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.
The Soleimani attack was precipitated by intelligence that a major attack on U.S. diplomats and personnel was in the works. This was supported by the attack on the embassy. Soleimani’s organizations Quds and IRGC are designated terrorist organizations (by several countries). As such Obama and Trump initiated actions against ISIS and Soleimani (Quds/IRGC), respectively, under the AUMF which does not require congressional approval.
You mean intelligence from the Anti Trump intelligence community that Trump has been criticizing his entire term. The same ones he’s called traitors?
I don’t believe a word he says.
Nobody here can stand deep thoughts.
Shallow.
A mere general. Didn’t go for the big stuff.
Justice Arrives for Soleimani
WSJ
For a generation, Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani bestrode the Middle East spreading terror and death. President Trump’s decision to order the general’s death via drone attack in Baghdad Thursday night is a great boon for the region. It is also belated justice for the hundreds of Americans whom Soleimani had a hand in killing.
One reason the U.S. could track and kill Soleimani near Baghdad International Airport was the impunity he had cultivated. The general often appeared in public, especially in Syria and Iraq, as he sought to build Shiite militias and spread Iranian influence. He was killed with Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, an Iraqi-Iranian militia leader who had met Soleimani at the airport and was outside the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad this week during an assault that Soleimani had approved.
Soleimani arrived in Baghdad with “plans to attack American diplomats and service members,” the Pentagon said in a statement. Mr. Trump’s critics are demanding to see the evidence of such plans. But why does it matter? Soleimani has killed enough Americans over the years to justify the strike as a defensive act to deter other attacks and send a message that killing Americans won’t be tolerated.
That message will reverberate around the Middle East, not least in Iran, where Soleimani reported directly to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and was its most powerful military figure. Mr. Khamenei had taunted Mr. Trump with a tweet this week after the assault on the Embassy that “you can’t do anything.” Turns out he could.
Few are more deserving of his fate than Soleimani, who since 1998 had commanded the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). He had a mandate to export Iran’s revolution across the Middle East. The State Department, which labeled the IRGC a foreign terrorist organization last year, says the group was responsible for killing 608 American soldiers during the Iraq war as it supplied deadly roadside bombs.
American veterans will toast his death, and they’ll be joined by millions in the Middle East. Soleimani abetted genocide in Syria to keep Bashar Assad in power, and he armed Hezbollah in Lebanon with rockets to attack innocent Israelis. Plenty of Iranians also are rejoicing given his role in suppressing popular protests.
Iran is promising retribution, and perhaps it will strike somewhere. But now Iran will have to consider that Mr. Trump will strike back. The U.S. President had shown great restraint—more than we thought he should—in not retaliating after Iran or its proxies shot down an American drone, attacked Saudi oil facilities, and attacked bases in Iraq with U.S. troops 10 times in the last two months.
Mr. Trump finally drew a line at the death of an American contractor and the storming of the Embassy. Perhaps he heard echoes of Barack Obama’s failure in Benghazi. Whatever Mr. Trump’s calculation, Mr. Khamenei now has to consider that even targets inside Iran are not safe.
The death of Soleimani should also reassure U.S. allies spooked by Barack Obama’s many capitulations and Mr. Trump’s partial withdrawal from Syria last year. This assumes Mr. Trump will be resolute if Iran escalates and doesn’t withdraw remaining U.S. forces from Iraq or Syria.
Iraq’s caretaker Prime Minister, Adel Abdul-Mahdi, condemned the Soleimani strike, but he hasn’t spoken for his countrymen since promising to resign in November amid popular unrest. Iranian-backed forces helped slaughter hundreds of Iraqi protesters, and many Iraqis took to the streets to celebrate Soleimani’s death. The Iraqi Parliament still may vote to push U.S. troops out of the country, but it would be a mistake. The U.S. goal in Iraq is to help ensure Iraqi independence from a revival of Islamic State and Iranian meddling.
The least credible criticism is coming from American Democrats, especially those who worked for the Obama Administration. Their policy was to appease Tehran with a nuclear deal that would supposedly induce its leaders to join the civilized world. Instead the deal’s cash windfall empowered Soleimani to export revolution
Now they’re fretting that responding to Soleimani’s mayhem is too risky. Joe Biden said Thursday Soleimani “supported terror and sowed chaos,” but that doesn’t negate “the fact that this is a hugely escalatory move in an already dangerous region.” In other words, Soleimani was a deadly menace, but the U.S. should have done nothing about his depredations because Iran could hit back. That is appeasement, not leadership.
Earlier this week Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy tweeted that “Trump has rendered America impotent in the Middle East” and “no one fears us.” But now he is upset that Iran might retaliate and Mr. Trump struck “without any congressional authorization.” In our view Mr. Trump had the power to act as Commander in Chief (see nearby). But Mr. Murphy’s logical whiplash shows that loathing for Mr. Trump has so blinded Democrats that they can’t even praise the demise of a murderous enemy.
In brief but useful remarks Friday, Mr. Trump said he ordered the drone strike “to stop a war,” not to start one. That should help to calm down those on the isolationist right fretting that any military action means a ground war in Iran. As Ronald Reagan showed with his 1986 bombing of Libya, a show of force can deter terrorism against Americans. Soleimani’s demise may even make an impression on North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.
The U.S. challenge from a revolutionary Iran will continue. But Mr. Trump’s decisive action has struck a blow against terror in the cause of justice and American interests.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-arrives-for-soleimani-11578085286
That’s a great article, Estovir.
WSJ supporting Trump. What shock!
Why don’t you refute all the points you don’t agree with? That would make sense and would be an intelligent way of promoting your position.
The one thing you should learn from this event is that the MSM will give you nothing but misinformation that promotes Trump’s false narrative which attempts to justify the murder of Soleimani and the Iraqi military forces. If you want the truth you will have to look elsewhere. The deep swamp state is circling the wagons to protect Trump.
The one fact that you won’t hear is that Soleimani was in Iraq in his official capacity of assisting the Iraqi forces in their fight against ISIS. Providing training and tactical assistence to Iraq forces to fight ISIS and doing it so successfully is what made Soleimani a hero from Lebanon to Iran. Murdering Soleimani has united the people of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran like nothing else could.
https://youtu.be/UeQ_dx452WM
“The one thing you should learn from this event is that the MSM will give you nothing but misinformation that promotes Trump’s false narrative”
Well, apparently that lesson hasn’t reached you yet. The MSM doesn’t promote anything Trump and doesn’t work to protect Trump.
Soleimani was the tactical architect for many of Iran’s terrorist forces including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Iranian troops and weapons attempting to wipe out cities in Israel etc.
Jinn, I love this post of yours. It could be played as a blooper from now till the end. Thanks.
The MSM doesn’t promote anything Trump and doesn’t work to protect Trump.
_______________________________________
You probably also believe that pro wresting is real…
“You probably also believe that pro wresting is real…”
Jinn, I leave that belief to you. Probably when a bad move is made by a wrestler you comment on the rerun of the match that you couldn’t believe the wrestler would make that same bad move again.
That is what happens when fantassy replaces reality.
Alan,
jinn, Anon, bythebook are the same commenter.
Anon has a job to respond to everyones comments. To let them go unanswered is to deviate from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Any opposing view is always rejected with scorn and invective. Respond to her or Peter Shill in kind, and they play victim.
Nothing they say is true. Their tactic are always the same.
Ignore Anon and Peter Shill.
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
“Keep the pressure on.”
“If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.”
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Another nutter heard from.
You just proved his point
jinn, Anon, bythebook are the same commenter.
______________________________
That seems to be stupid belief of many of the the Trump supporters on this blog. Whenever their arguments are clearly failing they start claim that somebody is somebody else as if that would even matter were it to be true.
‘Anonymous is not who he claims to be thus my argument prevails’. You have to have the mind of a five year old to think that is a logical argument.
We are truly thankful that you comment as much as you considering we eat, sleep and breathe just to get a glimpse of your brilliance
Tell us this, though: are you always full of sh!t or do you just ooze it from your foul breath so that your aroma kills everything within a square mile?
“That seems to be stupid belief of many of the the Trump supporters on this blog. Whenever their arguments are clearly failing they start claim that somebody is somebody else as if that would even matter were it to be true.
“‘Anonymous is not who he claims to be thus my argument prevails’. You have to have the mind of a five year old to think that is a logical argument.”
===========
Yes, and they start using the “Anonymous” label that they so despise. Tonight they’re particularly vituperative.
Estovir, Saul Alinsky was a cheat. He learned his skills by stealing food at the cafeteria. His followers very frequently have that same characteristic. Fortunately both sides can play at the same game even though the other side doesn’t have to engage in thievery.
. Probably when a bad move is made by a wrestler you comment on the rerun of the match that you couldn’t believe the wrestler would make that same bad move again.
____________________________________
Holy shit! You really do believe it is real.
Here is a clue:
The moves are all scripted and the adversarial relationships between wrestlers are phony just like the adversarial relationship of trump and the media are phony.
There was a good article written by General Odom some time ago that remains true today. Actually, anything written about the Middle East hundreds of years ago remains true today.
“Six brutal truths about Iraq.”
http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00146
There is a slight caveat on Truth no. 5. “The United States cannot prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” There was a way to do that — the agreement that was in place.
Explain to us how the agreement prevented Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons when the agreement permits them to have it in a few years.
The best way to prevent it was to hope for a revolution but when there was turmoil in Iran and the people looked like they might revolt Obama (right or wrong) chose not to help but gave Iran $1.7Billion to lessen the pain.
The agreement gave Iran advanced notice of inspections, and some facilities were exempted entirely.
It’s like the Palestinian Authority. It has stated that it views ceasefires with Israel as the perfect opportunity to weapon up for the next attack, without worrying that Israel will bomb their stockpile.
Iran viewed the nuclear agreement as a splendid opportunity to work on its nuclear program.
Iran was granted advanced notice of inspections of military facilities but nuclear activity can be detected without visual inspection. No other country in the world has ever allowed anything like this and the Pentagon, Us Intelligence, Israeli intelligence and the IAEA have all continuously verified Iranian compliance up until Trump pulled us out.
Pivot all you want. You materially misrepresented what I said.
Read. The. Links. Learn, or remain ignorant. But ignorance might one day lead to nuclear war.
Essentially Anon is lying as usual by twisting. Dishonesty reigns in the land of Anon.
We had plenty of evidence that Iran was not compliant.
Apparently a follow-up didn’t post. I decided to spend the time because there are others on the list that are sincere and refrain from the tactics of Anon which is to waste time by lying.
Here is an educated opinion presented before Congress. #3 is most relevant. Take note this was not a treaty even though people might think it is. There was no Senate vote and many things were kept hidden. I am not even sure of its legal standing from one President to the next or even if all the signatures were obtained.
—-
This morning, I would like to address three of the major design flaws in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA):
1. The JCPOA effectively dismantles the U.S. and international economic sanctions architecture, which, in key areas, was designed to address the full range of Iran’s illicit activities. The JCPOA also emboldens the most hardline element of the regime, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), which will be a major beneficiary of this agreement;
2. The JCPOA creates an Iranian “nuclear snapback” instead of an effective economic sanctions snapback. This “nuclear snapback” provides Tehran with the ability to immunize itself against both political and economic pressure, block the enforcement of the agreement, and diminish the ability of the United States to apply any sanctions, including even non-nuclear sanctions, against the full range of Iran’s illicit conduct; and,
3. The JCPOA provides Iran with a patient path to a nuclear weapon over the next decade and a half. Tehran has to simply abide by the agreement to emerge as a threshold nuclear power with an industrial-size enrichment program; near-zero breakout time; an easier clandestine sneak-out pathway; an advanced long-range ballistic missile program, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs); and hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief to immunize its economy against future economic snapback sanctions, increase its conventional military power, and support terrorism and other rogue regimes.
Karen, I agree with you. Steve likes the idea of peace so if an agreement is said to get rid of Iran’s nuclear ambitions he is satisfied even though it permits Iran to legally have nuclear weapons after a certain time period. It wasn’t even a treaty and I don’t even think all the signatures are on the document.
It’s a matter of acceptance by closing one’s eyes and disregarding logic.
The treaty has a 15 year term after which Iran is not allowed nuclear weapons and agreed to the Additional Protocol of the Non Proliferation Treaty which grants IAEA inspection of facilities to verify non weapons grade nuclear production. This protocol is signed by over 135 countries.
The Treaty is unprecedented in international relations and no other country has agreed to similar restraints and inspections. Since Trump pulled us out and increased sanctions Iran has increased production of enriched uranium and announced it is exceeding the treaty restraints which it had previously complied with.
No. 10 years. After which our estimates show Iran would have a nuclear weapon ready within 6 months.
2027.
Tic Tock.
What a liar Anon is.
I hate to waste time with a pathetic fellow like Anon but there are others that might be interested in some of the educated opinions regarding the nuclear agreement which was on shaky legal grounds since this is not a treaty voted on by the Senate. #3 is most relevant.
—
Hearing before the
House Committee on Foreign Affairs
This morning, I would like to address three of the major design flaws in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA):
1. The JCPOA effectively dismantles the U.S. and international economic sanctions architecture, which, in key areas, was designed to address the full range of Iran’s illicit activities. The JCPOA also emboldens the most hardline element of the regime, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), which will be a major beneficiary of this agreement;
2. The JCPOA creates an Iranian “nuclear snapback” instead of an effective economic sanctions snapback. This “nuclear snapback” provides Tehran with the ability to immunize itself against both political and economic pressure, block the enforcement of the agreement, and diminish the ability of the United States to apply any sanctions, including even non-nuclear sanctions, against the full range of Iran’s illicit conduct; and,
3. The JCPOA provides Iran with a patient path to a nuclear weapon over the next decade and a half. Tehran has to simply abide by the agreement to emerge as a threshold nuclear power with an industrial-size enrichment program; near-zero breakout time; an easier clandestine sneak-out pathway; an advanced long-range ballistic missile program, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs); and hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief to immunize its economy against future economic snapback sanctions, increase its conventional military power, and support terrorism and other rogue regimes.
The people involved in the so-called Green Revolution didn’t want our help, and they were not protesting for regime change. I have no idea why you think the nuclear agreement allows Iran to have nuclear weapons in a few years. Rather they would simply be treated like other signatories under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
That is correct SteveJ. Our trying to intervene in favor of the Green Revolution would have maybe played well here, but would have been the kiss of death in Iran where resistance to us – we supported Saddam against Iran in in a war which included around a half million Iranian casualties – is deep.
“The people involved in the so-called Green Revolution didn’t want our help, and they were not protesting for regime change. ”
You don’t know what was in people’s minds but you can refresh our history by telling us what happened and what the people of Iran were hollering about. One of the major problems facing Iran was economic. Why did Obama send $1.7 Billion in cash if the economic situation could cause the overturn of the government without our direct involvement. The logic isn’t there.
I posted a response regarding the nuclear deal.Tell me how the nuclear agreement prevented Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
My father was in the Middle East, when his host had him captivated with the tales of the terrible wrongs a rival tribe had done his. My father listened sympathetically, until he came up short at mention of horses. Wait, when did this happen again? Generations ago. The bad blood never ends. Grudges never die. They’ll still be fighting a thousand years from now.
A key deficiency to the agreement was the inspections which made it a farce.
So many comments, some principled concern and even approval, but so much disinformation. For my part, I think the President was within his rightful powers by acting in defense of Americans and American interests, but not within the legitimate jurisdiction of the Iraqi government or probably wisely – that part remains to be seen. Our position with regard to Iraq is made much worse if not untenable, and we will now be seen by the Shite majority there and within the region as SAs and the Sunni pit bull.
As to the other posts here, SteveJ offers thoughtful and mostly historically accurate comments though the US did not destabilize either Libya or Syria – both were homegrown revolutions well under way before our intervention. Karen lies about the Iranian nuclear deal which did include inspections and until Trump broke it, Iran’s compliance was certified by US and Israel intelligence as by the IAEA inspectors on the ground. The money returned to the Iranians was their money plus an interest calculation favorable to the US and it was mostly private money. The prospect of Iran slowly giving up its ideological purity for increased openings to modern markets and culture – much as former radical states like China and the Soviet Union eventually did – is now dead thanks to Trump, a long term tragedy. Remember, Iran has the largest middle-class in the ME and elects some of its leaders. TIA and mespo showed their true colors are red and black, not red, white, and blue.
There was a C.I.A./Saudi Arabian presence in Syria causing destabilization long before we said we got involved.
Libya doesn’t amount to much without our involvement either.
On Syria, link or more specific please.
On Libya, Qaddafi had already lost control of the western half of his country to a legitimately democratic revolution and was readying a counter attack with his military which was expected to cost thousand of lives. We acted with NATO under a UN resolution which passed without opposition. Our failure was to not adequately support the revolutionary government which instituted elections and representative government. It was made weak by tribal and fundamentalist powers.
The “legitimately democratic revolution” in Libya was a rag tag team of different militias who were never going to be able to govern and wouldn’t have instituted Jeffersonian democracy even if they had been able to do so. As with Iraq the failure in Libya and Syria was our interference in the first place. As in Iraq, many people claim that if only we had done things differently after we meddled, things would have turned out differently.
That is incorrect SteveJ. The revolution was inspired by spontaneous and legitimate protests and was primarily manned by civilians. A democratic government was in fact instituted after Qaddafis defeat. I refer you to our slain ambassador there, Chris Stephens, who had lived in the region and in Libya for many years and who thoroughly believed in the revolution.
There is absolutely no comparison between what we did in Iraq and in Libya, nor in the countries upheavals. It is good to keep eyes open to errors the US has made, but not to paint all situations with the same brush. That’s Chomsky’s shtick and it is as false as supporting everything our government does.
But there are significant comparisons between Iraq, Libya and Syria and our political objectives in those places. In Iraq, Libya and Syria, the boundaries were arbitrarily drawn by western powers after World War I. While some people argue this is a long time ago, it is only a long time ago if the indigenous peoples accepted the borders and developed a sense of national identity. They never accepted the borders. And 100 hundred years is hardly a long period of time when it comes to Middle Eastern disputes.
Therefore, so-called “national” elections in these areas were not going to produce anything of use. While people might show up to vote, in the case of Iraq the purple fingers, the losers were never going to abide by the elections in any meaningful way with the results — at least not at the national level.
Governments involving different groups won’t work in the Middle East at the present time. For example, there are no functioning Sunni/Shiite governments in the Middle East and there won’t be for many centuries assuming anyone there wants to start the process of doing something about it. Constitutional development, not Democracy, is needed to achieve that. At the present time, in order to have a functioning government, one group will have to rule over the others. It is Constitutional government that leads to Constitutional Democracy. Democracy leads to nothing. The United States itself evolved out of a Constitutional Monarchy under an unelected ruler. We did not overthrow a dictatorship. An “exception”, though it really wasn’t one, involved Germany and Japan, both consolidated countries, and both with histories of Constitutional systems before briefly backsliding into dictatorships.
A correction on the time of the current Libyan borders, which nonetheless encompass a fragmented area and not a consolidated nation-state.
Steve, check your sources and Democrats for what they said about the collapse of the Soviet Union. They had a whole bunch of ideas but in the end were totally wrong. The Soviet Union collapsed without a hot war. Reagan did it even though the pundits you seem to follow said otherwise.
Today in retrospect many deny making such claims but they also fed China thinking it would become a responsible nation but didn’t. It is now a threat but these same people who change sides so often also felt that given time and comfort Iran would become peaceful without a revolution or war.
So far these guys were admittedly wrong 2 out of 3 times with the 3rd time pending in their minds even though circumstances have proven otherwise. They don’t get it and they never will.
Here is a timeline of U.S. involvement in Syria. The dates for the current misadventure starting in 2006
https://www.globalresearch.ca/timeline-of-cia-interventions-in-syria/5479875
SteveJ, thanks for the link. According to it’s sources – WaPo article on Wiki released SD cables – between 2006-2012, the State Dept secretly gave $6 million to a London based exile group advocating for “peaceful, democratic change in Syria” called Movement for Justice and Development in Syria which is led by practicing doctors and professionals in the UK and was used for a TV network beamed to Syria called Barada TV which was makeshift and mainly showed you tube postings from young amateur protesters.
I don’t think that classifies as CIA meddling, especially given Assad’a ruthlessness. By 2012 Obama started providing aid to chosen anti-Assad groups. Previously Obama had tried to normalize relations with him, establishing an ambassador there for the 1st time since 2006.
The Syrian situation is difficult, but there is not evidence that we created the situation or the revolution which had a worthy goal of removing a known butcher of his own people.
By the book – you may be writing under a new sock puppet, but you’re still the same. You lied about what I said. Did I say there were no inspections? No. I said there was advanced notice, and some sites were exempt.
Here are some facts for you to ignore, with egg on your face:
“But several experts, including a former high-ranking official at the International Atomic Energy Agency, said a provision that gives Iran up to 24 days to grant access to inspectors might enable it to escape detection.
Olli Heinonen, a former deputy director of the agency, said in an interview that while “it is clear that a facility of sizable scale cannot simply be erased in three weeks’ time without leaving traces,” the more likely risk is that the Iranians would pursue smaller-scale but still important nuclear work, such as manufacturing uranium components for a nuclear weapon.
“A 24-day adjudicated timeline reduces detection probabilities exactly where the system is weakest: detecting undeclared facilities and materials,” he said.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/middleeast/provision-in-iran-accord-is-challenged-by-some-nuclear-experts.html
More info on the deal we cut with a terrorist nation with nuclear aspirations, and a penchant for martyrdom:
“In 2027, 11 years after the deal was made, Iran can replace the old centrifuges with new ones that are five times as efficient, effectively boosting Iran’s uranium enrichment capacity. The AP says that means Iran could have enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb in six months.”
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2016/0719/Iran-s-nuclear-deal-starts-to-end-after-10-years-not-15-years
What’s wrong with the Iran Nuclear Deal:
https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/iran-nuclear-deal
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/iran-nuclear-deal-flawed/559595/
Karen, those experts were countered by others in the article and what was claimed might escape detection was not nuclear weapons but minor accessories. In any case, no one is quoted saying the deal should be upended based on their criticism.
Future capabilities would still be inspected and weapons production forbidden under the same protocols 135+ other countries have agreed to and which include IAEA inspections,
This is ankle biting, throwing out a deal Iran was complying with and at a minimum putting off their developing a weapon for 15 years because it wasn’t draconian enough, though completely unprecedented.
Now we have nothing except Iran going back to developing a nuclear weapon.
BRILLIANT!
There were many criticisms of the deal. It didn’t stop Iran’s nuclear program.
This is deadly serious. You cannot allow a terrorist nation with dreams of martyrdom to continue unchecked.
Read the links and learn.
Karen, the Pentagon, US and Israeli intelligence, and the IAEA all agreed the treaty was stopping Iran’s nuclear program.
Your links go to the same Neocons who thought invading Iraq was a great idea.
“Israeli intelligence … agreed the treaty was stopping Iran’s nuclear program.”
Provide the evidence not a flawed opinion piece.
Stolen Iranian nuclear plans revealed Iran has lied about their nuclear ambitions from the start.
IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot – , “Right now, the agreement, with all its faults, is working and is putting off realization of the Iranian nuclear vision by 10 to 15 years.” With the deal in place, he said, “the window of strategic opportunity is still open in our favor. If the Americans decide to withdraw from the agreement on May 12, we will have to rethink our strategic risk management,” he added. …
..Retired military leaders, who can express themselves more freely than Eisenkot, have been outspoken in their belief that even if the nuclear agreement only “kicks the can” of Iranian nuclearization down the road, it is still offering Israel a valuable window of opportunity to deal with these more immediate dangers.
While Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad – the former research chief at Military Intelligence and former director of the policy and military affairs division at the Defense Ministry – admits he had reservations about the nuclear agreement when it was first signed, he now believes a continued U.S. commitment to the deal is the best – or least bad – possible scenario.
In an interview on Monday, Gilad said he believes a U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 agreement would help Iran more than Israel.
Israel, he pointed out, is benefiting from the ability to “prioritize” the threats it faces.
“If Iran now continues to suspend its nuclear project for eight or 10 years, in accordance with the agreement, that will let us focus on more urgent threats relating to the Iranian army establishing a presence in Syria, and preparing the Israeli army for the possibility that, in the future, we’ll have to deal with the nuclear [issue] if a confrontation erupts.”…
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-where-israel-s-leaders-stand-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal-1.6070237
Anon wrote: ““Israeli intelligence … agreed the treaty was stopping Iran’s nuclear program.” A bit more on the claim above, Eisenkot is not Israeli intell: (unimportant but to clarify, Eisenkot is not Israeli intelligence. Anon is too loaded with mistatements. There are many opinions about the Iran deal in Israel based on strategic views not necessarily whether the deal was good or not.
Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, NOT Israeli intelligence, was looking at the near future in that he was hoping the deal would slow down Irans nuclear desires. He didn’t know of any Iranian violations at the time but admitted Iran could violate in secret. We now know that Iran violated provisions.
Eisenkot also said: ““The Iranian threat is not theoretical. The intent and desire to reach nuclear capability exists, despite the deal.”
“Yossi Cohen, the head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency said: “As head of the Mossad, I am 100 percent certain that Iran has never abandoned its military nuclear vision for a single instant. This deal enables Iran to achieve that vision,”
He called the deal a “terrible mistake”, and also disagreed with lifting of Iran’s sanctions.
Let’s get the data straight Anon. Faulty data leads to faulty decisions and opinions. That explains why one cannot listen to anything you say.
General Eisenkot was the Cheif of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces when he was quoted. That is he was the commander in chief of the entire Israeli military. He would know the intelligence on Iranian compliance and projections for Israel’s prospects in the period the treaty covered.
Anon, Unfortunately for your credibility that is not Israeli Intelligence. Israeli intelligence said something else. You pick and choose who you will assign to talk for a specific group. Ask enouth people and eventually you will find someone who says something that seems to agree with you but even there on further investigation one can find that the quote picked doesn’t represent what you say it does.
Your credibility stinks.
Complying with a flawed deal is not a valid reason to keep it.
“WITH SULEIMANI ASSASSINATION, TRUMP IS DOING THE BIDDING OF WASHINGTON’S MOST VILE CABAL”
by Jeremy Scahill
January 3 2020, 4:43 p.m.
https://theintercept.com/2020/01/03/qassim-suleimani-assassination-trump-administration-war/
Or, he could have been doing something about Soleimani firing upon our people in our bases.
You think our American men and women in service unworthy of defense? Too bad you can’t go back in time and be involved in hanging them out to dry in Benghazi.
We are killing more people in Iraq. This is murder. We hit their medics. Israel is looking to hit Syria. These people need to be hauled before a court of law immediately. They are aiming to destroy the world.
Maybe we should have given Iran another Billion U.S. tax dollars? Or lets draw another line in the sand like Obama did? They hit us once, we hit them back twice
“Israel is looking to hit Syria.”
Of course Israel is doing so. Iran is bringing in high tech missiles to destroy Israeli cities and kill huge numbers of Israelis. I guess war is a one way street for you. If terrorists launch missiles to wipe out cities and people that is OK to you but for a nation to protect its people and its cities from the leading sponsor of terrorism to you that is a no no
Maybe you need to be hauled befor a court of law..
It is in United States, Israeli, and Russian interests for Assad to rule Syria for the foreseeable future.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/ex-idf-chief-israel-prefers-that-assad-stay-in-power/
The Israeli’s are hitting the Iranian proxies that are providing advanced missiles to destroy Israeli cities. What else are they to do? Do you think Israel should permit the Iranians the ability to blow up its cities? This has little to do with getting rid of Assad which may not be the best thing but a lot to do with Iran filling up the power vacuum in the area. At the present Iran is aiming to control most of the Levant.
Iran’s not going to destroy Israel. The loss of Assad actually makes things harder for Iran. Assad is an Iranian ally. So the fact that plenty of Israeli’s realize that it is best for Assad to rule the area shows more sense than we have.
“Iran’s not going to destroy Israel. ”
Steve, that is what you think and is not a fact. Left out is your logic. I think Israel is much stronger than Iran but with the bomb Iran might just use it which can destroy a lot more than Israel and Iran.
Assad is horrible leader but as I have said before sometimes it is best to leave the strongman in power unless there is a known and good replacement.
“The loss of Assad actually makes things harder for Iran.”
The loss of Assad creates more of a power vacuum and the most likely one to fill that vacuum is Iran so I think you are incorrect.
“Assad is an Iranian ally.”
People base too much of their logic and hopes on the word “ally”
Jill – what’s is Iran doing when it fires upon our bases? Acting as the Peace Corps?
What do you want to do? Fall on your knees and beg terrorist to stop killing us, like Rose MacGowen?
Terrorist constantly ramp up aggressions, until they are smacked firmly down. And then, if they’re not dead, they start again, more and more and more, until they are smacked down again. It never stops. They never stop. Appeasing them doesn’t work. Ignoring them firing at us doesn’t work.
What works is the certain knowledge that we will destroy them. Introduce doubt on that topic, and they become embolden. I hate war. My relatives have served, and some serve currently. That’s my kin out there at risk every time there is a military action. Avoid war or military action. If there is one, it for darn sure had better be for a good reason. And if you start something, it should be finished decisively and quickly. Do not risk American lives pointlessly, for years upon years, without a clear goal. Making terrorist enemies scared of us is defense, and can save my relations. My friends. And everyone else who puts it all out there for our military.
Someone I know’s MOS is EOD. Where do you think he’s going if there is war with Iran? Iran needs to fear us. Everyone without a death wish knows not to poke the sleeping grizzly. We need to preserve our reputation as a nation with which one does not mess.
Of course war should be avoided. Of course our laws should be followed regarding military action.
One way to avoid it is to make it abundantly clear that the offending country will lose, badly, and be worse off. Not have better roads and bridges than when it started. I want a fearful reputation to lessen the probability of engagement with us.
If you are very good and ask politely, your grocer might start stocking Cosmic Crisp apples. If so, lucky you. The best fresh eating apple and it lasts for almost a year.
I don’t trust Twinkies with its indefinite shelf life.
A fruit that doesn’t rot for up to a year is questionable. The Cosmic Crisp is not a GMO. It’s a patented hybrid. The taste is supposed to be pretty good, but I have my reservations about that shelf life. A fruit that doesn’t rot? What would prevent the bacterial growth?
Is there a reason for the horticultural non sequitur?
Yes, but it is beyond you.
There isn’t anything Iran is doing in so-called Iraq without the Shiite Iraqi government’s blessing. There’s not going to be Constitutional government in this area within the next few centuries if at all. And we’re not going to have an ally there. We will have some common interests with Iran and the Shiite government that calls itself the Iraqi government. And we should pursue those — which we seem intent on not doing. In any case, we come out of this with a net loss that increases the longer we insert ourselves into the tribal feuds of this area.
Trump was the lone candidate from either party who indicated during the debates that he understood this. He was the lone candidate from either party who said George W. Bush lied us into war. It’s starting to look like that was just a soundbite said with no rhyme or reason. Perhaps no one should be surprised about that either.
We will have some common interests with Iran and the Shiite government that calls itself the Iraqi government. And we should pursue those — which we seem intent on not doing.
________________________________________________
What common interests?
________________________________
In any case, we come out of this with a net loss that increases the longer we insert ourselves into the tribal feuds of this area.
_______________________________________________
As long as we benefit from the oil, it is not considered a loss
____________________________________________
Trump was the lone candidate from either party who indicated during the debates that he understood this. He was the lone candidate from either party who said George W. Bush lied us into war. It’s starting to look like that was just a soundbite said with no rhyme or reason. Perhaps no one should be surprised about that either.
__________________________________________________
Well said
Iran and Shiite Iraq oppose Al Qaeda and ISIS. And Iran offered to work with us on that after 9/11 by giving us intelligence information and support. The response by W. was to call them part of the axis of evil.
I am skeptical of the oil claim. Setting aside that oil is traded on the world market anyway, there is no Constitutional development in this area. Ingrained social institutions of private property and some concept of business ownership do not exist there. So privatization is given little credence — particularly privatization involving infidels. The United States presence in Iraq will remain untenable and we will get a net minus out of it in terms of lives and treasure.
Ingrained social institutions of private property and some concept of business ownership do not exist there. So privatization is given little credence — particularly privatization involving infidels.
_______________________________________
There is no need for the colonizer to own the oil fields. As long as it is sold at a price about the same as the cost of exploration, extraction and processing which services the international oil companies supply, the colonies can own their oil. And if colony does not go along with that arrangement they will be bombed back into the stone age until they decide to accept that arrangement.
How does the colonizer/infidel accomplish this without manpower surrounding the oil fields? The Shiite government wants us out. So we will go. It’s only a matter of time. You are not going to have a stable colonization in this area.
How does the colonizer/infidel accomplish this without manpower surrounding the oil fields?
________________________________________
If you pay attention you will be observing how
Iran and Shiite Iraq oppose Al Qaeda and ISIS. And Iran offered to work with us on that after 9/11 by giving us intelligence information and support. The response by W. was to call them part of the axis of evil.
_________________________________________
This is correct
The question is has the US ever really opposed Al Qaeda and ISIS? The murder of Soleimani seems to be an attempt to help Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Jill:
Please list our common interests with Iran. I cannot think of any.
I have known many Persians. They started their day in school chanting “Death to America! Death to Israel”! In their country, they are taught that Jews are dirty, an enemy to their faith, and deserving of extermination. They believe the Holocaust wasn’t real, and aren’t too torn up about the thought of killing all the Jews.
Their boys get arrested for having Western haircuts. Women who become too westernized are arrested. Someone I knew was arrested for wearing pink nail polish, and for being driven by a boy with a different last name than hers (her maternal cousin.)
How much begging do you think would work with an entire country that prays for the extermination of every man, woman, and child in the US and Israel?
“There isn’t anything Iran is doing in so-called Iraq without the Shiite Iraqi government’s blessing.”
Steve, I find it astounding at how certain people are of the facts when the media has been wrong about so many things and the media people read is pushing ideology rather than fact. Yes, I THINK at this time Iraq’s government might favor Iran, but I don’t know what that means or what it means in the near future. Even Shiites living in Iraq are reported to have become less happy with the Iranian regime much like the people of Iran seem to be unhappy with their leaders. That is something that needs to be watched but it doesn’t dictate how America should proceed since the situation is so fluid.
“There’s not going to be Constitutional government…”
That should have very little to do with how America proceeds and is more of a deflection than an answer.
“we’re not going to have an ally there”
That is a statement of fact that is meaningless. Allies exist when there is a need. Communist Russia and the US were allies in WW2.
“We will have some common interests with Iran and the Shiite government…”
Tell us what those elements are and tell us how they might change since the situation is fluid.
“we come out of this with a net loss that increases the longer we insert ourselves into the tribal feuds of this area.”
This is an opinion not backed by any fact or logic. It is likely the conclusion of one of the articles you read whose conclusion is the same as the beginning, middle and end of an article without substance.
“Trump was the lone candidate from either party who indicated during the debates that he understood this….”
I can understand anyone feeling ill at ease but the mess created by Bush and Obama is a tough one to get out of. Obama ended up making everything that much more difficult. On this we have to wait and see. Trump has been pretty smart to date. Let’s hope he continues to be smart.
I take note that you didn’t bother to respond to any of the more important questions I raised nor did you answer whether or not you would support designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. You have to recognize that when you deflect and draw conclusions you have to be prepared to have some in depth knowledge. You were big on stopping the Wahhabis that you considered a much greater danger than Iran but you can’t even answer a basic question on the Muslim Brotherhood that is directly related to your fears.
Well we are in Iraq. The so-called government there supports and participates in military operations against our troops. Our troops mission is to maintain stability so that more elections can be held so that the same Shiite elected government can participate in attacking our troops.
How is that irrelevant? We have an absurd mission there.
“How is that irrelevant?”
Steve shall I answer the way you answer? I think I will. It is irrelevant because it is irrelevant. Should I accept what you consider facts as facts when they aren’t? After all you think that Obama made a deal to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons when the deal granted them the right to have them. That doesn’t make much sense either. Do you differentiate between a treaty and a deal that is on soft legal grounds in the US once the adminstration leaves office? Apparently not even though I am sure the Iranians recognized it.
“We have an absurd mission there.”
We have a bad problem there made worse by Obama. We can follow Obama type thinking and face even worse problems in the future or we can see if there is a better way. What that way is I don’t know but developing policy based on factual errors is not the way to proceed.
“Obama made a deal to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons when the deal granted them the right to have them.”
Talk about facts that are not facts.
The Shiite Iraqi government is anti-American, and it was predictable that they would be when we invaded. That is a reality. The invasion itself was the failure — not anything we did afterwards.
Steve, explain to us how Obama’s deal prevented Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
“We came, we saw, he died.”
-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
Oh wait, I might have gotten that wrong. But what difference, at this point, does it make?
**************************************
We came, we saw, he died. Accompanied by the most ghastly laughter ever by a senior U.S. Government official:
Trump killed that guy that is known in Iraq as the guy who got rid of ISIS in Iraq (most Iraqis don’t like ISIS).
Also
Trump was right when he accused Clinton of creating ISIS
What do you suppose Iraqis think of Trump now?
@Jinn- Trump should have listened to someone with real middle east experience”
https://babylonbee.com/news/hillary-clinton-slams-trump-for-not-taking-a-more-hands-off-approach-to-embassy-attack
Nothing has changed. Israel’s enemies want her obliterated. The U.S. is not going to let that happen. All the terrorism and all the counter-attacks on her enemies arise from their stated goal.
I am reminded of the fake Gulf of Tonkin provocation. I’m reminded of the Bay of Pigs. Clinton ordered air strikes in Iraq.
Bush formally declared War on Terrorism right after 911, extending to any nation that harbored terrorists.
Iran is feeling the pinch from sanctions. They manipulated Obama into a deal on the development of nukes that enabled them to do the very thing we returned 100s of billions to them, not to do. They could negotiate a real deal. Instead, they allow their people to suffer, prick at U.S. assets and hope we will resurrender to their terms so they can continue to process fissile material to build a weapon to destroy Israel. .
Make no mistake. Their intentions remain the same as they have since Israel carved out a little safety zone for itself. They want to wipe her off the face of the earth. The U.S. is morally correct to protect her at all costs.
The House of Representatives can now vote another article of impeachment.
Assassination. Most world leaders shun assassination fearing they might be next. It is, under international law, an act of war, right? We are at war with. . . .?
Terrorists. Since 911.
December 7th, 1941 is a day which will live in Infamy! That was the last time that Congress passed an Act of War. Since then we have been in wars nearly every year.
95% with a Democrat in the Oval office. I may have misremembered and it might have been only 90%.
Recipients should know the identity of the donor. It’s the only decent thing to do:
I am reminded of something Ronald Reagan did after a Middle East misadventure that predictably ran amok. Following the advice of neoconservative elements within his party, he deployed the Marines to Lebanon. Like most neoconservative initiatives, it was military action having nothing to do with United States interests. The barracks were bombed killing over 200 Marines.
Reagan realized he had been given idiotic advice. So what did he do?
He left.
And he wrote later that the initial deployment was one of the biggest mistakes of his Presidency.
You don’t win after you do something that is ill-advised. Your course of action at that point is to minimize the damage. This among other things is why Reagan is one of the best Presidents of the last 100 years.
Steve, that U.S. deployment to Lebanon was planned in the belief that U.S. troops would be seen as the clear-cut good guys; a really naive assumption. That Marine compound was poorly secured and open to any suicide bomber. But that was the 1980’s and we were just entering the era of Muslim-Inspired Terrorists and Non-State Actors. So there was a learning curve to navigate.
We don’t seem to have much of a learning curve as to when a military operation is in our interests. The response to the attacks on our country was handled swiftly, in very impressive fashion, in about 90 days. That should have been the end of it. Not this multi-decade fiasco of military deployments.
A similar incident was Wilson’s sending troops to Vera Cruz Mexico and how shocked the US Public was to find out the Mexicans did not like their presence and did not view it as anything positive Wilson by the way supported his campaign promises of Never sending our boys to foreign wars by adding to Mexico Invasion World War I, two invasions of Russia and the last native indian war Piutes 1922.
A similar incident was Wilson’s sending troops to Vera Cruz Mexico and how shocked the US Public was to find out the Mexicans did not like their presence and did not view it as anything positive Wilson by the way supported his campaign promises of Never sending our boys to foreign wars by adding to Mexico Invasion World War I, two invasions of Russia and the last native indian war Piutes 1922.
No one has topped FDR for war mongering though the runner ups are, so far Wilson, LBJ, Truman, Obama, Clinton, Carter, and JFK. starting in 1909. Why that date? It marked the first elected progress liberal socialist the previous democrats having been for the most part slave traders or slave owners Northern and Southern Democrats.
I am reminded of something Ronald Reagan did after a Middle East misadventure that predictably ran amok. Following the advice of neoconservative elements within his party, he deployed the Marines to Lebanon.
Among the few notables in his administration associated with the Committee for the Free World and / or the Coalition for a Democratic Majority and / or Social Democrats, USA were Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Carl Gershman, none of whom had anything to do with the military or its civlian secretariat, none of whom worked in the Near Eastern Bureau or the PM Bureau of the State Department, and only one of whom (Wolfowitz, the chief of staff and planning at the State Department) would have much input into policy on the Near East. Sneaky Joo, Jedi-mind tricking everyone.
MBITRW, the governments of the United States, France, and Italy agreed to supply troops to patrol west Beirut in order to provide a conduit for the evacuation of the PLO militias. That’s all. It was a stop-gap and the decision of the Hezbollah to engage in attacks on these patrols actually was a surprise. The attacks did not commence until they’d been there for about a year.
Professor-
President Trump can be criticized for any number of things, but breaking with so-called “tradition” on confirming the targeted assassinations of a foreign leader isn’t one of them. The premise of your post is entirely misplaced.
The administration’s announcement is directly in line with the prior announcements of the targeted assassinations of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, both of which occurred on foreign soil (Pakistan and Syria, respectively). President Obama personally appeared on TV to proclaim bin Laden’s killing to the world. His administration actually highlighted the now famous picture of them watching the operation in the White House situation room, which was actually kind of grotesque. For this, Obama was praised as the epitome of the steely-eyed, courageous leader that our country needs.
So no, its not a break from longstanding intelligence practices.
– The president has the sole power to command the military.
– The president is sworn to “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”
– Congress has the sole power to declare war.
– Congress has the sole power to impeach.
– The Senate has the sole power to convict.
___________________________________
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
_____________________________________________________
Article 2, Section 2
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,
____________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To…;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
“to the best of my Ability,” which blows Comrade Pelosi’s continued stupidity along with her partner Comrade Schumer.
Yes, The Donald’s ability level is swamp low…