[rad-green] Who ordered the murder of the Iranian general?

*https://consortiumnews.com/2020/01/06/patrick-lawrence-the-iranian-generals-intent/
<https://consortiumnews.com/2020/01/06/patrick-lawrence-the-iranian-generals-intent/>*

*Consortium News          January 6, 2020*

The Iranian General’s Intent*Given the gravity of last week’s
drone assassination, the State and Defense Departments must prove their
claims against Qassem Soleimani.*

*By Patrick Lawrence* <https://consortiumnews.com/tag/patrick-lawrence/>
*Special to Consortium News*

*Aerial view of Baghdad from plane bringing U.S. Secretary of State Michael
R. Pompeo *
*to meetings on May 7, 2019. (State Department/ Ron Przysucha)*

AFAQ–TV, a satellite station broadcasting from Baghdad, ran a brief video
clip <https://afaq.tv/contents/view/details?id=87510> last May of Ali
Khamenei speaking to a small gathering. It is not clear who Iran’s supreme
leader was addressing, but Qassem Soleimani appears to have been in the
audience. The segment is 35 seconds long, just enough to capture Khamenei
as he observes sardonically, “Praise be to God, who made our enemies fools.”

The drone assassination
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/world/middleeast/qassem-soleimani-iraq-iran-attack.html>
of
the 62­–year–old Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport last Friday is
without question a strike very near the heart of Tehran’s leadership
structure. But it will give Khamenei no cause to alter his thinking as to
the foolishness of Iran’s adversaries.

Soleimani was a senior commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps,
leader of the Quds Force, a special ops unit within the corps, and the top
defense and intelligence strategist behind Iran’s regional security
policies. His murder has to be counted the most directly provocative action
the U.S. has taken against Iran since relations broke off after the 1979
revolution. But if the Islamic Republic has suffered a critical blow, the
U.S., as is its wont, has just sustained far more injury by its own hand.

Among the many questions surrounding this breathtakingly rash move, this
one looms very large: Who ordered the murder of a sovereign nation’s
leading military figure — and by some accounts a potential candidate for
the presidency? Was it President Donald Trump, as we are incessantly urged
to think? Or did paranoid hyper- hawks in the administration, chief among
them Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper, once
again usurp the president’s power in a clear breach of the constitution?

Persuasive signs indicate the latter. The freakishly evangelical Pompeo
appears to have worked with Esper to engineer this operation, with assists
from various other senior officials. We have seen this before, notably
during John Bolton’s tumultuous time as national security adviser. On
numerous policy questions — North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, the Persian Gulf
— the Bolton–Pompeo axis
<http://patricklawrence.us/patrick-lawrence-trump-the-bolton-pompeo-axis/>
subverted
Trump’s initiatives, leaving the president to indulge in Twitter storms to
obscure what amounted to a humiliating loss of authority.

Major General Qassem Soleimani.

*‘We Caught Him in the Act’*

The immediate justification for Soleimani’s murder, as numerous Washington
officials explained in precisely the same language last weekend, is that he
was developing plans to attack American diplomats and service personnel in
Iraq and elsewhere around the Middle East. These attacks, officials said in
unison, were imminent. “We caught him in the act and we terminated
him,” as Trump
put it Friday
<https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-01-03/iran-vows-harsh-reponse-after-general-killed-us-airstrike>
in
his first public remarks on the drone operation.

We saved the day: This is the official theme, emanating primarily from the
Pentagon and State. Instantly we run into very significant difficulties —
lacunae in the orthodox narrative that, after too many years of
back-to-back lapses of this kind, must be vigorously questioned, even if a
proper measure of skepticism is now considered unpatriotic in many quarters.

The first question to be raised concerns evidence, as it so often does in
cases of aggressive American conduct. Where is the evidence of Soleimani’s
plans? How do we know he was about to launch these “imminent and sinister
attacks” — (Trump’s words again)? We have had nothing of substance from any
official in Washington, only the implicit “Take our word for it” — this
from people and government departments long since proven to be unworthy of
public trust.

*Please  **Donate*
<https://org.salsalabs.com/o/1868/p/salsa/donation/common/public/?donate_page_KEY=14124&okay=True>
* to **the Winter Fund Drive.*

It was precisely the same in the case of the Russiagate allegations, for
instance, and the gas attacks the U.S. repeatedly accused Damascus of
perpetrating on Syrian citizens. The former now stands as a farrago of
conjured rubbish, the latter an open-and-shut phony pretext
<https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/02/opcw-leaks-expose-criminal-syria-cover-up-and-us-media-is-silent/>
to
shell the Syrian capital.

*Lessons Learned*

Have we not learned our lesson by now? Anyone who understands the gravity
of last week’s events must, as a matter of conscience, insist that State
and Defense are obliged to present evidence to justify so grave a course as
they have taken. It is to the credit of some Capitol Hill Democrats that
they now question the official line, even if they do so primarily for
political advantage.

If we consider the events leading up to Soleimani’s murder, what the press
shamelessly shapes as defensive retaliation
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/world/middleeast/us-airstrikes-iran-iraq-syria.html>
against
Iranian aggression collapses into another con job intended to enlist the
passive support of quiescent Americans. The Soleimani assassination was
neither defensive nor retaliatory: It reflected the planning of the
administration’s Iran hawks, who were merely awaiting the right occasion to
take their next, most daring step toward dragging the U.S. into war with
Iran.

Hyperbole, obfuscation, sins of omission, mis–and disinformation: The
government-supervised *New York Times* and all other media that gutlessly
follow its lead should be ashamed of themselves, notably for their horror-film
characterizations
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/obituaries/qassem-soleimani-dead.html> of
Soleimani as a ghoulish genius, the “mastermind” and “orchestrator” of all
manner of terror, disorder, and violence that Iran, for reasons
unexplained, prefers to cultivate along its borders and beyond. Such a
person as our press portrays could not possibly walk the face of the earth.
If the dangerous mess the U.S. has just made in the Middle East does morph
into a war, the corporate press will bear a grave responsibility.

For the record, Adil Abdul–Mahdi said Sunday that he was scheduled to meet
Soleimani on the day he was murdered. Topic: The Iraqi prime minister and
the soldier the U.S. casts as a blood-soaked terrorist were acting as
message-bearing go-betweens to advance the very tentative efforts of Iran
and Saudi Arabia to reduce regional tensions and put the destructive
Shi’a–Sunni rivalries of the past several years in the past. Doesn’t quite
fit the American story, does it? Again, shame is our word.

U.S. Marines deploying to Iraq to bolster security at U.S. embassy, Dec.
31, 2019. (U.S. Marine Corps/Robert G. Gavaldon)

*U.S. Instigated Crisis*

U.S. forces instigated this crisis 10 days ago, when they bombed five bases
<https://www.france24.com/en/20191229-us-bombs-militant-group-in-iraq-syria-in-retaliation-for-contractor-s-killing>
—
three in Iraq, two across the border in Syria — used by Kataib Hezbollah, a
paramilitary unit that has long served as a key force in the fight against
the Islamic State. At least two dozen military personnel, including Iraqi
regulars, were killed and many more wounded.

The Pentagon asserted that Kataib Hezbollah, a mostly Shi’a militia aligned
with Shi’a Iran, was responsible for the earlier shelling of an Iraqi base
near Kirkuk called K1 and used by U.S. and Iraqi forces. That rocket
bombardment killed one American mercenary (“contractor” to those of
delicate sensibilities) and wounded several U.S. and Iraqi personnel. This
is the “defensive retaliation” story in sum.

From the very first, more problems with the U.S. version of events.

Once again, the U.S. has yet to present any evidence that Kataib Hezbollah
was responsible for the shelling near Kirkuk. And details of the U.S.
bombing strongly suggest it was a preplanned operation that took the Kirkuk
shelling as a convenient pretext. To begin with, American F–15Es flew these
five bombing operations within two days of the K1 attack — a highly
unlikely timetable if they were truly reactive.

Equally, the bases the U.S. bombed were nowhere near Kirkuk: They were
ranged along the Iraq–Syria border more than 300 miles from K1. Kataib
Hezbollah has from the first denied it had any interest in sending rockets
into an Iraqi base. There is also Kataib Hezbollah’s record as one of
Iraq’s most effective forces fighting rump units of the Islamic State on
either side of the Iraq–Syria border. Given the U.S. has covertly supported
IS militias for years while purporting to hunt them down, the question
raised is obvious.

*Regarding Kataib Hezbollah*

Let us consider two things you have not read in the corporate press. One,
while Kataib Hezbollah is invariably described as “Iranian-backed,” it has
been officially part of the Iraqi security forces since 2017. Had Kataib
Hezbollah been responsible for the Kirkuk rocket attack, it would have been
shelling its colleagues. Two, in its supposed retaliation, it should now be
plain that the U.S. directly attacked the Iraqi military.

Actually, there is a third thing unmentioned in the U.S. press.

The day after the shelling of K1, Defense Secretary Esper telephoned
<https://ejmagnier.com/2020/01/02/how-the-us-was-hoist-by-its-own-petard-in-iraq-and-the-wishful-thinking-of-its-thinktanks/>
Abdul–Mahdi
to advise of the U.S. plan to bomb the five Kataib Hezbollah bases. When
the Iraqi prime minister asked to discuss the decision, Esper refused. When
Abdul–Mahdi then asked that the operation be canceled, Esper again refused
him. When the prime minister asked Esper if there was evidence against
Kataib Hezbollah, Esper declined to answer.

It is difficult to believe, but after the U.S. bombing it was Esper’s chief
spokesman, Jonathan Hoffmann, who had the nerve to call
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/world/middleeast/us-airstrikes-iran-iraq-syria.html>
on
“Iran and their K.H. proxies” — that is, a unit of the Iraqi military — to
“respect Iraq’s sovereignty.” Arrogance and ignorance: always a dreadful
combination.

Large, sometimes violent protests in Baghdad’s Green Zone followed the U.S.
bombing operations, trapping American diplomats and personnel in the U.S.
embassy for nearly two days. Demonstrators relented only when Kataib
Hezbollah officials, who led the protests, called them off. And Kataib
Hezbollah called them off only after Abdel–Madhi committed to introducing
parliamentary legislation requiring the U.S. to withdraw all forces — they
now number about 5,000 — from Iraqi soil.

Second day of protests at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Jan. 1, 2020. (Desmond
Cassell, Wikimedia Commons)

It was at this time the American officials raised the volume on assertions
that Iran directed the shelling of the Kirkuk base and the demonstrations
at the Baghdad embassy that followed the U.S. bombing runs. These claims
were the essential preface to the Soleimani assassination several days
after the Green Zone protests. Is it necessary at this point to report that
no Washington official has presented any evidence in support of the
accusations leveled at Iran?

It is not yet clear how Iran will respond to Washington’s irresponsible
provocations. The senior leadership vows
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iran-has-vowed-revenge-against-the-us-but-it-seems-to-be-in-no-hurry/2020/01/04/150283e8-2e62-11ea-bffe-020c88b3f120_story.html>
“severe
revenge.” Cybertattacks or assassinations of U.S. military figures of a
rank equivalent to Soleimani’s cannot be ruled out. But it is difficult to
imagine the Iranians will miscalculate at so fraught a moment. It is very
likely Tehran will refrain from any action the U.S. could use to escalate
its aggression further.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, one of the first top-ranked Iranian officials to
speak publicly after Soleimani’s murder, described the drone strike
<https://thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/476615-iran-foreign-minister-warns-killing-of-general>
Friday
as “extremely dangerous and a foolish escalation.” Given the Iranian
foreign minister is an influential voice for moderation in Tehran, his
remarks suggest Iran will now wage a vigorous war of words while seeking
maximum support among international allies. The absence of a retaliatory
move thus far reinforces this expectation.

There is another reason to assume the Iranians will prove the adults in the
room. Soleimani’s death is a severe loss, certainly, but Tehran comes out
of this crisis unmistakably the winner. The bedrock of its foreign policy
has long been to counter Washington’s neo-imperialist meddling in Iraq and
elsewhere around the region: Middle Eastern solutions to Middle Eastern
problems is the principle. Here is Zarif on Saturday
<https://en.mehrnews.com/news/154133/End-of-US-malign-presence-in-West-Asia-has-begun-Zarif>,
again on Twitter: “End of U.S. malign presence in West Asia has begun.”
This is precisely what Khamenei meant in his mention of foolhardy enemies
last spring.

This end may now come first in Iraq. Abdul–Mahdi has been incensed with
Washington’s cavalier indifference to Iraqi sovereignty since the current
crisis began the weekend before last. And he appears to have wasted no time
submitting to parliament the legislation he promised Kataib Hezbollah. On
Sunday the legislature voted
<https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/iraqi-parliament-votes-for-plan-to-end-us-troop-presence-1.960145>
 to expel all foreign troops and to file a formal complaint against the
Soleimani assassination at the U.N. In addition to U.S. forces, various
NATO members, including Turkey, also deploy troops on Iraqi soil; Iran does
not.

It is not clear what the parliamentary vote in Baghdad and Abdul–Mahdi’s
appeal to the U.N. will yield. Addressing the legislature prior to its
deliberations Sunday, the prime minister urged lawmakers
<https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/05/iraqi-parliament-votes-expel-all-american-troops-and-submit-un-complaint-against-us>
to
“end the existence of [foreign] forces immediately and start immediate
arrangements for this.” But there is principle and there is power; the U.S.
has none of the former and too much of the latter.

At this early moment, it is difficult to imagine Washington obliging a
weak, unstable client state when it orders American soldiers off its soil.
Even if U.S. forces remain in defiance of Baghdad’s sovereign rights,
however, they will operate in an environment of probably unprecedented
official and public hostility.

Virtually all public statements explaining American actions and
justifications since the Iraq–Iran crisis erupted late last month have come
from either the Pentagon or State. The White House, with some exceptions,
has been notably silent. This raises the key question noted earlier: Who in
Washington is responsible for this foolishly precipitated mess?

U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, left, and U.S. Secretary of Defense
Esper in Sydney, August 2019. (State Department/ Ron Przysucha)

We have no certainty on this point, and there may never be any. But the
progress of events over the past 10 days strongly suggests Trump now has a
Pompeo–Esper axis on his hands, these two assisted by Mark Milley, chairman
of the joint chiefs of staff, who, until early last year, quashed a study
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-army-ordered-an-unvarnished-iraq-war-historythen-let-it-languish-1540220153>
of
the Iraq war that reflected badly on how the Army conducted it.

Trump neither planned nor ordered the fateful bombing of the five Iraqi
bases used by Kataib Hezbollah on Dec. 27. This is very clear. Pompeo and
Esper flew to Mar–a–Lago the previous day to brief Trump on their plans
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/world/middleeast/us-airstrikes-iran-iraq-syria.html>,
leaving the president merely to nod in the face of a *fait accompli*. He
did so — late and with no apparent enthusiasm.

As to the Soleimani assassination, we have plentiful statements
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/us/politics/trump-suleimani.html> from
officials at State and Defense, dutifully reproduced in the press, that
Trump ordered it. But if we just witnessed what amounts to a palace coup
led by these two departments, of what worth are these accounts? In
chest-out fashion, Trump now claims to have authorized the operation. But
these assertions look very like after-the-fact efforts to put the best face
on a boldly unlawful challenge to his authority. Let us not forget that
Trump has long favored negotiation with Tehran rather than conflict.

Here is Trump
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/world/middleeast/trump-iran-iraq.html>
Friday
morning: “We took action to stop a war. We did not take action to start a
war.” Here he is that evening: “We do not seek a war, we do not seek
nation-building, we do not seek regime change.” The president’s secretary
of state, who thinks in biblical terms of an end-times war with evil, seeks
all three of these things.

What does it mean when the president explains what is plainly an act of war
by asserting that war is not his intention? The contradiction here is too
obvious to ignore. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it lies
between a president who prefers summitry and dealmaking and those around
him who prefer wars — and who by now have a considerable record of
subterfuge in the face of Trump’s policy initiatives.

*Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for
the* *International
Herald Tribune**, is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most
recent book is “Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century”
(Yale). Follow him on Twitter **@thefloutist*
<https://twitter.com/thefloutist>*. **His web site is **Patrick Lawrence*
<http://www.patricklawrence.us/>*. Support his work via **his Patreon site*
<http://www.patreon.com/thefloutist>*.*

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sid-l/CACKppcy77uKwpZDUv5psD3__GieTpG8jmDXDQ4-CGGkidp5Vtw%40mail.gmail.com.

---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>