In a break from long-standing intelligence practices, President Donald Trump ordered the Defense Department to confirm that the United States was behind the missile strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s secretive Quds Force, and six others, including Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. The public acknowledgement of responsibility is a game changer. While Iran (like most of us) assumed it was the United States, the public confirmation of the assassination removes any doubt and forces Iran and Iraq to deal with a direct and official attack. International law treats the targeted killing of a ranking military figure on foreign sovereign soil as a presumptive act of war. As always however there is no shortage of hypocrisy in the condemnations from Capitol Hill.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has denounced the failure to confer with Congress before taking this act. I agree with that criticism and has been a long-standing critic of the expanded war powers given to presidents. However, the Democrats are in no position to criticize since they are less concerned with consultation when the president is from their own party. President Obama acted unilaterally in launching the Libyan War. I represented Democratic and Republican members challenging that unilateral action.
Michael Bloomberg has criticized Bernie Sanders for calling this an assassination but I am not sure what the distinction is between a “targeted killing” and an “assassination.” Both are targeting an individual.
For decades, I have criticized how Congress has ignored the constitutional requirement to declare war and given presidents blank checks in pursuing wars at their discretion. Most relevantly, President Obama claimed the right to kill not just any foreigner but American citizens on his unilateral authority. I denounced this kill list policy but Democrats like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others supported President Obama.
Of course, the congressional Democrats are not the only ones caught in the hypocrisy of the moment. Russia, which has assassinated people around the world, has objected over the violation of international law.
I have long posed the question of what would happen if another country took out an American leader or military figure on U.S. soil. We would certainly treat that as an act of war. Claiming American exceptionalism is not enough. We have to maintain a clear and credible position on military interventions if we expect the same protections of international law.
This is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid with the requirement that only Congress can declare a war. While the Administration claims that another attack was “imminent,” it should make that case to Congress. Even if one accepts that there are cases where a president must act on an exigent basis, that does not mean that the White House cannot confer with a handful of congressional leaders known as the Gang of Eight. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) however says that he was given a briefing when visiting the President in Florida.
This brings us back to the official declaration of responsibility for the assassination. We are now on the record in committing an act that is widely defined as an act of war not just against Iran but arguably against Iraq. That places even greater pressure on our rationale for the right to carry out a missile attack in a sovereign country to kill a foreign military leader. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has referred to the “active . . . plotting” further acts. That has not been used previously as the basis for taking out a figure who is widely viewed as the second most powerful figure in a sovereign nation.
Few people are grieving the death of Soleimani who has a long history of terrorist associations as well as connections to operations killing many American personnel. He is not the issue. The issue is the constitutional authority of a president to unilaterally take an act that is widely viewed as a act of war without conferral, let alone a declaration, from Congress. Again, President Trump is not the first president to assert such unilateral authority, but this remains a glaring contradiction in our constitutional system of checks and balances.
There is only one way to deal
with terrorism.
Pres.Trump got it right.
Even though the US is not a signatory to the ICC, any person who ordered and participated in this act should be tried for war crimes. The US is violating international and our own law with impunity. To support this violation means to support the destruction of our own nation. It means that we accept that our own Constitution means nothing. It also means that we accept as a people the wanton murder of other people and the destruction of their nation.
Although we have many lackey nations who will support us, they should rethink that support. The destruction of international law will ruin every nation, including our lackeys and the nations for whom the US is a lackey.
The international community needs to muster enough nations to respond legally to what the US has done. Congress and the DOJ ought to investigate this action. However, I am certain they will not do this. Nor will the media, when any time Trump engages in something which benefits war contractors (their owners), calls him a great man. Just earlier, he was a madman, but if it’s a war crime, then he is a saint who can do no wrong. Think about what that says about who really runs this nation.
This is not about whether you like or dislike whomever Trump killed (or Obama killed on killer Tuesdays, or Bush or Clinton or etc). Actually this man is beloved by many but that isn’t the point. American citizens must demand that our own government act within the rule of law and with justice or it is on our bloody hands that our nation falls.
Well there you have it. Obama screwed up so Trump can assassinate someone and then publicly acknowledge it. Something no one should ever do but no problem Obama screwed up and he did wear that beige suit.
Democrats criticized Obama for many things. I don’t see Republicans doing anything to slow this nut down. Sorry Professor Democrats should act. This man’s desire to prove his little hands don’t mean a thing is going to get us all killed.
Democrats are simply not our countrymen.
You are insane.
You should be deported.
TIA:
I’d suggest Axel Heiberg Island. It’s lovely this time of year. And it’s exile, not deportation.
Well there you have it. A typical response firm a Trumpster. I don’t agree with you so I should be deported! Deposited to where New Jersey? Give it a rest. I’m sick of this line. This used to be a free country where we were free to disagree with anyone but no longer it seems. Disagree with Trump or a Trumpster and one should be deported. It’s bloody Shameful.
JH:
“I don’t agree with you so I should be deported!”
****************
If you mean me, I said “exiled” not deported. You can be a disloyal American on American soil just not with the loyal crowd who support the Commander-in-Chief. I think we own Axel. If not I’m sure the Canucks would lease it to us for our honored Dim guests. They’ve become anti-American. We don’t need ’em. Let hard-working legal immigrants replace ’em!
BTW the Iranians are said to be planning an attack. Should we wait to see what happens to our countrymen or simply eliminate the threat from the Shia horde preemptivley. I bet I can guess your answer!
“JH:
“I don’t agree with you so I should be deported!”
****************
If you mean me, I said “exiled” not deported.” -mespo
The comment wasn’t directed at you.
+10
The +10 refers to Justice Holmes’ comments.
So, Pompeo claims that some sort of action by Iran was imminent, so that makes it OK that the Dotard just started a war in which people will no doubt be killed. Of course, none of them will be named Trump. Plus, this is a great diversionary tactic to stop the headlines over the mounting evidence of the Ukrainian scandal.. Problem is, when you have a chaotic administration with very few experienced, level-headed military leaders to consult, led by someone who is a malignant narcissist and pathological liar (and who wouldn’t listen to them, anyway), and who was just impeached: WE DON’T BELIEVE YOU. What really happened is that this general insulted the Dotard, essentially calling him the equivalent of a “paper tiger”, so Cpt. Bone Spurs, with his symbolically tiny hands, dialed up the military and told them to take him out. And, you Trumpsters out there: don’t forget that he promised to get US troops out of all of these foreign countries. Now Americans are being forced to immediately evacuate, and troops and ships are racing there. Have any of you Trumpsters heard the audio of the interview in 2015 in which Trump didn’t even know who this guy he just killed was? Probably not. Trump accused the interviewer of setting him up for a “gotcha”.
Where is there authority for unilaterally conducting a missile strike on foreign soil for the purpose of taking out a military leader? There isn’t. Did he think through or consult with more-knowledgeable people about how costly the aftermath would be? Obama did, which is why he didn’t kill this guy when multiple opportunities arose. But Obama doesn’t have tiny hands or anything to prove about his manhood. Did he consult with other stakeholders in the region? How about Congress? Nope to all of the above. Cpt. Bone Spurs did this on his own, and we all wait to see how and when Iran will seek revenge. Oh, and you Trumpsters: don’t forget that he pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal, because, don’t you know, he’s so much better at these things.
While was this was a bonehead move, it isn’t near as irresponsible as invading Iraq in the first place as well as getting us involved in wars with Libya and Syria — destabilizing all three areas — something that was done by the previous two administrations from both political parties with Hillary Clinton’s howling support for all three.
As I recall the Iraq war was brought to us the lies told by BUSH II who was a Republican.
Stop running against HRC. She lost.
Well I said the destabilization of Iraq, Libya and Syria involved Presidents from both political parties. What’s your point? The fact that Hillary Clinton howled for all three is not irrelevant. Who among the current crop of Democratic candidates, other than Tulsi Gabbard, has criticized her for it?
You reference invading Iraq. That was the lovely BUSH II. I know republicans want to forget that but that is the fact. Bush also invaded Afghanistan when 9/11 was funded and staffed by the Saudis.
HRC has been roundly and loudly criticized for her vote on Iraq by many Democrats if you don’t know that you don’t read much.
That’s why I mentioned Presidents from both political parties when noting Iraq, Libya and Syria. A Republican in the case of Iraq. A Democrat in the case of Libya and Syria. To the extent Clinton got criticized by Democrats on Iraq (and why only Iraq by the way), people were all too willing to accept her insincere apology. It couldn’t possibly have been sincere since she howled for the same thing in Libya and Syria with the same results.
Steve, I take note that despite deflecting you still haven’t answered how you propose to handle Iran’s terrorism and intended expansion of power or its nuclear ambitions. Nor have you answered whether or not you support designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. You are the big one on defending ourselves from Wahhabism but when a method arises you refuse to take a position.
We have plenty of ability to combat threats to our country. The major threat by the way is China. If you are speaking about the 9/11 attacks, that was an intelligence failure. In response to the attacks, we took out the attackers in about 90 days. Special forces combined with good intelligence and air power, is satisfactory for that area. Unfortunately, using the old liberal adage, “Never let a good crisis go to waste” some big government liberals, some calling themselves neoconservatives, decided to use those attacks to use our military for multi-decade social engineering projects.
Steve first you deflect to Saudi Arabia and now you do so to China. I think you should get a job in government where deflection, except for Trump, is the rule. You are quite skilled at deflection. 🙂 I am not talking about the 9/11 attacks.
I asked relatively simple questions. Would you designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization and how you think we should deal with Iran’s expansionism, nuclear threats and terrorist threats even on our own border.
How is irrelevant to point out that China is a major threat while a country like Iran is not. And it’s hard to know what you’re talking about since “terrorism” is not an enemy. It’s a tactic. To analyze a threat you need to state a clearly defined enemy. We are prepared for threats to our country from any enemy you would care to mention. If you are talking about Iran, they are of virtually no threat to us. How much should a rational person spend on defending themselves from such an entity. They have no Army to speak of. They’re Persian, not Arab. The Arabs aren’t going to allow them to rule over Arab lands. Their economy is about the size of New Jersey. Where do you think they’re going to expand to? Even though they are of nominal threat to us, we nonetheless have the ability, right now, to wipe them off the Earth in about 48 hours. They will have increased influence in Iraq because we invaded Iraq. There’s nothing to be done about that now. I addressed the nuclear issue. The Iran nuclear deal was meant to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. And that is what it was doing. If you want to believe otherwise, there’s nothing I can do about that.
“How is irrelevant to point out that China is a major threat while a country like Iran is not.”
Steve, you weren’t asked about the management of our major threats. You were asked how you would handle the situation with Iran. You weren’t asked about the Saudi’s, 9/11 or Wahhabism. You were asked about Iran which is what the comments were focused on.
“It’s a tactic. To analyze a threat you need to state a clearly defined enemy.”
I did just that and called Iran out for what it is, the largest state sponsorer of terrorism and I listed the major terrorist organizations along with their terrorist stepping stones in the Americas and with their dealings with the Mexican cartels. You keep shifting the discussion because you want to get from here to there without bothering what is in the middle.
“they are of virtually no threat to us. ”
I guess that means you won’t call them a threat until they have nuclear weapons. They have threatened to use nuclear weapons against Israel and their culture and religion makes us take that threat seriously. That would lead to an exchange of nuclear weapons from Israel with subsequent blockage of oil which will push other nations to enter the fray. That is just one type of threat Iran creates. There are more. I believe they have hidden terror cells in the US and dealings with our enemies.
“Where do you think they’re going to expand to?”
Where do you think their power is increasing? Do you think their activity is solely in Iran. You say, “The Arabs aren’t going to allow them to rule over Arab lands.” but we can thank Trump for aiding Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia in developing a pact with Israel for common defense something never thought possible.The idea is to establish a balance of power so that the idea of a middle east war diminishes while American troops no longer have to be in harms way. Trump has also reduced the power of Iranian proxies most importantly Hezbollah and Hamas while also reducing the financing of all of them including the PLO
” I addressed the nuclear issue. The Iran nuclear deal was meant to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.”
You didn’t address that issue at all. Iran was actively producing delivery systems and working on nuclear weapons. In a short peroid of time Iran according to the agreement you think solved the problem Iran will have international recognition of its right to produce nuclear arms and they will. Tell me how you stopped Iran from getting nuclear weapons which might mean Saudi Arabia is forced to get them as well and we know how concerned you are over Saudi Arabia.
You haven’t responded to the threats and only have relied on a lame op-ed piece that is vacuous.
You also didn’t answer the question about supporting a bill to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group yet you have deflected and talked big about the Wahhabi threat. What actions do you promote?
Just for clarification. It is my opinion we are in too many wars. My desire is to be smart and extracate ourselves from so many potential battle grounds. I am glad you see China as a threat. Did you see it as a threat or future threat during the Clinton adminstration. One of Clinton’s big failures was his poor management of the future threats china would have.
“One of Clinton’s big failures was his poor management of the future threats china would have.”
No argument. President Trump”s moves on China are welcome. The dearth of discussion about China in general while our government (along with the Washington press as its obsequious servant) prefers obsessing on tin-pot dictatorships in the Middle East is a problem.
As I understand it, you are asking me what more we should do about a tin-pot dictatorship that poses no threat to us. The answer would be very little. The nuclear issue was handled before Trump came along. The erratic nature of U.S. behavior with regard to its agreement in this area makes the development of nuclear weapons more likely not less.
The only way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons if they want them, other than the P5+1 multinational agreement, (which was working) would be to invade and occupy the country indefinitely.
I have no problem declaring the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. But I would point out that one of the things that helps these groups gain power is the push for national elections where no Constitutional development has taken place.
Steve, along with not responding to a multiple of questions you repeat yourself without defining what you mean.
“The answer would be very little. The nuclear issue was handled before Trump came along.”
That is a nonsense response. There was no treaty nor was there Senate approval or all of the signatures. Iran was left with nuclear weapons though a few years in the future. What was accomplished? I don’t expect an answer since any answer would have to be as vacuous as the comment and so far you haven’t answered anything.
“The erratic nature of U.S. behavior with regard to its agreement in this area makes the development of nuclear weapons more likely not less.”
Obama provided Iran with the “guarantee” of nuclear weapons. The erratic behavior was Obamas unless you believe Iran having nuclear weapons with Saudi Arabia likely following is a good thing. I guess we won’t hear a direct response to that either.
“The only way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons if they want them, other than the P5+1 multinational agreement, (which was working) would be to invade and occupy the country indefinitely.”
But Iran was working on the delivery systems and the weapons only facing a potential delay of a few years. How does that solve the problem? Why provide them with international approval? Why provide them with $1.7Billion which helps them in their quest for nuclear weapons?
“I have no problem declaring the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. But I would point out that one of the things that helps these groups gain power is the push for national elections where no Constitutional development has taken place.”
We are talking about the Muslim Brotherhood in the US. There was a bill before the House to do just that. Now that you know about the bill, would you agree to passing it?
Natacha:
Iran has started every school day for decades by having the bright-eyed children chant, “Death to America! Death to Israel!” What do you think Trump “started?”
They have been threatening to bomb us, and Israel, for decades. It is most unfortunate that the Iran Nuclear Deal let Iran weasel out of inspections. This was after they were allowed significant notice prior to inspections. Missile tests with “death to israel” scrawled in Hebrew followed. Iran was firing on our US bases in Iraq. Did you know that? As for the authority, look to the War Powers Act, bolded below. Congress has given Presidents significant leeway to engage in military action without its approval. If its changed its mind, it is the Legislative Branch for a reason…
It is important that the law is followed regarding aggression on another country. That includes Obama and his drone strikes. With that precedent set, it makes it rather difficult for Democrats to complain. Congress granted the power of military action to the President.
“In Article I, it states: “The Congress shall have Power … to declare War and … to raise and support Armies.” But in Article II, it states that “the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States … when called into the actual Service of the United States.””
The War Powers Act became law after Congress overrode President Richard Nixon’s veto. It allows the president to use military force only with congressional approval or in response to a direct threat; requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of putting troops into hostilities; and limits such actions to 60 days without congressional approval, among other measures.
The problem with the War Powers Act? Multiple presidents have virtually ignored it or bent these rules, with no consequences. In 1986, Ronald Reagan attacked sites in Libya in retaliation for a bombing which injured Americans, but did not have congressional approval. In 1999, Bill Clinton launched airstrikes in Yugoslavia, aimed at preventing genocide, without giving proper notice to Congress or consulting lawmakers. In 2011, Barack Obama authorized military strikes in Libya, and argued that the War Powers Act simply didn’t apply.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/when-can-a-president-use-military-force-the-answer-is-complicated (decidedly anti-Trump PBS that explains the War Powers Act.)
“As rocket attacks against U.S. bases in Iraq intensified over the last two months, the president had granted the Pentagon extraordinary latitude: The U.S. military had his permission to kill Soleimani the next time it had an opportunity to do so, according to a senior defense official who was not authorized to speak on the record…
For a man U.S. officials have portrayed as a terrorist mastermind, an evil genius responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, Soleimani often flaunted his influence as he jetted between Tehran, Baghdad and Beirut for meetings with local potentates.
“I don’t think it was so hard [to find him] because he was not below the radar in the last two or three years,” said a former senior Israeli government official, who noted that Soleimani had previously moved around under strict operational secrecy. “But the last two or three years, he worked in the open.”
Former national security adviser John Bolton, a vocal advocate of regime change in Iran, described the killing of Soleimani as “long in the making.”
“We’ve known every minute of every day where Soleimani is for years—there’s no moment of any given day where five or six intelligence agencies can’t tell you where he is,” a Republican foreign policy hand said. “It’s been one of his talking points: The Americans can find me any time, they just don’t dare hit me.”…
That calculation proved misguided in the wee hours of January 3 in Iraq, where Soleimani landed amid spiraling tensions between U.S.- and Iranian-allied factions. “He arrived at the airport and we had a target of opportunity, and based on the president’s direction, we took it,” the senior defense official said.
U.S. officials had received “an intelligence-based assessment that drove our decision-making process,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Friday, describing how the recent killing of an American contractor had changed the Trump team’s calculations about the “intelligence flow” they were receiving about Soleimani’s activities in Iraq.
U.S. officials, briefing conservative think-tank experts on Friday, said the U.S. had “exquisite intelligence” on a plot to strike Americans in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, according to someone familiar with the call. By killing Soleimani, the officials said, they disrupted such plans.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/03/donald-trump-iran-soleimani-093371
The dude was not in his own country – he was on “foreign soil” himself.
Wonderful to have a strong leader in
The White House.
Happy New Year Mr President.
If he’s strong why does he have to attack children on Twitter? If he’s strong I assume he’ll be in the first wave. He’s a coward who is happy to let other people die for his political and personal aggrandizement.
The Quds Force was instrumental in controlling ISIS and Al Qaeda in Iraq. We should be content to let Sunnis and Shiites fight among themselves — as they have been doing for the past 1,000 years.
Instead we are allowing Al Qaeda and ISIS to sit back and get a chuckle out of the United States and Shiites fighting each other.
There is a good analysis of analytical strategic objectives here:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-iranian-reaction-to-the-killing-of-soleimani/
Steve, Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism and Soleimani was the architect of Irans terrorist activities. What is Larison’s plan to limit that terrorism which is now in South America. Larison says he doesn’t want to anger Iran but the Iranians have made their desires clear, “Death to America”. Is that something you find endearing?
The idea of Shiites and Sunni fighting is well understood and I think Trump would like to be out of the area. However, to get out we have to set some ground rules and among those ground rulses we have to figure out what our rational policy will be. Obama gave the Iranians $1.7 Billion and that might have preserved the despotic and terrorist nature of Iran since at the time it appeared headedx for collapse. Obama providing the money to keep the Iranian government alive along with their ability to promote terrorism was not a good thing.
The number one promoter of terrorism is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia cultivates terrorists who attack the United States. Iran does not. Saudi Arabia doesn’t state their activity out loud. And given their lobbying efforts in Washington which amount to payoffs, they are given credit for being two-faced — making official statements of sympathy without changing their behavior in promoting Sunni extremism.
Who promotes Hezbollah, Hamas, the networks in South America and terrorism elsewhere? Iran. Who is seeking to develop a nuclear bomb and missiles to deliver it? Iran. I am not diminishing Saudi Arabia’s culpability but they seem to be moving in a favorable direction.
In any event that Saudi Arabia was or might still be an enemy doesn’t mean Iran isn’t. That leads to the questions I raised. Saying Saudi Arabia is bad is not an answer.
As nasty as Hezbollah and Hamas are, their activities reside within the region. Sunni extremism has taken place inside United States borders. The nuclear issue should be handled separately from anything else. And it was handled. Larison has an accurate article on that.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/killing-the-nuclear-deal-with-lies-and-sanctions/
I am skeptical Saudi Arabia is moving in a favorable direction in reality — despite their two-faced press releases for our lazy D.C. Washington Press Corps to the contrary. What they are doing in Yemen, with our support, outdoes anything Iran has ever done. If I had to choose between living in Iran and living in Saudi Arabia, I’d choose Iran. Saudi Arabia still has regular public beheadings in the town square where people come to watch, for things like adultery and blasphemy and who knows what else. That’s who ISIS emulates with their beheading rituals. I am unaware of any change in their encouragement of Wahhabism within their borders and elsewhere.
Again you are deflecting. Iranian terrorism extends all the way to our border and they even work with the Mexican cartels.
The Saudi’s behead less than 200 people per year. The Iranians are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths a year in the surrrounding area. Iran has killed many more of its citizens than Saudi Arabia. In past protests the estimates of killing was around 1,000 just at the protests. But again we are not asking for your take on Saudi Arabia rather what you suggest be done with Iran.
You say the nuclear issue was handled but in a few years Iran will legally be permitted to have nuclear weapons and are working on delivery systems as well. That is not handling the problem. The nation is trying to expand and that is dangerous.
We have to wait and see with Saudi Arabia and act accordingly. Right now they have shown good progress. Trump is transparent and for the most part he has kept his promises or tried to do so. That is something Obama didn’t do.
Steve, I should have added that one of the things we could do to protect ourselves from Wahhabist extremism would be to make pass a law designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.
Are you for that?
Larison has no plans. He was never in the military, never in the intelligence services, never in the foreign service, never employed as a foreign correspondent, is limited in his foreign language facility to Byzantine koine, has had little or no instruction in the departments of political science concerned with international relations, national security studies, foreign policy formation, modernization and development, or political economy; has next-to-no formal instruction in diplomatic history; and knows nothing of economics, geography, or statistics. He started blogging as a diversion when he was in graduate school and discovered that Scott McConnell (or was it Daniel McCarthy?) was willing to pay him to fill idle column-inches at The American Conservative. Since no academic institution would consent to hire him for longer than a semester (or his wife for longer than four semesters), and since he appears to have zero people skills, penning these pieces is pretty much what he has to do. He isn’t creative, so, you’ve read five columns and you’ve read them all.
DSS, Larison’s article seemed vacuous so I think we agree about him. However, I am still interested in what Steve thinks or is looking for. He provided Larison’s article but I think Steve has more to offer than Larison. That is why I am pushing him to answer. It’s not a test rather it’s asking for an opinion taking all the comments made and putting them together.
I am still interested in what Steve thinks or is looking for.
He directs you to Larison. That suggests he is looking for what Larison is looking for, which would be an occasion to make verbose complaints.
DSS, Of course that is a distinct possibility but I think we should wait and see before we draw any conclusions. There are a lot of possible answers, all of them good, but it is the logic behind the answers that make them have substance. I’d like to hear his ideas and his logic.
Gee, it’s almost like laundering pallets of cash, turning it into foreign currency, to give to Iran was a bad idea. Now the United States is faced with the results of what Obama financed.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114shrg23439/html/CHRG-114shrg23439.htm
In August and September of 2016, the Wall Street Journal
revealed that the Administration had secretly airlifted $400
million to Iran in January of 2016, and another $1.3 billion to
Iran weeks later, and the total $1.7 billion payment was made
all in foreign currency. To get a sense of just how much cash
we sent to Iran, look at this chart. A stack of $400 million in
500-euro notes is–would total 264 feet tall. The $1.3 billion
in 500-euro notes equals two stacks that are 430 feet tall. For
comparison, the Tribune Tower in my home of Chicago is about
462 feet tall.
Then, last Sunday, we learned that the Administration had
made at least two wire transfer payments to Iran prior to
January of 2016. In July of 2015, the U.S. wired $848,000 to
Iran to settle a museum dispute involving art and fossils.
Then, in April of 2016, the United States wired $9 million to
Iran as part of the deal to move 32 metric tons of heavy water
from Iran’s nuclear program. These United States wire payments
contradict the President’s claim that the United States had
prevented–was prevented from paying Iran any other way besides
cash. These wire transfers also raised questions of why we paid
Iran in cash, and when we would have used–when we should have
used safer payment methods.
The January of 2016 cash airlift came at the same time as
Iran released four illegally detained Americans, including the
Washington Post reporter, Jason Rezaian, and Amir Hekmati, a
former Marine from Arizona, and Pastor Saeed Abedini of Idaho.
The American people are obviously relieved that four U.S.
citizens have come home after being illegally detained by the
Iranian Government, and the White House had led us to believe
that it had actually released these people solely after the
release of seven Iranians convicted, or accused of violating
United States sanctions law, and the removal of 14 Iranians
from Interpol’s Extradition Watch List. We now know that this
was not a prisoner for exchange–prisoner for hostage exchange.
It was a cash for hostages deal with Iran.
The $1.7 billion in cash payments that Iran has been–after
$1.7 billion in cash payments, Iran has been emboldened. Iran
has taken more American hostages, including Baqr Namazi and
Reza Shahini. As this chart shows, on August 22nd, the State
Department issued a warning that Iran is looking to seize and
detain more American citizens.
Iran conducted multiple ballistic tests on March 8th and
March 9th and on April 19th of 2016. On August 20, 2016, Iran
announced the formation of its Shiite Liberation Army, a new
foreign legion to fight Iran’s sectarian wars in Syria and
Lebanon and Yemen. On September 6th, Iranian fast-attack boats
harassed United States Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, and on
September 15th, Iran threatened to shoot down two U.S.
reconnaissance planes in the Persian Gulf.
What also worries many Americans is that the White House
just handed over $1.7 billion in cash to the world’s biggest
State sponsor of terrorism, according to the State Department’s
June 2016 Terrorism Report, on top of all the cash that the
Administration released during and after these negotiations.
Why should we care? We should care because hard cash is the
preferred currency of terrorism. As this chart shows, in the
worst-case scenario the Foundation for the Defense of
Democracies estimates that we released to Iran as much as $33.6
billion in cash and precious metals to Iran. That is enough
cash to circle the Earth four times in $100 bills. That is
enough cash for Iran to fund Hezbollah terrorists for 168 years
at the current funding levels.
And it was Mark Kirk who said all that, back in 2016. Right, Karen?
I included Congressional testimony with a link above. My block quote did not work. The entire text after the link is actually from that testimony.
There are these little things called quotation marks, Karen.
It indented, but I forgot the block quote command. The entire text after the link is quoted from the article.
One Muslim (Obama) to another (Iran) is only fair!!!!!!!!!!!
i agree with Professor Turley, at least in theory. However, in retrospect, maybe it was wise of Obama to have his kill list and execute it. And maybe this was wise too.
Also the fact that the House of Representatives has recently disgraced itself with the impeachment charade, which means they simply can’t be trusted to act properly in the national interests.
That doesn’t abrogate the Constitution, however, so, it’s complicated.
I applaud Trump for openly taking responsibility for this action. His transparency is authentic and his leadership strong.
I do believe it’s necessary for Congress to debate and vote on a declaration of war. With that political commitment, members of Congress are then on the record one way or the other.
I agree. I think Congress has a habit of letting Presidents make war, because it gives them plausible deniability if it does not go well. These pampered, self important politicians in Congress need to stop squabbling over the 2016 election and do their job.
They started impeachment hearings over the misrepresentation of a phone call, debunked by evidence, when Trump was overseas. They have no regard for how this affects our stance as a country, or how it emboldens our enemies. Totally irresponsible.
What are the odds that the Democrats in Congress would work together with Trump on any matter, let alone an act of war.
On the one hand, it is clear that it is up to Congress to declare war. It is also quite abundantly clear that the House has declared war on Republicans, and Trump specifically. The Democrats can be relied upon to leak or send in moles to damage Trump in any way possible. They will abuse their authority to do so.
Congress has been glad in the past to allow Presidents to commit acts of war. It benefitted them politically. They can say whatever they want at the time. Since they don’t have to actually vote for these acts of war, they can later deny accountability if it goes bad. Congress has decayed, and long ago abdicated its responsibility. Democrats are all too happy to allow a President to exceed his authority as long as he’s on their side. With this precedent, they don’t really have a leg to stand on when the other side follows suit.
The end result is that this weakens us geopolitically. At a time like now, we need Congress to put aside its political differences and work together. But it won’t. This is not even in question. All Democrats care about, all they talk about, is getting Trump out of office at any cost. They have openly said this since he was elected. So, now we are in a position where the Middle East is yet again running amok, but Democrats in Congress is too busy lying about a telephone call to do anything.
When called upon to act in this time of Middle Eastern unrest, all they are willing to do is go after Trump. Work. Together.
I said before that all those powers Democrats were so eager to grant their own party, and Obama, would bite them so bad when it was a President they disagreed with. What are they going to do? They let Obama do drone strikes and check off his kill list.
Meanwhile, I would like a functioning Congress that respects elections, and works together with the President as much as possible to run the country. Looks like that’s a dream for another day.
“On the one hand, it is clear that it is up to Congress to declare war.”
Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world with multiple terrorist networks. Who are we declaring war on when we attack one of their networks or their terrorists?
Karen,
It has become abundantly clear that both parties are content to claim Article I powers, without the baggage of Article I responsibility. Nothing is their fault if things go bad…that’s the President’s fault. But, if things go well, they’ll try to find a way to take the credit. The real tragedy is most voters don’t know the difference of which branch of government is constitutionally responsible for whatever is done. All they know is something is happening. The right or wrong, the good or bad of it is whatever they are being told by whatever source they trust.
I agree.
“a functioning Congress that respects elections”–you mean the one Trump cheated to win with the help of Russia? You expect Americans to accept someone whose campaign met with Russians and fed them information on how to smear the candidate’s opponent in key districts, so he could squeak by in the Electoral College, despite losing the popular vote? How about trying to get another foreign country to help out by leveraging military aid to the Ukraine that Congress approved by a bipartisan vote? You want respect for elections? How about Moscow Mitch McConnell refusing to call the elections security bill for a vote? This bill would require, among other things, backup paper ballots for states that use computer voting–to prevent Russians or others from manipulating the votes. That is literally the least Congress could do, but McConnell won’t allow it. He WANTS to help Trump cheat again.
Trump cheated his way into the White House. That is the truth. Most Americans: 1. did not vote for him; 2. have consistently, and for an historic period time, disapprove of him and 3. want him out of our White House.
Talk about working together? Really? Why won’t Moscow Mitch McConnell call for a vote or assign to committees the 275 bills sent over from the House, most of which were bipartisan? Don’t forget that McConnell vowed to stop Obama from passing any laws, but you Trumpsters now feel that Democrats should go along with Trump. That’s not what their constituents, which is the majority of Americans, want.
Trump has been consistently disliked everywhere: in his home state of New York, in Hollywood, everywhere. He is not an honorable person: he cheats at everything: golf, his marriages, in business, and now, in politics. Americans do not have to accept this person. He was not OUR choice for POTUS, and has done nothing good since faking his way into the White House where he doesn’t belong.
Natacha:
You keep spouting misinformation. Are you a Russian operative trolling this site with the purpose of spreading lies about the United States?
With the persistence of your obfuscation and misinformation campaign, one wonders…
First, read the Mueller Report. There was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
There was only one campaign that did actively collude with the Russians, and that was Hillary Clinton. She paid a disgraced former British spy to get false information from Russian operatives, which turned out to be bar talk which his sub source communicated was not to be represented as facts. The whole thing was a lie, intended to be an October Surprise, for which the Clintons are rather infamous. This was an attempt for Democrats to meddle in the 2016 election.
What that failed, they have continued to lie about Trump to either get him out of office, or meddle in the 2020 election.
This has all been proven. We know that MI6 warned the FBI that Steele was unreliable and politicized, and had bad judgement. We know the sub source said it was all bar talk, and NEVER to be taken seriously. This was known at the time. Your constantly claiming that Trump worked with Russia is so far from the truth that Democrats are even taking Rachel Maddow to task for her long, drawn out, factless Russia phase. She’s got so much egg on her face her journalistic reputation is in the garbage.
All of this has been pointed out to you, with the links to the various reports that prove it. Therefore, it indicates that you are deliberately spreading misinformation. You are either a Russian troll, or a seriously misguided political activist.
In any case, your untruths are exposed.
Natasha – you have another Gish Gallop going here, however we have dealt with all of the issues you have raised. You just are not listening.
We are now on the record in committing an act that is widely defined as an act of war not just against Iran but arguably against Iraq. That places even greater pressure on our rationale for the right to carry out a missile attack in a sovereign country to kill a foreign leader.
Soleimani is not a foreign leader of a sovereign nation. He is the military leader of forces that are funded and controlled by a nation-state (Iran) that was declared a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984. Is it an act of war to kill the leader of a terrorist force?
That’s the question, right there.
People are supposed to put aside their personal feelings, and serve the country, whether that’s the military or politics or the average citizen. I just see partisan games in the House. There’s no more time for this nonsense any longer when there is a threat to the country. They must work with the President.
You and Fox News, Mark Levin, Limbaugh, et al, keep calling this thing “the President”. Most Americans don’t view him as President or accept him because they didn’t vote for him, they know he cheated to win the Electoral College, that he does not represent American values or even personal integrity values that Americans cherish. An American President is not someone who brags about assaulting women, who pays off porn stars and nude models, who cages young children to punish their parents for migrating to the US for a better life, who praises White Supremacists, even after they kill a protester, who is so poor at business that he is a serial bankruptcy filer, and who constantly lies.
Now, you Trumpsters want to wave the American flag: the same American flag Cpt. Bone Spurs refused to defend by cheating to get out of military service. The same American flag he defaced by cheating to get into the White House solely to feed his sick narcissism.
Trump is solely motivated by his mental illness: he will lie, cheat, collude with hostile foreign governments, and even delay desperately-needed military aid to an ally to try to get a foreign leader to smear his opponent. People died as a result. Now, more people will die when Iran takes revenge. We just don’t know who or when.
You expect us to believe that there was an imminent threat to the US justifying what he did. and that’s because he said so. As Turley points out, Trump demanded that the Pentagon announce what he did, which is not only unprecedented, but suspicious. Trump is a narcissist who is pissed off over the impeachment, and who wanted to do something, anything, to deflect media attention. Also, he is a chronic, habitual liar. I seriously doubt there was an imminent threat before. There is now, however.
Dialogue of Civilizations:
A Russian think tank whose goal is to spread anti-American, anti-capitalist, and pro-socialist propaganda in order to weaken the United States, to Russia’s benefit. It spread the idea that the United States is a racist country. Many US academics with socialist bent are members.
A lot of its message sounds quite similar to Natacha, the commenter with the Russian name. How interesting. I wonder if she’s working for them, or if she’s just been poisoned by them, a useful idiot to keep spreading the propaganda.
Natacha – do you specialize in the Gish Gallop? Pick a damn subject and we will deal with it. However, we have dealt will ALL of them before. You just never listen.
Terrorists can be shot on sight. What is the difference here, the size of the weapon?
Well, this argument is true on its face, but it didn’t help Captain Rheault. Who terminated the double agent spy Thai Khac Chuyen.
https://sofrep.com/specialoperations/the-green-beret-affair-project-gamma-a-massive-snafu-for-the-army/
“Special Forces, all the attention that the relatively new unit had gotten from National Geographic, Look Magazine and the Barry Sadler craze had rubbed the brass the wrong way. Many senior officers hated that the best and brightest NCOs were choosing on going to the expanding Special Forces units rather than stay and beef up the conventional army.
Article 32 Fiasco: Reporters who routinely covered Special Forces found out about the arrests and the story went public in a big way. Most Americans felt that Rheault and the SF soldiers were being made scapegoats in a CIA operation, especially when the defense produced photos taken by the GAMMA Intel team that showed the asset in a meeting with NVA intelligence officers in Cambodia. The public wanted to know why the men were being singled out for killing the enemy, which is what they were supposed to do.
Abrams insisted that the Article 32 hearing take place and it did, turning into a circus. The defense hired a civilian attorney, Henry Rothblatt who was well versed in military court martials. He immediately deposed both CIA agents and Abrams himself to testify.
The defense also moved for dismissal due to a lack of evidence. There was no body. Abrams tried to have the Navy drag Nha Trang harbor and use divers to find the body. He was taking a beating in the press, he denied the defense the use of any kind of office which further gave credence to his bias.
Lack of a body prompted the prosecution to give immunity to one of those charged, Chief Warrant Officer Edward Boyle and was going to use his testimony to push for a murder trial. Boyle refused the offer of immunity and also refused to testify.
Meanwhile, another SF recon team inserted in Cambodia and was hounded by NVA troops on insertion, but broke contact and later killed two enemy troops. One was believed to be a senior Chinese intelligence officer. In his possession, he had a case with a list of agents working for the NVA in the South Vietnamese and US military. Listed prominently was the dead “double agent” Chuyen. There was now no doubt that Chuyen was guilty.
In a side note, Col. Charles M. Simpson, who would eventually take over for Rheault and was a friend, flew to Saigon trying to be of any assistance. When Abrams found out, he flew into another rage. “Tell that SOB to get the hell out of the country ASAP, or his ass will be in a cell next to his buddy.”
Both Abrams and the CIA refused to testify, so finally the Secretary of the Army Stanley Resor announced that the charges against Rheault and the others would be dropped. Rheault asked to be re-instated as the Commander of the 5th SFG(A) and it was denied. So, his career over, he promptly filed paperwork for retirement. The others soon left the military as well.
.
Aftermath: Rheault was, prior to this incident, a rising star in the SF community. He was considered a great candidate to make General Officer and his career, on the fast track was ruined. Project GAMMA was shut down in March 1970. An official Army history of the Green Berets, published after the Vietnam War, does not mention Project GAMMA or Detachment B-57 despite the high level of intelligence garnered. Although the Pentagon has declassified much material about Green Beret cross-border operations inside Laos and Cambodia, nothing on Project Gamma has ever been made available.
Rheault retired and quickly took a position with the Outward Bound program in Maine. He remained there until his death in October of 2013, just two weeks shy of his 89th birthday. He refused interviews and book deals on the incident but was working on a book about SF in Vietnam but never got it published because publishers wanted him to discuss the entire “Green Beret Affair.” Eventually, his friend Simpson published the book, “Green Berets, The First Thirty Years”
Rheault never tried to augment himself financially or in any other way over the affair. He did work with veterans of both the Iraq and Afghanistan, assisting veterans in another unpopular war.
Lessons Learned: What does the entire affair mean to the SF and Special Operations Forces of today? There still remains within the Big Army some of that petty jealousy and distaste for Special Operations and Special Forces in general.
And in the shadowy world in which the SOF operate in today with constant changing of the rules of engagement, troops will always have that question of whether a kill is “a good one.” There was another wrongful prosecution for an SF captain and master sergeant of a “suspected” insurgent in Afghanistan about 10 years ago. Although the charges were later dropped, they never should have been brought in the first place.
Allegations are surfacing that certain SOF units from Britain and Australia were operating outside the rules of engagement as well. While the verdict is still out on those, proper caution must always be used in these types of situations. And the chain of command must leave no doubt in the SF operators’ minds on what is or is not allowed in the ROE (rules of engagement).
The life of the SOF operators is dangerous enough already, they don’t need anything else adding to it. Including a hostile higher headquarters that doesn’t believe in SOF.
Photos courtesy DOD”
yes this was the scenario which they used to set the stage for fictional movie “Apocalypse Now”
Democrats like Nancy Pelosi have shown they are not trustworthy with information. Leaks have been a mainstay of their resistance to our duly elected President and they have intentionnally harmed the US on international issues for the last 2 years because of their hatred of President Trump. No one should trust them, and certainly not President Trump or his administration.
Today everyone is a Monday morning quarterback. Our President has just been impeached by the House which leaks like a sieve. Adam Schiff, in my opinion, would have immediately undermined the Commander in Chief by leaking to the press. That is his fortes. It is no surprise the President told only the members of the gang of eight he trusts.
I’m sure this action will be fodder for Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler to beef up their articles of impeachment. Of course, going to the men’s room without permission may eventually be an additional charge which fits into their plan to become the ONLY branch of government which holds ultimate decision making power.
I disagree: In this instance, the long-simmering conflict with Iran (and Obama’s donation of millions for their cause) requires the President to deter them with a firm reminder to them that they are not a “near peer” power. It also sends a message to the people of Iran that their military dictatorship is not untouchable. No president could carry out the effective foreign policy required here by disclosing his intentions to the ignorant big mouths in congress whose sole objective is to gain political power in this country by any means necessary. Also, there really is no such thing as “protections of international law.”
Soleimani was the leading terrorist organizer for the Iranian network that is active in different parts of the world If he is indeed dead it will cost the Iranian terrorism network a lot.. Obama used Drones to kill much lower level terrorists. It seems Trump got the big one.
Trump 2020
It seems that Trump may have had Soleimani in his sights when the attack was ordered. You get him when you can. Clinton could have gotten Bin Laden but he didn’t. This is a tremendous blow to Iran’s terrorist activities.
Congress has already proven that they leak classified information with no regards…..hard to trust them in this type of situation.
Spot on. Churchill’s action at Gallipoli might have been successful, or at least cost fewer lives had it not been leaked to the press weeks in advance.
We are moving towards a time when those who want war are given the opportunity to serve on the front lines – wherever they are.
In the past a politician or general sent our kids to fight a war; now that leader has the opportunity to show that he too is willing to put his life on the line.
Good development.
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori – Horace
What would the good Professor have written had Trump sat on the Intel and 100’s Americans were killed.