not risk getting into new ones even when they are openly challenged (like the DPRK). Americans are steadily losing political positions in the Middle East. Russia, Turkey and Iran are stepping on their heels. Washington simply does not have the strength to challenge Moscow in Syria or Tehran in Iraq. What used to be the U.S.' grandiose military potential has now been reduced to the possibility of conducting a targeted special operation to eliminate an objectionable figure."Alksnis described Soleimani's liquidation as a public relations move for the president. "For Donald Trump, the annihilation of an Iranian General presents a decent opportunity for a domestic PR campaign, which is quite timely in the context of the upcoming elections," Alksnis concluded.Russian state television reporter Valentin Bogdanov of Rossiya-24 blamed Soleimani's killing on Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic party, stating that "without being hounded by the impeachment, Trump would not have attempted to solve his domestic political problems at the expense of foreign policy."Meanwhile, rising tensions between the U.S. and Iran have proven to be beneficial for the Russian stock market. Oil prices soared following the Soleimani killing, and the Moscow Stock Exchange reached all-time record levels, rising to the highest point in its history. Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
|
| Trump’s Iran Strike Hands Biden Edge in 2020 Democratic Race Posted: 03 Jan 2020 12:32 PM PST (Bloomberg) -- The drone strike that killed Iran's top military commander thrust the 2020 presidential campaign Friday into a new focus on foreign policy, a moment that could play to the strengths of Joe Biden in the Democratic primary race.Biden seized on the killing of Iran's Qassem Soleimani as a chance to remind Democratic voters of why he believes he's the best suited to face President Donald Trump on foreign policy in the general election.Biden told voters in Dubuque, Iowa, on Friday that the U.S. "could be on the brink of a new kind of conflict in the Middle East."Calling Soleimani "the architect behind the slaughter of countless lives," Biden said he doubts the Trump administration has "a strategy for what comes next," suggesting he would not take action as president without a longer-term plan.Iran Options Appear Narrow as It Seeks to Avenge Slain General"Unfortunately, nothing we've seen from this administration" to suggest such a plan has been worked out, Biden said. Pete Buttigieg echoed Biden's statement. "Taking out a bad guy is not a good idea unless you are ready for what comes next, so there's a lot of questions that Americans are asking today," Buttigieg said at a town hall meeting in North Conway, New Hampshire.Speaking at the National Motorcycle Museum in Anamosa, Iowa, Bernie Sanders reminded voters that Trump has repeatedly "promised to end endless wars."On the Warpath"Tragically, his actions now put us on the path to another war," Sanders said, recalling that he voted in 2002 against the U.S. invasion of Iraq. "Once again, we must worry about unintended consequences." Sanders has criticized Biden -- and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016 -- for voting in favor of it.Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Soleimani, one of Iran's most powerful generals, who led the Revolutionary Guards' Quds force. The Iranian led proxy militias that extended Iran's power across the Middle East, and is believed responsible for the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq.In remarks at Mar-a-Lago, his Florida club, on Friday, Trump said the U.S. was responding to a threat posed to U.S. diplomats and service members, and isn't seeking "regime change" in Tehran. "We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war," he said. U.S. Says Airstrike Against Iranian Thwarted 'Imminent Attack'Biden on Thursday night was among the first candidates to respond to news of the killing, and issued a statement longer than those of his opponents. He warned that Trump may not have considered the "second- and third-order consequences" of the attack."The administration's statement says that its goal is to deter future attacks by Iran, but this action almost certainly will have the opposite effect," Biden said in his initial statement. "President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox and he owes the American people an explanation of the strategy."How Qassem Soleimani Helped Shape the Modern Mideast: QuickTakeDemocrats by wide margins consistently rate Biden, 77, as best able to handle foreign policy because of his eight years as vice president and his decades of experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.But he rarely focuses on those credentials because foreign policy isn't typically a top priority for Democratic primary voters, who focus more on social and pocketbook issues. Trump's escalation with Iran has at least briefly elevated the issue.Biden's advisers have said they believe voters are less concerned about any one foreign policy issue with Trump, but instead about an overall sense that he's a dangerous driver at the wheel should a true crisis erupt. Iran could turn out to be that crisis.'Real-Time' CrisisIn the view of many Democrats, including Biden, Iran was a crisis of Trump's own making long before the killing of Soleimani. That's because of his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that the Obama administration spent more than a year negotiating. The deal was President Barack Obama's bid to calm tensions with the Islamic Republic."The hit on Suleimani will produce the first major real-time foreign policy crisis for Trump Administration against the backdrop of impeachment trial and an election campaign," Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow expert at the Carnegie Endowment think tank and former Middle East analyst at the State Department, said on Twitter. "It's a potentially terrifying combination requiring wise, prudent decision making and a steady/steely hand." 'Dangerous Escalation'A CNN poll in late October found Biden had a huge advantage among Democrats on foreign policy: 56% said they believe he can best handle the issue, compared to 13% for Sanders and 11% for Elizabeth Warren. Next was Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, at 3%.Sanders and Warren, who've prioritized economic issues over foreign policy in their respective campaigns, issued statements criticizing the president's decision."Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars," Sanders said in his statement. "Trump promised to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one."Warren, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that Soleimani was responsible for "the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans." She also called for stopping "endless wars" and said Trump's "reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict.""Our priority must be to avoid another costly war," Warren said.Military VeteranButtigieg also tried to make the case that he's the best candidate to lead on foreign policy, leaning on his background as an intelligence officer in Afghanistan."I'm not here to say to my qualifications are a prerequisite, but I will say that they make me extremely aware of the consequences of decisions made in the White House Situation Room," Buttigieg said on Friday in North Conway, New Hampshire. He was asked if his competitors who aren't veterans can understand the gravity of the situation.Last week, Buttigieg also ratcheted up his criticism of Biden for supporting the Iraq war, saying it was the "worst foreign policy decision made by the United States in my lifetime." In December, the Buttigieg campaign announced a list of more than 200 endorsements from foreign policy and national security officials.Michael Bloomberg, who is also seeking the Democratic nomination, said Soleimani had "the blood of Americans on his hand." He expressed hope that Trump had "carefully thought through the national security implications of this attack." Bloomberg is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News.Domestic BenefitIn 2011 and 2012, Trump repeatedly predicted that Obama would attack Iran in order to get re-elected, signaling that he believed there's a domestic political benefit to a president for engaging in a military confrontation with the country.While it's too soon to know whether the latest U.S.-Iranian conflict will escalate, tensions or military action extending into the general-election season could benefit Trump, even though he has high disapproval ratings on foreign policy. American voters are historically hesitant to change presidents during a military engagement.Oil Prices"If things quickly escalate with Iran or oil prices rise significantly, it could damage Trump's re-election chances. But right now, Trump looks strong," said Dan Eberhart, a Republican financier and oil-and-gas executive. "He killed a terrorist. That's universally a good thing. It plays well with conservatives and Trump's base, who are tired of what they see as American power being ignored by rogue nations."Even as the soaring approval ratings that George W. Bush saw immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the U.S. began to sink by 2004, he still beat Democrat John Kerry, a respected U.S. senator and Vietnam combat veteran. as the country was newly engaged in war in Iraq and Afghanistan.(Updates with Trump, Buttigieg comments from 10th paragraph.)To contact the reporters on this story: Jennifer Epstein in Dubuque, Iowa at jepstein32@bloomberg.net;Sahil Kapur in Washington at skapur39@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Wendy Benjaminson at wbenjaminson@bloomberg.net, Ros KrasnyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2020 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Mark Hamill Among Those Calling Out Trump for Saying Obama Would Start Iran War to Get Re-Elected Posted: 03 Jan 2020 12:27 PM PST  Trump Said Obama Would Start War with Iran to Get Re-Elected
|
| Donald Trump showed restraint, then resolve, in killing of Iran's Qassem Soleimani Posted: 03 Jan 2020 12:26 PM PST ![Donald Trump showed restraint, then resolve, in killing of Iran's Qassem Soleimani]( "Donald Trump showed restraint, then resolve, in killing of Iran's Qassem Soleimani") Faced with years of Iran's escalating aggression in the Middle East, Donald Trump has been a model of restraint. Finally, Iran had gone too far.
|
| Trump's perilous delusions about Tehran Posted: 03 Jan 2020 12:16 PM PST  The United States brazenly assassinated Iran's most senior security and intelligence official, Qassem Soleimani, in Baghdad on Thursday, in a dangerous and wildly illegal act of escalation with no discernible underlying policy goal.For Iran hawks, Soleimani had become a boogeyman, a shadowy figure at whose feet we could place responsibility for the past 30 years of unmitigated American policy disaster in the Persian Gulf. Yet Soleimani, though an important operator, was not at all the cause of Iranian foreign policy behavior or America's regional struggles. His assassination proves that President Trump is under the sway of a very dangerous delusion: that because he personally does not want a full-on shooting war with Tehran, he can engage in any insane provocation he likes without triggering one.Sooner or later, he is going to run out of luck.The murder of Soleimani is only the most recent manifestation of the Trump administration's dangerous policy of escalation with Iran. The president has consistently brought his very worst instincts to the Persian Gulf and to the Iranian file in particular. He sees Iranian aggression and perfidy behind everything, and reads almost all policy decisions through the lens of a paranoid and implacable hostility to Tehran. He has obviously spent too much time alone in rooms with smooth-talking Saudi majesties and potentates eager to have the United States sign on to another long era of bottom-lining Gulf Arab sovereignty with American lives and treasure. Trump wants to bully the Iranians while simultaneously making it clear that he is terrified of an actual shooting war with Tehran.Here more than anywhere else, his total lack of even a cursory understanding of the history of U.S.-Iranian relations or even a third-grader's grasp of Tehran's motivations and goals is painfully obvious. He simply cannot fathom why Iran acts the way it does, cannot conceptualize that the regime has its own security goals and needs, and believes that Iranian leadership will respond positively to the kind of loose gangster bravado that the president regards as sufficient to achieve the easy foreign policy 'wins' he and his team dream of tweeting about triumphantly.Since even before he was inaugurated, the president has been bent on ratcheting up tensions with Iran, first by withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the Iran nuclear deal, and subsequently by imposing new sanctions designed to make life as miserable as possible for the Iranian people in the vain hope that they will succeed in overthrowing the regime. Thus far these provocations, which have undermined American diplomatic and negotiation efforts around the world by making America seem like an untrustworthy partner, have achieved precisely nothing in the policy realm. They have not forced Iran out of Syria or Yemen, or led to fresh nuclear negotiations, or led Tehran to loosen its grip on Iraq. If anything, President Trump's actions have made all of these problems infinitely worse.The end result is a worst possible scenario. The president feels free to authorize policies and actions that make war much more likely, while also confident in America's ability to manage the escalation before it gets out of control. And the administration remain committed to the third-tier Beltway think tank fantasy of a popular uprising. The cult-like belief in America's power to trigger regime change shared by key decision-makers like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (who said on CNN that "We have every expectation that people not only in Iraq, but in Iran, will view the American action last night as giving them freedom") is behind the administration's whole strategy-without-a-strategy policymaking in the Gulf. Killing Soleimani is part and parcel of the hallucinatory belief that dragging Iran back to the negotiating table and fomenting some kind of Bay of Pigs uprising against the dictatorship can be produced by the same bellicose set of American actions and the same blunt instruments of economic strangulation and political encirclement.Behind all of these fiascos is a shared faith in America's insulation from any consequences. For too long, Americans have become accustomed to living in a world where the only restraint on American foreign policy adventurism is the threat of subsequent domestic political disaster. In a world without a serious military peer capable of threatening or even checking us, the only reason that we are not already at war with Iran is almost certainly the bar graph of President George W. Bush's approval ratings before and after the Iraq War. That godlike, near omnipotence has utterly warped our ability to distinguish between what it is possible to get away with and what is required for our national interests.In other words, that the U.S. had the opportunity to assassinate Soleimani in Baghdad on Thursday does not necessarily mean that they should have done so. The greatest military power in the history of human civilization, the U.S. could easily kill any number of bad actors. We could vaporize the president of Brazil with a missile. We could drone strike the military commanders in charge of the Chinese concentration camps where more than a million Muslims are imprisoned. We could have killed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a thousand times in a thousand different ways.It does not necessarily mean that we should do any of these things. For one thing, as the saying goes, you see the same people on the way up as you do on the way down. America's power is on the wane, and we should be doing everything in our power to encourage international cooperation and institution building rather than aggressively destroying our own reputation and needlessly alienating other decision-makers and publics. We might also recognize that the history of extra-judicial killings of foreign leaders is not a very happy one. Someone in Trumpworld should at least skim the Wikipedia page of the Church Committee.In the Soleimani assassination, the Trump administration's staggering policy incoherence meets a much broader failure to appreciate or act on the basic reality that Iran is also a country with policy interests and designs. Imagine for a moment that a vastly more powerful China had spent the past 29 years intermittently bombing and invading and occupying and manipulating Canada. Can we really convince ourselves that we would not produce, and even encourage, a Soleimani of our own to wreak havoc on the Chinese occupation, to build alliances with anti-Chinese state and non-state actors, and do whatever was in our power to forestall a Chinese invasion of our own country? What would be our response if after all that, the Chinese assassinated the U.S. Defense Secretary in Ottawa just because they could?Of course, the Iranians will respond in kind, just as we would. Innocent people will perish. And because we do not exactly have distinguished game theorists in charge of our hollowed-out foreign policy apparatus, at some point one of these acts of aggression is going to lead to a truly catastrophic outcome. The Iranian Supreme Leader has promised "harsh retaliation." Thousands of American troops are already en route to the region. Again, what do we think that looks like to Tehran? Does anyone in D.C. even care? The Trump administration is full of very stupid people who are so high on their own Teflon that they think they can do anything to anyone.The worst part is that we will all pay the price when they are proven wrong.Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.More stories from theweek.com Mike Pence crams 3 inaccuracies about 9/11 into 1 tweet while trying to justify Soleimani strike America is guilty of everything we accuse Iran of doing 4 reasons to beware Trump's decision to kill Soleimani
|
| US long watched Soleimani, but feared risks of a strike Posted: 03 Jan 2020 12:14 PM PST  In 2007, U.S. commandos watched as a convoy carrying a powerful Iranian military leader made its way to northern Iraq. It was a prime opportunity to take out Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who had been accused of aiding Shiite forces that killed thousands of American troops in Iraq. "To avoid a firefight, and the contentious politics that would follow, I decided that we should monitor the caravan, not strike immediately," retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal wrote last year in Foreign Policy.
|
