In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani, Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. It is a careful choice of word. Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence.
Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu’s government and then Blair’s, the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of “pre-emptive self-defence” against “imminent” attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept. Including me.
What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here “Imminent” – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either “soon” or “about to happen”. An attack may be deemed “imminent”, according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of “intelligence” you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again.
I am not inventing the Bethlehem Doctrine. It has been the formal legal justification for drone strikes and targeted assassinations by the Israeli, US and UK governments for a decade. Here it is in academic paper form, published by Bethlehem after he left government service (the form in which it is adopted by the US, UK and Israeli Governments is classified information).
So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were “imminent” he is not using the word in the normal sense in the English language. It is no use asking him what, where or when these “imminent” attacks were planned to be. He is referencing the Bethlehem Doctrine under which you can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something.
The idea that killing an individual who you have received information is going to attack you, but you do not know when, where or how, can be justified as self-defence, has not gained widespread acceptance – or indeed virtually any acceptance – in legal circles outside the ranks of the most extreme devoted neo-conservatives and zionists. Daniel Bethlehem became the FCO’s Chief Legal Adviser, brought in by Jack Straw, precisely because every single one of the FCO’s existing Legal Advisers believed the Iraq War to be illegal. In 2004, when the House of Commons was considering the legality of the war on Iraq, Bethlehem produced a remarkable paper for consideration which said that it was legal because the courts and existing law were wrong, a defence which has seldom succeeded in court.
(b)
following this line, I am also of the view that the wider principles of the law on self-defence also require closer scrutiny. I am not persuaded that the approach of doctrinal purity reflected in the Judgments of the International Court of Justice in this area provide a helpful edifice on which a coherent legal regime, able to address the exigencies of contemporary international life and discourage resort to unilateral action, is easily crafted;
The key was that the concept of “imminent” was to change:
The concept of what constitutes an “imminent” armed attack will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats
In the absence of a respectable international lawyer willing to argue this kind of tosh, Blair brought in Bethlehem as Chief Legal Adviser, the man who advised Netanyahu on Israel’s security wall and who was willing to say that attacking Iraq was legal on the basis of Saddam’s “imminent threat” to the UK, which proved to be non-existent. It says everything about Bethlehem’s eagerness for killing that the formulation of the Bethlehem Doctrine on extrajudicial execution by drone came after the Iraq War, and he still gave not one second’s thought to the fact that the intelligence on the “imminent threat” can be wrong. Assassinating people on the basis of faulty intelligence is not addressed by Bethlehem in setting out his doctrine. The bloodlust is strong in this one.
There are literally scores of academic articles, in every respected journal of international law, taking down the Bethlehem Doctrine for its obvious absurdities and revolting special pleading. My favourite is this one by Bethlehem’s predecessor as the FCO Chief Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood and his ex-Deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst.
I addressed the Bethlehem Doctrine as part of my contribution to a book reflecting on Chomsky‘s essay “On the Responsibility of Intellectuals”
In the UK recently, the Attorney
General gave a speech in defence of the UK’s drone policy, the assassination
of people – including British nationals – abroad. This execution
without a hearing is based on several criteria, he reassured us. His
speech was repeated slavishly in the British media. In fact, the Guardian
newspaper simply republished the government press release absolutely
verbatim, and stuck a reporter’s byline at the top.
The media have no interest in a critical appraisal of the process
by which the British government regularly executes without trial. Yet
in fact it is extremely interesting. The genesis of the policy lay in the
appointment of Daniel Bethlehem as the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office’s Chief Legal Adviser. Jack Straw made the appointment, and for
the first time ever it was external, and not from the Foreign Office’s own
large team of world-renowned international lawyers. The reason for that
is not in dispute. Every single one of the FCO’s legal advisers had advised
that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and Straw wished to find a new head
of the department more in tune with the neo-conservative world view.
Straw went to extremes. He appointed Daniel Bethlehem, the legal
‘expert’ who provided the legal advice to Benjamin Netanyahu on the
‘legality’ of building the great wall hemming in the Palestinians away
from their land and water resources. Bethlehem was an enthusiastic
proponent of the invasion of Iraq. He was also the most enthusiastic
proponent in the world of drone strikes.
Bethlehem provided an opinion on the legality of drone strikes
which is, to say the least, controversial. To give one example, Bethlehem
accepts that established principles of international law dictate that
lethal force may be used only to prevent an attack which is ‘imminent’.
Bethlehem argues that for an attack to be ‘imminent’ does not require it
to be ‘soon’. Indeed you can kill to avert an ‘imminent attack’ even if you
have no information on when and where it will be. You can instead rely
on your target’s ‘pattern of behaviour’; that is, if he has attacked before,
it is reasonable to assume he will attack again and that such an attack is
‘imminent’.
There is a much deeper problem: that the evidence against the
target is often extremely dubious. Yet even allowing the evidence to
be perfect, it is beyond me that the state can kill in such circumstances
without it being considered a death penalty imposed without trial for
past crimes, rather than to frustrate another ‘imminent’ one.
You would think that background would make an interesting
story. Yet the entire ‘serious’ British media published the government
line, without a single journalist, not one, writing about the fact that
Bethlehem’s proposed definition of ‘imminent’ has been widely rejected
by the international law community. The public knows none of this. They
just ‘know’ that drone strikes are keeping us safe from deadly attack by
terrorists, because the government says so, and nobody has attempted to
give them other information
Remember, this is not just academic argument, the Bethlehem Doctrine is the formal policy position on assassination of Israel, the US and UK governments. So that is lie one. When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning “imminent” attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which “imminent” is a “concept” which means neither “soon” nor “definitely going to happen”. To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem.
Let us now move on to the next lie, which is being widely repeated, this time originated by Donald Trump, that Soleimani was responsible for the “deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans”. This lie has been parroted by everybody, Republicans and Democrats alike.
Really? Who were they? When and where? While the Bethlehem Doctrine allows you to kill somebody because they might be going to attack someone, sometime, but you don’t know who or when, there is a reasonable expectation that if you are claiming people have already been killed you should be able to say who and when.
The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11, in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90% of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf satellites, and less than 10% of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to Iran.
This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which, regardless of party, are beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money. It is, the USA affirms, the Sunnis who are the allies and the Shias who are the enemy. Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni, every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni, the Benghazi attack was by Sunnis, Isil are Sunni, Al Nusra are Sunni, the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis.
Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which the Shia forces of Soleimani were responsible? Is there a list? It is of course a simple lie. Its tenuous connection with truth relates to the Pentagon’s estimate – suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became the designated enemy – that back during the invasion of Iraq itself, 83% of US troop deaths were at the hands of Sunni resistance and 17% of of US troop deaths were at the hands of Shia resistance, that is 603 troops. All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani, remarkably.
Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion. The Iraqi Shia militias – whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion. The idea that the killing of invading American troops was somehow illegal or illegitimate is risible. Plainly the US propaganda that Soleimani was “responsible for hundreds of American deaths” is intended, as part of the justification for his murder, to give the impression he was involved in terrorism, not legitimate combat against invading forces. The idea that the US has the right to execute those who fight it when it invades is an absolutely stinking abnegation of the laws of war.
As I understand it, there is very little evidence that Soleimani had active operational command of Shia militias during the invasion, and in any case to credit him personally with every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense. But even if Soleimani had personally supervised every combat success, these were legitimate acts of war. You cannot simply assassinate opposing generals who fought you, years after you invade.
The final, and perhaps silliest lie, is Vice President Mike Pence’s attempt to link Soleimani to 9/11. There is absolutely no link between Soleimani and 9/11, and the most strenuous efforts by the Bush regime to find evidence that would link either Iran or Iraq to 9/11 (and thus take the heat off their pals the al-Saud who were actually responsible) failed. Yes, it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to Afghanistan. But there is zero evidence, as the 9/11 report specifically stated, that the Iranians knew what they were planning, or that Soleimani personally was involved. This is total bullshit. 9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.
Soleimani actually was involved in intelligence and logistical cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan post 9/11 (the Taliban were his enemies too, the shia Tajiks being a key part of the US aligned Northern Alliance). He was in Iraq to fight ISIL.
The final aggravating factor in the Soleimani murder is that he was an accredited combatant general of a foreign state which the world – including the USA – recognises. The Bethlehem Doctrine specifically applies to “non-state actors”. Unlike all of the foregoing, this next is speculation, but I suspect that the legal argument in the Pentagon ran that Soleimani is a non-state actor when in Iraq, where the Shia militias have a semi-official status.
But that does not wash. Soleimani is a high official in Iran who was present in Iraq as a guest of the Iraqi government, to which the US government is allied. This greatly exacerbates the illegality of his assassination still further.
The political world in the UK is so cowed by the power of the neo-conservative Establishment and media, that the assassination of Soleimani is not being called out for the act of blatant illegality that it is. It was an act of state terrorism by the USA, pure and simple.
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Alternatively:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
Blessed are the peacemakers, and that includes you, Craig. I have a sort of grudging admiration of your patience and dedication to the rule of law, but I think you know in your heart that we are way outside of the rule of law now.
Might has never been so right. The Iranians know that. Everybody knows it. If there’s any law in the international system today, it’s law of of the jungle.
The US-UK-Israeli axis is terrorising the world. They go around beating countries to pulps and if anyone objects they threaten nuclear apocalypse.
One of these days China or Russia is going to call their bluff and stand up to them but there’s no sign that anyone is willing to go that far today over Iran and so we can expect the usual pointless escalation of tensions coming to nothing. They like to keep us all on edge.
Hatuey, I think China, Russian and Iran are no doubt in urgent and intense talks. This might just be the incident that Russia and China will act on.
Thanks for this analysis and for adding many informative links and references. One question: I had a quick look at the Bethlehem paper you link. Which quote of the paper do you think would best support your claim that “An attack may be deemed “imminent”, according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur.” ? Thanks a lot in advance.
Alexander
It seems to me that the paper linked to makes references throughout to ‘imminence’ being a variable/arbitrary term which is all but impossible to define with precision, but very much depends on the circumstances of individual cases. The fluidity of ‘imminence’ as perceived by Bethlehem is very much encapsulated in paragraph 8 on page 6 of the document (‘Principles relevant to the scope of a State’s right to self-defense against an imminent or actual armed attack by non-state actors’). Essentially this is saying that ‘imminence’ can be whatever someone chooses it to be [and is confident that they won’t be subject to challenge – MY WORDS 🙂 ].
Thanks … I quote from paragraph 8 on page 6 “The absence of specific evidence of where an attack will take place or of the precise nature of an attack does not preclude a conclusion that an armed attack is imminent for purposes of the exercise of a right of self-defense, provided that there is a reasonable and objective basis for concluding that an armed attack is imminent.”
So your point is that, on the one hand, there is no definition of imminent and, on the other hand, the government feels free to consider as “reasonable and objective” what ever they find suitable?
Fantastic post, Craig!
You´ve put many of my (instinctive) thoughts on this together and more, especially those concerning the blaming of Suleimani as ‘pure evil’, when just pretty amateurish research paints a very different picture than that coming from Washington; A man who would be a total hero in both the UK and the US in fact. I really hated this and has been asking exactly the same these days in different forums; Why he was evil, exactly? He was, apparently, a brave, loyal, intelligent and sensible man who just died for his country. Trump is a minion in comparison, not to mention a lying coward.
Cheers from Spain, and hoping to read more from you.
Diego, when the Americans say that someone is “pure evil” what they mean is that he does not immediately jump to obey their orders, and may even have hindered them.
Just as (according to Noam Chomsky) saying that a government is “democratic” means that it obeys Washington unquestioningly; and calling it “communist” means that it concerns itself with the welfare of its own citizens.
Great article Craig very informative Thank you.
The only situation where unilateral armed aggression is available to States is the situation of self defence, as authorized by Article 51 of the UN Charter. In order to exercise that right, the following conditions have to exist:
– an imminent armed attack
– of certain intensity and magnitude
UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) of December 14, 1974 defined armed ‘aggression’ and elaborated on the conditions needed to justify self-defence. And the subsequent Nicaragua Case at the ICJ provided excellent explanations to cement these principles. Imminent means almost immediate, with no opportunity to allow arbitration or intervention by the UN or other parties. An armed attack must usually be at the scale of military proportions (including by non-State actors) before it justifies self-defence measures, otherwise any rogue party like the Unabomber would trigger war measures. Hence, pre-emptive self-defence using targeted assassinations in peace time was rare, since the definition of ‘imminent’ attack of the scale reaching military proportions was almost impossible to meet outside of combat operations, and terrorism situations (e.g. highjacking of aircraft, etc.) were not seen as justifying self-defence. The argument that Suleimani posed an imminent threat of such scale to the US does not seem tenable.
In addition, the US is in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government to fight against specific groups, not to target its own alleged enemies or conduct its own personal military campaigns. Article 3(e) of the UNGA Resolution specifically considers the following act to be an example of (illegal) armed aggression: “The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;” Since Iraq has condemned the attack on Suleimani as a violation of its sovereignty, it is clear that the US violated the terms of its invitation to assist the Iraqi government.
The recent growth of such targeted assassinations has repeatedly drawn condemnation from the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions at the UN’s OHCHR. The current Rapporteur recently tweeted the following comment on the Suleimani assassination: “The targeted killings of Qasem Soleiman and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis are most lokely (sic) unlawful and violate international human rights law: Outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal (1).”
The Intercept has printed an excellent article on the transformation of self-defence from a military realm to that of hybrid realm between military and civilian parties conducting security measures (for e.g. the US drone operations by the CIA). Please read it here: https://theintercept.com/2018/10/07/israel-palestine-us-drone-strikes/ Harvard’s Gabriella Blum revealed how the International Law Department (ILD) of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) distorted the IHL principles outlined above to justify assassinations of Palestinian civilians as self-defence measures without meeting the threshold of Article 51. The GW Bush administration picked it up and distorted them further to create the current unacceptable state of affairs that climaxed under Obama and will worsen under Trump. While IHL designed its rules to allow armed response as a means of last resort, the US has modified them to become a means of first response.
Blum resents the fact that the US normalized an ‘exception’ in IHL that Israel had made for itself to deal with Palestinians to use against anyone around the world. The arrogance of her assumption that Israel was entitled to distort global laws just for its own purpose escapes her completely. But she acknowledges the danger of what she and others in the ILD did in the following excerpt:
As the years pass, Blum suggests that any number of unconventional drone victims may emerge. Americans might target drug traffickers in Afghanistan. A future Mexican president might target heads of cartels. Why wouldn’t the Chinese government go after dissidents internally? And why wouldn’t the Russians go after dissidents everywhere? The only thing that’s certain about targeted killings, Blum says, is that “there’ll be more of them.”
“Do you feel responsible?” I asked. “Personally responsible?”
“No,” she said. “These were the right legal answers to a real problem we were asked to address. It is right — if somebody poses a direct threat to you, and there is no other way to stop them, the right thing to do is kill them. I don’t regret those decisions.” But, she acknowledged, “Every time you come up with a legal theory, the problem is, that legal theory is no longer yours.”
She says targeted killings have eclipsed their original stated purpose. “I don’t feel responsible for that. Even though I’m sure I am.” She paused. “No. That part doesn’t weigh on me morally.”
Ms Blum is straight out of the IDF and the Israel construct ffs.
‘Prior to joining the Harvard faculty in the fall of 2005, Blum served for seven years as a Senior Legal Advisor in the International Law Department of the Military Advocate General’s Corps in the Israel Defense Forces, and for another year, as a Strategy Advisor to the Israeli National Security Council.’
https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10089/Blum
Mary
So what? I am straight out of the FCO. Like me, she regrets her past associations.
She does not mention Bethlehem by name, but actually she directly confirms my account. The adoption of the policy by the IDF is precisely when Bethlehem was advising Israel, and his subsequent adoption by the US (and UK) when he was brought in by Blair and Straw as the UK’s Legal Adviser.
You weren’t employed by the IDF or Israel Craig. Your ex colleague was.
The point of posting the article on Blum was to show that Israel deliberately altered the established view of IHL on self-defence, even though it had no power to do so. What I forgot to mention is that the principle and limitations of self defence in Article 51, including the UNGA resolution and the Nicaragua Case, are considered to be customary international law. Hence, no state can unilaterally deviate from its tenets and create exemptions for itself. Blum’s revelation is supposed to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the ILD’s interpretation, and how it cannot be reserved just for 1 or 2 states at the exclusion of all others. This is a fundamental contradiction of the core of public international law and, as Craig points out, is rejected by almost all legitimate practitioners of international law (see “Self Defence Against Non-State Actors”, O’Connel, Tams, Tiadi, eds (Cambridge, 2019), pp 250). As Craig points out, the Israel High Court embraced the ILD’s ‘new’ interpretation in 2006, the same time that Bethlehem was appointed Legal Adviser of the FCO.
Ironically enough, Blum doesn’t question Israel’s ‘authority’ to unilaterally change international law, she simply bemoans the fact that the US undermined the true purpose behind the alteration for Israel’s exclusive benefit. As it stands, no other country or international body has accepted this argument so far but as Blum predicts, they probably will. Especially after this incident.
The world is devolving to the violence of pre-Geneva Convention days.
I was so excited to post comments on this page that I forgot to compliment you on the best assessment I’ve read of this situation so far. Thank you for posting the most erudite, well-researched and fact-based article currently available online.
“In addition, the US is in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government to fight against specific groups…”
But the invitation was extended only after the USA had invaded Iraq, overthrown its government, hanged the President and disbanded the civil service. The “government” that extended the invitation was a puppet chosen and maintained by Washington. A bunch of Quislings, if you like, or a Vichy government.
In fact most Iraqis would much prefer the USA never to have invaded their country. The invasion and occupation have done far, far more harm and damage than Saddam Hussein ever did. (Which is logical if you reflect that the people who compose the US government are just as vile, callous and selfish as Saddam).
Very true. Excellent contextual reminder. Thank you.
“… if somebody poses a direct threat to you, and there is no other way to stop them, the right thing to do is kill them”.
Unless, of course, you are a Christian. Jesus specifically forbade the meeting of violence with violence.
That doesn’t bother Jews, of course. But most of the leaders of the USA and the UK claim to be Christians. Their gross hypocrisy brings to mind the acerbic remark of Michael Foley in his book “The Age of Absurdity”.
“In the Irish Catholic culture I knew as a boy, the faithful – both clerical and lay – violated the principles of the New Testament so comprehensively and precisely that it almost seemed as though they had read it”.
I think Gandhi remarked that Christians are nothing like their Christ.
Archbishop Welby, the Eton educated Tory stooge fits that observation perfectly.
Hardly surprising the C of E is largely irrelevant in people’s lives.
I find such gross hypocrisy annoying. I am not religious, but I try to avoid hypocrisy. It seems odd that the worst hypocrites seem to be those who claim to be “holier than thou”.
This is nevertheless deemed vital, because whether something is legal or not is a powerful defence for and against criminal acts and also useful if you are in a position to act as judge and jury. Hence the self-same act would be described as “terrorism” if committed by the other side and provide a pretext for doing the same again, but legally!!!
The Bethlehem Doctrine comes from the same mind-set/double-speak as Right 2 Protect (R2P), which promotes the pre-emptive humanitarian destruction of nations to save lives! Except even this ruse gets ignored in favour of “something must be done” to excuse the latest bombing campaign/regime change.
That said the whole interference in the Middle-East is criminal, even if certain acts qualify as legal, and so I do hope this is a Trump gambit to claim a victory and leave the Middle-East despite the pressure from the neo-cons to remain.
I knew about the drone strikes and the pre-emptive strike strategy, but hadn’t really gathered the facts in this so your blog was a real revelation once again Craig. The Bethlehem Doctrine is now showing a few links in a Google search as people are trying to find out about it. Meeting that need for more information in a search might have been driven by what you wrote here on your post: a very good outcome. The only way we get the truth out there is by talking about it.
I saw the comment from Warren, I think she is rowing back on it a bit now, but too late for me. I just unsubscribed from her mailings as they were starting to bug me anyway. I was asked to comment on why I did not want any more begging emails from her in future; I wrote that it was her support of Trump’s lies over the extrajudicial execution of Suleimani. I hope that many other people will do the same as this is the only way to express our disapproval. Since I can vote in US elections I will remain a Bernie Sanders supporter as, yet again, he is on the right side of History.
I do not see this Suleimani debacle ending well as there will be retaliation and an escalation of conflict. I hope US public resistance to war will prevail and that Trump’s reckless action will help derail his re-election rather than rally his supporters. I was so dreaming of a one, two success story with Bernie in the White House and Corbyn leading a progressive Labour Government here in the UK.
So much could have been achieved towards reducing global tensions with a real change of direction on both sides of the pond. I worry that the next US election will be rigged just as I still firmly believe our recent election was totally rigged. The US has really mastered the art of suppressing democracy, a very depressing reality. I am not giving up on trying to expose the cruel deception that gifted Boris his fake “landslide” victory. Anyone interested in this cause should join us on the Discussion Forum on the Election Aftermath.
This is whay I believe the election was so weighted against Labour across the entire MSM, and why I believe the election was rigged.
There was no way MI5 or MI6 here, or the CIA and Mossad elsewhere would possibly have allowed Corbyn to form a left leaning government, sympathetic to Palestine, here in the UK.
May told him, Pompeo told him, Dearlove told him and Netanyahoo might just have well told him.
Democracy here is a sham and I believe ballots have been routinely rigged for quite some time.
It looks that way. Politics has had its day.
Kim Fisher-Sanders, once again, sound common sense. I will be joining you on the Discussion Forum shortly.
it is sometimes useful to look at the Iranian propaganda, they are quoting an American point-of-view about USA – whilst Boris Johnson is simply still on holiday
https://iranpress.com/en/america-i142321-noam_chomsky_us_greatest_threat_to_world_peace
Don’t know why you’d call that iranpress article propaganda, it looks like straight reporting to me.
The original meaning of propaganda is “facts and opinions that are to be spread around”. Although the word has acquired a strong negative connotation and is nowadays usually meant to suggest misleading or untrue statements.
I hope David was employing the original core meaning.
“Propaganda is a lie even when it is true” (George Orwell).
It seems pretty clear that Iran has extensive influence and control in Iraq and is continuing to extend this as a counterbalance and rival to the Saudis in the region. . The attack on the US embassy INSIDE the Green zone, by pro Iranian militia -I assume the Iranian funded Hezbollah- must have been approved at a very high level in Iraq. Should the west leave the Iranians to continue their proxy takeover in a number of areas in the ME? Would this make the west a safer place? I do not have a view at present, just wondering how things might pan out. I assume foreign policy makers have to take a view..
Secondly I was astonished to see Ayatollah Khamenei has taken to twitter and last week was on line taunting Trump. Should any country be run by twitter “wars”?
it’s not clear to me that iran is taking over iraq. iraqi’s have much to resent the u.s. for on their own account–they were invaded. it would make the west a safer place if it stopped interfering with and overthrowing governments in other parts of the world, including assassinating their leaders.
These are American troops in the Middle East, it’s not Irani, Iraqi, Syrian etc. troops in the USA.
The action Trump made, and the words Trump said are literal open declaration of revenge as the main motive, and it un-ties the hands of the other side.
The support his citizens gave Trump, reveal something about their sense of exceptionality and take them out of the area where a reasonable constructive dialogue is possible.
Now it’s time for violence, I’m afraid.
I see a couple of targets, which can be hit easily and the outcome will be very painful and humiliating for America. But I’m not voicing ideas of that terrible kind, besides, I strongly doubt that such onefold people will really learn something.
If both sides have a desire to go die for the ideas of the rich (who in any case will sit behind their strong walls and secure their children) – well, this is their choice. Not my war.
The world around has gone mad, people are animals, I’m back to the pancakes and my beautiful fairy-tale world, where people can courageously look into each other’s eyes and solve contradictions in a civilized manner.
living in america, i hope my life ends before the blowback hits. i’m not seeing either party doing anything to stop this madness.
In your place I’d pray for something else.
Trump and his supporters, as I see it, continue to celebrate, while the Iranians have a mourning time. Rethorics which precisely fuels the thirst for revenge in the Middle East.
History knows another nation that considered itself exceptional and went around the world spreading its worldview.
I think one of The Donald’s main themes, is the introduction of Nuclear capable ballistic missiles into the armoury of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
If Iran would revoke this escalation, many difficulties could be surmounted,
however the Americans are still smarting from having their fingers pried off Iran in the late 70’s.
norton
You can put a nuclear warhead on a 1980s SCUD if you want, but it won’t be very accurate. So the guff about “Nuclear capable ballistic missiles” is just meaningless. Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons full stop. Though as many have said, the way things are going, they’d be wise to develop them, and rapidly.
what would you recommend praying for? the only thing that stops this is a revolution, and the warmonger side is far better prepared for that and the disorganized resistance. i’m praying for a general strike.
tatyana it’s not just trump supporters pushing this, it’s the democrats as well. of course there’s going to be blowback.
norton if iran were interested in a nuke capability, it would have already acquired it and we wouldn’t be having this discussion, for the same reason we aren’t having a discussion about a u.s. assassination of a high north korean official.
Of course Iraq, at present, is not by any means a healthy, sovereign or independent nation. It has been subjected to harsh military occupation by the USA since 2003 – time for a new-born baby to have become a teenager. (I don’t think even the Nazis made a habit of launching air raids on places under their military occupation, and hence their legal duty of care).
Iraq will take a lot of healing, and the Americans will not contribute anything at all in that direction. On the contrary, they have done all they could to ensure that Iraq remains broken, fragmented into mutually hostile communities.
The first step is to get rid of the Americans – every last trace of them. Just as a doctor treating a battle wound starts by removing any fragments of shrapnel and other debris. Then healing can at least begin.
Tom Welsh, oh so true. I think Iran is now in a position to order the deportation of all USA citizens in Iran, all USA business, close the Embassy and end Diplomatic relations. If they did this, Iraq and others might have the courage to mobilise against the USA and organise themselves into a viable fighting force.
Mrs Paui
“Should the west leave the Iranians to continue their proxy takeover in a number of areas in the ME? Would ”
Is that a question because it is also known as the “white man’s burden”…
Iran nor Saddam (back in 2003) was about to “take over” the middle east. Pure warmongering desinformation that is now repeated.
Iran today fight against the ISIS terror and want to rid the region of occupying foreign forces. Especially since the occupying forces is carry on a war against Iran, and have, for decades.
Neirher Iran or Iraq have ever threatened our safety in the west. You’ve got it all the wrong way round.
Entirely.
“…Iran has extensive influence and control in Iraq…”
That’s no more surprising or worrying than that the USA has extensive influence and control in Canada or Mexico.
Mrs Paul, I think there is a double standard you are operating. The I****I Government fully backed and funded by the USA and UK are seriously destabilising the Middle East. I believe the I… Government’s wish is to completely eradicate and subjugate all the Middle East countries, after all, I….. are the only country in the Middle East with Nuclear Weapons. Iran has a right to make allies in order to protect itself from USA/I……I aggression. The aggressors here are the USA pure and simple. This was an entirely unprovoked act of assassination that can be compared to that of the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand which sparked WW1. It is intended to provoke Iran in retaliating so Trump has a legitimate excuse to bomb them and take over their Oil fields. Don’t forget, only last year Pompeo stated the USA were imposing severe sanctions on Iran with the intention of ‘making their economy scream’ and reduce their oil exports to zero. The deep and profound concern should be that Trump took the decision on his own. Bojo here will drag us into this conflict. Iran has an absolute right to retaliate.
As to your comments about wars conducted by Twitter – look at Trump, it seems all foreign policy and domestic policy is conducted via Twitter.
The 9/11 attack was allegedly 19, not 12 hijackers, 15 of who came via the US embassy in Rhyad. The US don’t care about Bethlehem doctrine or any other means of justification for their terror. Iran is being scapegoated by the US for the Iraq mess.
Here’s one of their main neocon warmongers, Bryzinski, speaking in 2007 to a Senate Committee ………
“If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran; culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
Retired General Wesley Clark told it all, a plan for war with 7 countries in 5 years. So far it’s been going to plan, apart from the timeline and Iran, Iran being a far tougher cookie to crack than Iraq.
In case you’ve not seen it…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTbg11pCwOc
Here’s Clark expanding it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcWs4TFSjrY
Nobody has ever explained the behaviour of Jack Straw.
Brown envelopes from British Aerospace is at least a part of the explanation.
“Nobody has ever explained the behaviour of Jack Straw”.
Psychopathy + $$$$.
FTFY.
They all seem to end up with cushy non-executive directorships, don’t they.
The whole thing: titles, peerages, privy council is like a huge racket. Resistance is futile and/or dangerous, so they jump aboard.
Glaring examples include Alistair Darling, Danny Alexander and basically all the New Labour crew.
Maybe it was a forlorn hope that Corbyn would’ve done anything about it. But the next Labour leader certainly won’t.
Mail on Sunday not allowing comments on serious & accurate piece by Hitchens
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7852247/PETER-HITCHENS-killing-Iranian-General-Qasem-Soleimani-state-murder.html
The Mail’s editors and managers have learned from bitter experience what kind of comments to expect from 90% of their readers on articles like that. Hearty agreement with critics of HMG, and cynical rejection of whatever the US and UK governments say.
Especially on Sundays when readers are at leisure.
Raab appeared on Sky News earlier and is now on Marr.
He was over in the US last August for a briefing. He is shown here with Pompeo.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/statephotos/48481856081/
He failed in his bid for the premiership in June and came out in the second round. He subsequently endorsed Johnson who appointed him as Foreign Secretary in July. A canny laddo.
His predecessor at the FCO was Jeremy Hunt who also thought he could become the partei leader. A useless individual especially as Health Secretary where he thought he could hand over OUR NHS to the Americans. He and several teams from NHS trusts visited Kaiser Permanente, the giant US ‘healthcare’ company. ie have your credit card or your health insurance details at the ready if you are ill and need medical help.
He said that he will be speaking to his opposite number (Mohammad Javad Zarif) in Tehran later today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Raab
Thanks for the links, Mary
Easy to remember politicians’ names looking at the color of their ties. Raab is M&M’s candy yellow and Pompeo is M&M’s candy red.
Worries in the Guardian that the United Kingdom’s permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council is imminently at risk from UK’s cavalier approach to Human Rights & EU exit, how to lose friends & lose influence. Shock-claim according to David Snoxell, a former British high commissioner to Mauritius.
A spokesman for the Foreign Office said: “It’s ridiculous to draw a parallel between the election of a[n ICJ] judge for nine years and our seat on the UN security council
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/05/uk-forfeit-security-council-chagos-islands-dispute
At least the USA, special relationship, etc etc would never support France or India instead of UK for the sec council seat?, surely, imminently?
Some preemptive bombing is needed
SA don’t even say this in jest, Bojo and his Fascist Cabinet are likely to do it!
France is already on the UNSC, has been since Day One.
very informative article, i never heard of the bethlehem doctrine (brings the yeats poem to mind) before. a little insight into what ingredients are going into the sausage can’t hurt. now how do we shut the sausage factory down?
Very good point, pretzelattack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_(poem)
The last two lines are especially apt:
“And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”
Of course, the rough beast has already annexed Bethlehem and Jerusalem.
Presumably under this Bethlehem doctrine Iran would be justified in launching attacks on the US given Trump’s recent tweet threatening 52 sites in Iran?
No, of course not.
You forget: America is exceptional.
Graham
Exactly, same msm that now use Trump’s propaganda do not see that with that logic Iran has the right to attack the US.
I am worried and dissapointed,about the lack of dissent by western leaders in the EU.
Jack, I think the EU are right not to voice any opinion at the moment. I would step away from this at the present time. The USA are alone in this (apart from the support of our pathetic government). I’d leave them to it. Condemnation isn’t going to do anything. Most Governments would seek to protect their own countries first and staying out of this monumental international crisis Trump has created is better protection than condemnation.
Jo Dominich
Well that is why I am depressed to see EU backing Trump by not taking a stance against the US.
A reminder for those that cheer EU vs Brexit…EU are no better on human rights when push comes to shove.
Why is there no petition for Raab to lose his job and be incarcerated over his endorsement of murder?
Why has Johnson not been sacked yet for dereliction of duty, and failure to condemn this murder?
Very confused. I thought our species was somewhat intelligent.
Leave us alone Gods, you’ve done enough damage.
Skripal assassination attempt is not ok, Soleimani actual assassination is more than ok according to the political, media class in the west.
Jack
People drink alcohol because it is available.
They murder people with drones because they are available.
They print rubbish because the technology is available.
In this particular case George Bush’s lie that the US would hand its sovereignty back to Iraq has been exposed.
The US has managed to pretend that it did not own Iraq for quite long enough. They use it to extort money and cheap loans from Saudi Arabia. They use it for cheap oil. They use it to carve out a Greater Israel. And they use it to divide Sunni and Shi’a.
So far Boris Johnson has not deigned to publish a report which will expose his extremely close links to Russian oligarchs.
Imho it was his personal feeling of ownership of Russian affairs that emboldened him to invent the Skripal fantasies.
It is only America’s feeling of conquest over Iraq that has emboldened it to install Daesh there. And now try to re-install them.
The US as a whole nation is convinced that its conquest of Iraq entitles it to act out its horror fantasies on it’s own property.
This assassination will be applauded by ALL Americans as a showing the world American power. As such it is pure electioneering by Trump, and totally illegal. Just as Johnson ‘s bollocks about Russian assassinations in the UK was .
Trump and Johnson are pathetic spoilt brats with far too many dangerous toys for their warped egos to play safely with.
Expect Johnson to deploy his drone toys in the future.
What makes those oligarchs Russian, I wonder? I don’t think that a person with Israeli passport residing in London and sponsoring hostile british government may be called Russian.
Or, is it that they robbed russian people?
“Four legs good, two legs bad”.
https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/animalfarm/quotes/
Or in our modern political version,
“American good, Russian bad”.
I think an Oligarch-from-Russia is more like a Duke-of-Somewhere. A title to name a position (for which the people did not elect him), and the area with which he collects tribute.
The irony is that the USA and UK have far more native-born oligarchs than Russia. But by convention they are not called oligarchs.
I always smile when I see the same people criticize Mr Putin for being a tyrant or dictator, and then refer to Russian oligarchs. A country can be run by a tyrant or dictator, or by an oligarchy. Never both.
@Tom – Also the scribbler functionaries in Britain who use the term “oligarch” a lot rarely consider the notion of oligarchy not just as a system of rule but as an actual (very small) echelon or caste. Too close to home, maybe? They prefer to operate as an academic or journalistic version of society gossip columnists keeping their readers informed about who went to which yacht party and explaining with disgust how foreign bosses kill people and aren’t nice and gentle. (Paul Klebnikov’s book “Godfather of the Kremlin” is an exception: one has to have respect for this author who got murdered for what he wrote; the same goes for Daphne Caruana Galizia.) Maybe they’re jealous of the tickets the said killers get for the royal enclosure at Ascot or something. In Britain to talk about an oligarchic caste would be getting too close to the mark. A few jokes about the Bullingdon Club that don’t say anything that will annoy the men involved, and that’s it – “you’ve had your fun”.
I am studying the work of Eugenics Cummings’s hero Robert Plomin, the “world’s leading
Josef Mengele fanprofessor of behavioural genetics”. In Britain this all focuses on the private schools. Some of what the oligarchy believe and have always believed, which previously they largely kept quiet about when anybody was listening, is now coming out into the open. It is no coincidence that Britain is the country that Thomas Malthus, Herbert Spencer, and Francis Galton all came from.They seriously believe that the private schools and top universities “select” the genetically superior. (Never mind that private schools can charge as much as £40000 a year. For them, it’s still ultimately genes that determine whether or not someone can afford that.) I am not joking. That is the bottom line. At least it is on the front page. The overall bottom line is “Cull the proles. It’s
what they deservescientifically proven to be necessary”. Anybody who disagrees should read this stuff better.What they say about “nature and nurture” (an opposition introduced by Galton and forming – as Boris Johnson will certainly be aware – a rhetorical device called an agnominatio) is total bullsh*t. They have no understanding of cultural influence, the family, or of how expectations work, how horizons are kept narrow, and how the spirit is beaten out of people. Their conclusions from “twin studies” and “adoption studies” are absolute rubbish. They want to run society as if it were a machine. Be very afraid. This is way ahead of Thatcherism which wanted to turn society into a jungle.
The Cummings government is formidable. There is no real opposition to it. I have no doubt that it means to achieve at least some successes as measured on its own terms, rather than sitting around serving time and talking cockily when the only aim is to pocket rake-offs from contracts, which has been the main “philosophy of government” in Britain for generations. Parliament may well turn into even more of a sideshow than it’s been hitherto.
@Tatyana – That distinction and opposition is of major geopolitical importance, a fact grasped by very few in the west.
As a heuristic, one can view London as halfway between Moscow and Israel/Manhattan. At times London has been where those on both sides of the fence have come together to (ahem) “discuss the Russian economy”, notably in the Russian Economic Forum.
(As I understand it, the word “oligarch” in western usage came from “Chatham House”, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, precisely as a softening term so that the brown-nosers in academia and the political media didn’t have to use the previous term, “mafia boss”. Talking about how most of them carry Israeli passports was and still is verboten.)
The British “Russian report” is supposed to examine possible and actual Russian state influence. I doubt it will focus much on the influence of non-Russian oligarchs who looted Russia, who range or have ranged from those such as Abramovich who keeps one foot in Russia and one in London; through those such as Berezovsky, who always wanted to re-establish himself in Russia but lost; to those such as Nevzlin who having carried off as much wealth as they could don’t envisage it as likely that they will recommence large-scale business activity in Russia, a country and ethnicity that they hate. (I watched a video in which Nevzlin refers to Berezovsky as “loving Russia”!) Then there’s Central Asia. I haven’t got information as to whether Mashkevich – another London-based Israeli – is still persona grata in Astana or Nur-Sultan as they call it nowadays.
The new Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, along with other parliamentary committees, hasn’t been appointed yet. One thing we can be sure about is that it won’t be chaired by Dominic Grieve. There is probably some stuff in the report that the Tories didn’t want published before the election, but other than that I doubt there’s much in it that will be truly damaging. To judge from the background of Boris Johnson, the identity of the Tory Party treasurer, and so on, Russian state influence in the Tory party in the sense that excludes the non-Russian influence (an influence which is not exactly absent in the Russian state itself) may not actually be much to write home about. (@Craig has made a related point in respect of the US.)
@ Giyane January 5, 2020 at 12:27
‘…This assassination will be applauded by ALL Americans as a showing the world American power…’
Hardly, there are ‘No war in Iran’ demos planned for some 70 US cities.
Moreover, destroying an ordinary civilian car driving at a normal speed along a normal civilian highway from a civilian airport to a capital city, by means of a missile launched from a drone specifically designed to murder people, is hardly a demonstration of any kind of power.
Neither General Soleimani nor any of the others with him had made any attempt to conceal their location or itinerary, and they had no protection against murder from the air – although they were all very familiar with American methods and the immense butcher’s bill such drones have piled up over the years.
No, the murder actually demonstrates the USA’s lack of power. They could not deal with General Soleimani or his Iraqi colleagues in any other way than to murder them. They acted just as Al Capone would have.
As I have mentioned before, the disgraceful and cowardly nature of the act is much aggravated by the fact that it was carried out near the capital city of a country which the USA invaded and has occupied by brute force for 17 years. Even overlooking the illegal nature of the invasion and occupation, the US goverment is the occupying power in Iraq and is thus responsible for maintaining law and order. Blatantly to murder people driving along a public road is beyond disgraceful, beyond illegal, beyond horrible: it is abominable.
Neither General Soleimani nor any of the others with him had made any attempt to conceal their location or itinerary,, which makes these remarks by Jack Straw sound like total ignorance. Speaking to BBC News on Sunday, Straw said:
Even if you accept, which I don’t, President Trump’s assertions that Qassem Suleimani was, quote ‘the world’s worst terrorist leader’, this was not a sensible action to take and it will have really serious implications for the west, for America and for the region as a whole. The other thing I thought when I heard about this, was how petrified the Iranians would then be, because of the penetration of their security screen around Qassem Suleimani. He is the second most well protected individual in the Iranian regime, and the Iranians will be neurotic to an extreme now, that their security and secrecy surrounding his movements was penetrated.
Paul Barbara
This assassination is nothing to do with now. Nothing to do with anything except the 2020 election.
Maybe you are unfamiliar with the Iraq War.
At that time American, Muslim and Christian soldiers were indoctrinated to believe that they were saving Iraqis from a dictator. Yes, the wrong dictator. The right dictator is the US which sucks the oil revenues out of Iraq, black gold and sends terrorists to threaten them with medieval tyranny.
The American public think it was a just war when in fact it was a colonial and criminal attack on civilians. My point was simply that , for his own utterly cynical reasons , Trump has told the American people that he is continuing that fight again at evil. It will influence a lot of Americans.
Maybe you are unable to imagine yourself in other people’s shoes. Trump is just playing an old soundtrack about US military strength in order to get elected. It probably wasn’t even his idea
…
Jack Skripal assassination attempt? I think he and his daughter have probably been assassinated by the CIA already.
Regardless of the supposed legal constructs to justify this assassination, the fact is the USA has rammed a red-hot poker right inside the hornets nest and is expecting a retaliatory reaction from them in further justification to launch an outright war. It has been in the play book for sometime and it was finally acted upon earliest in the decade. If no reaction is forthcoming, a false flag will be created to further it.
According to the USA hierarchy this general was planing and was responsible for attacks on Americans, what were those plans, is there evidence, if so then produce it at the UN. Of course non of this will happen because the USA can still act with impunity and none have the will or might to challenge it for fear of being drawn into it themselves.This assassination will not be the end of the matter.
America won’t stop until it’s stopped so war is inevitable. A non-response will not satisfy it, it will only embolden it. It’s time to stop treading carefully around these Nazis and give them the war they’re after but make sure it’s not the war they want. End Trump’s second-term chances and cause political turmoil in the US; send its fleets to the bottom, annihilate all Saudi oil installations to attack the dollar, flatten Tel Aviv. Take it from there.
Think US war against Iran is avoidable? Pfft! Either it’s war now or later. So do it now. The US must be stopped with the utmost force.
Michael you are absolutely correct and I wholeheartedly support your views. Of course the Western Nations, the African Continent, China Russia and others should all join together to take action that would have a serious impact on the USA. They cannot be allowed to continue like this.
A Royal Navy nuclear-powered attack submarine – which carries Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles – is reportedly being deployed to the Gulf, as tensions between UK and the Iran ratchet up.
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/local-news/reports-royal-navy-nuclear-attack-3120113
This is probably about back up for the Royal Navy Destroyers and Frigates, plying their trade in the Gulf of Persia.
The Persian Gulf is no safe place for a hostile nuclear submarine. It is shallow and narrow, and the submarine would be trapped if fighting broke out. Besides, the Iranians have stealthy diesel submarines designed specifically to sink hostile submarines in the Persian Gulf.
Frigate HMS Montrose and destroyer HMS Defender sent to guide ships through key oil passage
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/british-navy-warships-gulf-strait-of-hormuz-iran-threat-qassem-soleimani-a9270801.html
Apparently in less than twenty years time Oil will be very less relevant, which would mean The Gulf of Persia will be less relevant and the Middle East can sink back into be a forgotten back water.
Possibly, The Donald is causing all this mayhem, so he can sell fracked Hydrocarbon product around the World, before it becomes unwanted.
To do this he must disrupt established players in the Hydrocarbon field, such as Sudan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Venezuela, Russia +Iran.
That article is from July 2019. There don’t seem to be many reports of naval movements towards the region this time.
The Heil quotes Iranian MP Abolfazl Abutorabi – sourcing their info to the Iranian Labour News Agency (it probably came up on Google) – as saying that Iran could strike the White House, “we will respond in an appropriate time”, and “this is a declaration of war, which means if you hesitate you lose”. I’m guessing this guy is either being mistranslated or he has never spent much time in the armed forces. Swinging your testicles saying “I’m not hesitating. I’ll get you when it’s appropriate” isn’t a great look.
Surely Russia won’t abandon Iran?
When you look at the big picture it is hard not to see that Saudi-backed Islamist terrorists ISIS and AL Qaeda were in Syria to overthrow the secular Syrian government as part of a wider campaign to weaken Iran and undermine Iran’s influence in its own region. All the deaths, atrocities, chaos, destruction and refugees are a result of this regime-change policy backed by the West and sponsored by Saudi Arabia. In spite of what most media have been trying to tell us for the past eight years, I think this is a clear fact to anyone who’s not completely biased or brainwashed. Saudi Arabia was the principal sponsor of the Islamist extremist/terrorist invasion of Syria, backed by tens-of-thousands of extremist Muslims recruited from around the world. The Syrian regime-change objective was supported by many Western countries, especially USA. It was only the unity of the Syrian people, the intervention of Russia and, of course, Iran that stopped ISIS taking over Damascus and the whole of Syria.
The other thing to realize is that if ISIS had taken over Syria it would have been a bloody situation far worse than it is/was already. Then you would have a triumphant Islamist extremist/terrorist state/caliphate which would motivate millions more Muslims around the world to wage jihad/terrorism against the West and for the expansion of a fundamentalist, extremist, terrorist Islamic state/caliphate. ISIS would immediately turn on the neighbouring quasi-secular multi-religious Lebanon which ISIS deems un-Islamic and therefore deserving of extermination/genocide. Thousands of extremist Muslims from around the world would be recruited to invade Lebanon to participate in a genocide like they attempted (and to some extent succeeded) in Syria. It would be a slaughterhouse and you would have millions more refugees fleeing to Europe. Who in their right mind could think all of this is a good idea?
There’s also the question of how would they have operated a functioning state with ministries, govt departments etc to administer their caliphate?
Surely, the answer is they couldn’t have done so. No sources of revenue, no international recognition – it would have been a Sunni dominated ‘pariah state’ in the truest sense. It was always pie in the sky from the outset. Many say that Israel wouldn’t have wanted that next door but it would’ve been easily manageable, given their current high vigilance patrols and security measures. A state next door in permanent chaos; a war-torn state run by a divided rabble(eg. Libya?) with lots of small arms and not much else to pose any real threat.
Assad seems to think ISIS was the west’s plan B, after attempts in 2013 at regime change via air power under Obama failed, after the British parliament voted against action….i.e., those western powers in the region now posing as firemen(fighting IS) were once the arsonists who started the blaze they are now putting out.
Daesh were getting revenue from the oil they exported through Turkey.
Are you the same Richard Colvin who served in the Canadian Foreign Service and was involved in the Afghan detainee affair?
I agree with your assessment of Saudi involvement in Syria but don’t believe the latter would have remained intact if Assad had been toppled. One major purpose of the SDF and its support by the ‘Friends of Syria’ (UK, US, Turkey, Japan, et al), and the venal White Helmets, was to splinter Syria into factions to allow pipelines from the Saudi Peninsula to reach Europe through Turkey. The aim was to eliminate European reliance on Russian gas and help to neutralize Putin, among other goals.
But I do agree with your assessment of Saudi efforts to undermine alternative Islamic viewpoints to its Wahabi fundamentalist approach (for e.g. in formerly secular Libya and Iraq), even though it is ironically now marketing itself in a new ‘progressive’ light with the liberation of women and embrace of social media. I figure the KSA is going to have its own internal reckoning when its radicals come home to roost.
As for Lebanon, they’ve never met a problem they couldn’t buy their way out of. Just ask Ghosn, who is emblematic of that country’s ‘heroes’. But seriously speaking, Lebanon’s Hezbollah is a formidable force with considerable internal support in that country. By dissolving Syria, the KSA would not have been able to control ISIS or the factions that would grab certain territories (Kurds in the North, ISIS in Aleppo and Raqqa, HTS in Idlib, etc). I suspect Hezbollah would have been able to spread into neighbouring regions around Lebanon’s borders (Latakia, etc.) and establish footholds there with the local populations. I do not think ISIS would ever have been able to establish a coherent or unified territory under its control.
Hence I think Hillary Clinton probably had proxies ready in place to step in after Assad fell, like Nouri al Malki was designated for Iraq, and Syria would have become another Iraq, facing interminable tribal clashes, with token American forces protecting the swiftly dwindling oil reserves (if they’re not already dry). Ultimately, these regions are supposed to end up looking like Somalia or fractured into pieces, like Sudan. They are not to be allowed to cohere to ever create a Pan Arab front again, like the Ba’ath legacy.
Meanwhile, has anyone noticed that the Golan Heights have disappeared from Syria’s borders on new maps? Oh, what a tangled we we weave….
The main impedance to Syrian and Russian forces routing IS from their strongholds in the east of Syria, was the US. Parts of Syria were made off-limits.
To say their role in the Syrian conflict and rise of the Islamic State is murky, is an understatement.
Actually, one puppet leader’s name was Ayman Asfari, a CEO of a Syrian oil company named Petrofac, who contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the White Helmets’ regime change propaganda campaign. Max Blumenthal wrote an outstanding expose of the White Helmets in 2016, which is always worth re-reading at https://www.alternet.org/2016/10/how-white-helmets-became-international-heroes-while-pushing-us-military/
It’s ironic how American entertainment always shows international villains acting in diabolical, devious fashion with dishonourable, backstabbing and mercenary conduct and intentions (Mission Impossible, Jack Ryan, Homeland, etc.), whereas, in reality, it’s usually their own government that behaves in this fashion. How do they resolve their cognitive dissonance when their white hat toting cowboys actually sport the darkest headgear underneath?
“Who in their right mind could think all of this is a good idea?”
People who are desperate to enrich themselves and their friends, gain as much power as possible over as many people as possible, and of course to appease Israel.
People who don’t give a rodent’s rectum for the deaths or torture of any number of foreigners.
Tom Welsh, you know, I think in part this action is to take the heat off Trump in the USA following his impeachment and pending trial. The USA citizens are massively in favour of him going to trial. This is, in some part, not all, equivalent to Thatcher’s Falklands War – transformed her from the most unpopular Prime Minister to a Popular one.
the last i read, most were not in favor of trump going to trial prior to this action. certainly not “massively”. the dems are just as complicit as the republicans in the warmongering, though.
Trita Parsi:
> Spoke to a very knowledgeable person about what Iran’s response to Soleimani’s assassination might be. This would be the equivalent of Iran assassinating Petreus or Mattis, I argued.
> No, he responded, this is much bigger than that…
https://twitter.com/tparsi/status/1212919449638055938
The nearest equivalent? If we have been following Middle East news from multiple sources these years, it’s quite clear.
To understand their point of view, we can imagine the reverse situation, that an aggressive military power has surrounded and strangled our homeland — let’s say America — for many years in multiple “maximum pressure” ways, while asking for our complete submission, accusing our country of the terrorism they are arming and financing, and claiming we are the aggressors. And then, firing a Hellfire missile from a MQ-9 Reaper drone, they just assassinated president John F. Kennedy.
In their words:
“The Americans did not realize what a grave mistake they have made. They will suffer the consequences of such criminal act not only today, but also throughout the years to come. This crime committed by the US will go down in history as one of their unforgettable crimes against the Iranian nation.”
— Hassan Rouhani, President of Iran
“End of US malign presence in West Asia has begun.”
— Javad Zarif, Foreign Minister of Iran
On Soleimani’s significance in Iran, for example:
> A survey published in 2018 by IranPoll and the University of Maryland — one of the few considered reliable by analysts — found Soleimani had a popularity rating of 83%, beating President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.
Who was General Qasem Soleimani and why was he so popular?
https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/who-is-general-qasem-soleimani-and-why-was-he-so-popular/article30467687.ece
As a comparison, reformist President Hassan Rouhani — who received 57.14% of the votes in the 2017 Iranian presidential election — had a 65.5% popularity in that 2018 survey:
Iranian Public Opinion after the Protests | Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland | July 9, 2018
https://cissm.umd.edu/research-impact/publications/iranian-public-opinion-after-protests
Ultimately it’s all about America controlling Middle East oil as a strategic resource. That means America can control how much oil is produced, how much oil is left in the ground, how much its worth, who the oil is sold to, what currency the oil traded in internationally, who receives the oil-revenues, where do the oil-rich states invest their petrodollar/revenues, who’s weapons do the likes of the Saudis buy with their petrodollars, etc.
So, Saudi Arabia and the other oil-rich Gulf monarchies/states are puppets of America. As long as they do what America tells them to do then America will deploy its military and its soldiers to defend the status quo in the Gulf against external and internal enemies, including democracy. Hence the threat from Iran which threatens to upset the status quo in the Middle East in various ways.
The Bethlehem Doctrine sounds on par with the Salem Witch Trials and lynchings.
Giving that U.S. officials are lying, I have to wonder what their actual agenda is. Why are they afraid to state it openly? Not too long ago, Pompeo was speaking in Texas about how his work in the White House involved lying.
…and on a par with Theresa May’s “highly likely” justification for every egregious, evidence-free reaction by the UK government.
‘Soft lies’ is a key component of the neocon ideology, so they can take the plebs on board with whatever actions they consider necessary for the ultimate goal of controlling the world. This not hyperbole, they see themselves as a necessary intellectual elite ‘for the good’, and everything they are doing is following their route-book to the line.
The problem is the soft lies do not wash any more, so be prepared to watch the US going totally nuts with straight-up violence.
You haven’t presented the real case for “imminent” threat made by US officials, as outlined in this reuters article, and with alleged sources from within the Iraqi military. Without addressing that, this article is just an overblown straw-man argument.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-soleimani-insight-idUSKBN1Z301Z
Allegations of “imminent threat” by US intelligence agencies? No time to examine, think or remember. We need to act NOW!!!
yeah, the “real case” based on “alleged sources”. solid reason to risk world war 3, that.
45 minutes…..
Just being reported on Moon
Iraqi parliament votes that the USA must leave the country….
Hope its correct.
What is “Moon”? There have been reports by the National Iraqi News Agency. The decision contains five points. The Independent are also reporting this.
When NINA say “voted on” I think they mean “voted for” (judging by context). They say Parliament “stressed the need to work to end the presence of any foreign forces in the territories and prevent them from using the Iraqi airspace for any reason, and to submit a formal complaint to the United Nations and the Security Council against America”. Unfortunately I don’t read Arabic, so this is going by NINA’s English translation. NINA also say the decision does not require approval by the president.
The Independent say “Iraqi politicians have voted in favour of a resolution telling the government to end the presence of foreign troops in Iraq, and ensure they not use its land, air, and waters for any reason”, which is stronger than saying they merely “stressed the need”. But they also say “Parliament resolutions, unlike laws, are non-binding to the government”. (They mean “Parliamentary” and “on the government”, but who would deny a “journalist” the time gained by using autocomplete on his smartphone? Note that they say government, not president.)
So I am confused over what has happened in the Baghdad parliament. An Arabic speaker could read the NINA releases and tell us what’s going on!
With reference your final paragraph,
I did note with some surprise yesterday that the Telegraph (!) headlined their round up of reactions to this killing with a phrase that turned out to be from an Assad spokesperson:- Treacherous criminal aggression. Your views are maybe not totally at odds with others perceptions. Or am I grasping at straws ? (They did use quotation marks).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/04/treacherous-criminal-aggression-world-reacted-qassim-soleimanis/
And thanks for disambiguation of the “evolving” concept of imminence. People of the book are very good with words ! Making them meaningless, mainly. Other examples are available.
I believe that in the story of the golem of Prague, the golem was set in motion by a spell placed in the mouth. Which might refer metaphorically to the tendency, and the story concludes with its inevitable denouement, mayhem. Exactly how wide that spreads, we shall see…
And right on cue the Sun and the other MSM are running stories of national pride as to how nuclear submarines, frigates and worships together with special forces are headed to the region.
And once the initial Shock and Awe is over, with a few billion in hardware fired off, we can then look forward to the fun of the boots on the ground getting down and dirty. And perchance a bit of inspirational terrorism in selected host nations thereafter. All good stuff to stiffen the national resolve.
Ah Dominic Raab, thy shall stand tall, as we fight em on the beaches. Rule Britannia.
Petraeus Says Trump May Have Helped ‘Reestablish Deterrence’ by Killing Suleimani
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03/petraeus-on-qassem-suleimani-killing-says-trump-helped-reestablish-deterrence/?fbclid=IwAR364cDVUD4UszwY-wkX5Xx25qy8nlG39g_Yu1LuJYWJEp_1OVIOJSNbscs