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.
In regards to the word “imminent” I suppose one could argue it comes down to semantics. Semantics are extremely important and semantics are never trivial. Common sense and human decency amongst the supposed “upper echelon” attorneys of law is rare. Finding a good lawyer is even less likely, but lucky for me I know a few. Ha, ha…..
Regardless, in general, lawyers are slimy, but not as slimy as the politicians who hire them to give the desired opinion. Lucky for us the numbers for these most slimy few are diminishing and they will just fade away over the years……..2020 is the year of Peace!
It is difficult not to issue a cynical laugh at Raab’s entreaty to Iran to seek “diplomatic solutions” to Sulameini’s murder – perhaps he might direct that recommendation to Trump. I am also intrigued by the announcement to suspend “allied” attacks on Daesh to protect USA personnel instead. This might be a way of threatening the Iraq government that it will be defenceless against Daesh if it tries to get rid of American and others’ presence. But it also makes you realise how little we the Joe Public has been kept informed about what the UK has actually done (as an illegal occupier) and is doing in that neck of the woods. No parliamentary scrutiny, no accountability.
@ Crispa January 5, 2020 at 20:20
‘..But it also makes you realise how little we the Joe Public has been kept informed about what the UK has actually done (as an illegal occupier) and is doing in that neck of the woods. No parliamentary scrutiny, no accountability.’
I can help you out a little: ‘ENG SUB [Syria] White Helmets – Southern Dossier’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0mjLq_fwHc&feature=share
and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeyRwFHR8WY
I gave a link to the first one myself in a previous blog. I meant of course being kept informed from official sources and factual information via the media. No such luck.
OK. Let’s try this. Suppose “someone” murders trump, Pompeo, and a dozen or so other US stuffed shirts.
Then let the USA seek “diplomatic solutions”.
Does that work for you?
(Of course the example is flawed, as by “diplomatic solutions” the US government understands massive bombardment with missiles).
Tom Welsh
Speculation on how this mistake by Trump’s advisors will be avenged will not prevent it happening.
We are not in a Hollywood movie. The revenge will be targeted at the advisors , not the Orangutan.
you are talking Zionist SchmalzTony, go have a little lay down.
They were Saudi. Bin Laden was Saudi. Saudi is Israeli. Israel is Zion. Zion is the Balfour Declaration that Rothschild was addressed to. And he and the Fed gave the go ahead to send US troops into the First World War to save the Brits and French while taking a very large chunk of the spoils … if you don’t like deep as well as wide history then you are like a vegetable. Not going far.
@ Harald Meling January 5, 2020 at 19:37
Hear, hear.
US embassy in Baghdad attacked again.
Al-Arabia, no translation in english yet, russian source
https://ria.ru/20200105/1563136365.html
—
someone tried to learn arabic language? is it hard?
The US embassy is a fortress; they won’t succeed in getting in.
Trump’s probably composing his tweet now, to blame Iran:
‘One US military, two contractors killed in Al-Shabaab attack in Kenya, two DoD personnel injured’:
https://www.rt.com/news/477534-kenya-attack-us-military-killed/?
I wonder what St John Philby, father of Kim, would make of the way things turned out in KSA, after he helped US with the biggest oil deal in history. Learnt a lot reading ‘Treason in the Blood’. Also the film ‘Bitterlake’ on which Roosevelt makes a deal with the Saudi King. How things have changed. From Arabists who converted to Islam to Game Show hosts running matters of War and Peace. From great diplomats to little runts telling countries like Russia to go away and shut up. From the FCO being a break on the Executive to fitting up Craig. What a sad decline and fall.
If Iran does ‘attack’ US interests it would invoke Article 5 of the Nato charter, which means the UK cannot wriggle out of a war. It was invoked after 9/11 and our boys were sent to Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Johnson has no choice, and his majority in parliament will endorse it. We have two warships in the gulf and some SAS troops on their way to cause trouble, so it’s already game on.
strange that you think of warships.
I thought of young boys who would maybe watch the same blue sky as Bolkonsky in Austerlitz, for the last time, when dying. US and UK would be typing ‘Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of those who lost their lives today’ in their twitters from their secured cabinets. The rest of the world will continue to live on, just another news to gossip.
Is it fair to exchange a life for the copy-pasted speech of a fat politician?
In ancient times it was a custom that the king goes at the head of the army, and his sons ride next to him.
A reminder that no country has contributed more to literature than Tatyana’s has in the past two centuries. The sooner its benign influence is extended westwards the better it will be.
Article 5 doesnt work like that, but the thing is, it doesnt matter. UK would be the first to join regardless, they have been perhaps the most vocal supporter of what Trump just did.
UK first to join? They’d have to push Australia out of the way to get to the head of the queue.
I assume you mean some of UK government is pro military action and supporting Trump regardless. …for the general population it’s back to Iraq war and the matter if how can the general public stop it
The whole regions is up in arms, and you are talking about wars that will be won? Either you are brigade 77 et al. or some ill-informed soul who has no sense of geography. Best stop posting and start reading around to learn what is happening before you come here and spout “game on”.
Thank god for the bushfires. Otherwise you would be correct Robyn. Scumo is too busy stuffing up his every response to our very own disaster.
‘Australia has about 350 troops based in Iraq as part of Operation OKRA, with about 2000 more throughout the Middle East and North Africa in a support capacity.’
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australian-government-strongly-concerned-after-us-troops-told-to-leave-iraq-20200106-p53pb1.html
Operation OKRA = 2014 to date according to this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Okra
Article 5 , of course, doesn’t work out of NATO area.
The UN Security Council supported the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.
I am not at all sure that Britain will slavishly follow the US into a war against Iran in 2020, although a Gulf of Tonkin incident (or a surprise attack by an “unknown party”) could no doubt be arranged. According to the FT, British officials have said it is for the US to justify the legality of their action. I can’t remember them saying anything like that before. The EU haven’t been warm in their praises of the assassination either: they’ve invited Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif for talks. Britain seems to be trying to advertise itself as a mediator between the US and the EU, which is ridiculous and pathetic, because if there is a post-Brexit geopolitical role for Britain then it isn’t that: the US and EU can sort things out between themseves, thank you very much. The Russian government is saying hardly anything.
UNSC is not the same as Monster was saying. An SC resolution is not obligatory on UN members.
My guess is that the key event was the storming of the USA embassy in the green zone of Baghdad, which could only have happened with the permission, and most likely instigation, of K Soleimani. No USA president wants an USA embassy to be overtaken, and its people held as hostages, never mind during a re-election campaign.
For having dared to make that threat K Soleimani was “punished”: a mob-style “message” to his superiors. Realpolitik is pretty much like mob dealings…
Yeah, he probably behind the poll tax riots in the UK too.
Do angry mobs need to be directed by some ‘mastermind’? Besides, the Iraqi govt is responsible for Iraqi policing and embassy security.
This is just more BS assigning of blame without evidence.
Goose
“Do angry mobs need to be directed by some ‘mastermind’?”
In the fantasy world inhabited by Americans, yes. There are of course so many endless examples of US intelligence services doing just this on foreign territory that they regard it as ‘the norm’ and mistakenly believe that everyone else must be at it. And in this fantasy world surely nobody would have a legitimate reason to demonstrate against the US, would they, without being duped into it? 🙂
The attack on the embassy was unlikely to have been commanded by a CIA mastermind with “I organised the Brixton, Tottenham and poll tax riots, and before that I organised the torching of the British embassy in Dublin after the Bloody Sunday massacre” on his CV. Events ran as follows.
27 Dec: rocket attack on US K1 airbase in Kirkuk
29 Dec: US aerial bombing against Kata’ib Hezbollah in Iraq and Syria, killing at least 25 people.
31 Dec: attack by crowd on the US embassy in Baghdad – no military weapons used, as far as I am aware
3 Jan: US assassinate Iranian general Qassem Soleimani
The event that started the ball rolling here, and was used by the US as “justification” for the largest attack (by far) in terms of casualties, nameky the 29 Dec bombing, was the 27 Dec attack in Kirkuk. The US blamed Kata’ib Hezbollah, but that group has denied it. So what we have is another “attack by an unknown party” (AUP) in the region, leading to the possibility of an escalation between the US and Iran and a burial of the JCPOA nuclear process. This is the latest in a string of such AUPs which have been happening on land and at sea over several months. The most likely guilty party is Israel.
Do you have any evidence for the attacks being by Israel?,
I completely agree. Over the past 6 months or so Iran has been “poking the bear” so to speak, having been behind a number of incidents in the ME. Attacking the US embassy was a last straw, and now Trump has sent them a very firm message.
For all those complaining about Soleimani killing, what else should the US have done in response? To date, Trump’s held off military action action against Iran and opted for increasing sanctions. That has had the desired effect, as evidenced by the embassy attack. So now he’s let them know he’s not to be messed with.
I fully support him in this move.
Ian Dobbs
I also fully support Trump’ action.
Because it will unite the Muslims, end colonial war for oil, make it impossible for Yanks in shorts to travel the globe, end the petrodollar , place Russia and China at the head of the United Nations, expose our prime minister as a buffoon, all immediately.
The long term consequences for red necks dressed as orangutans is less certain…
Projection: blaming others for behaving the way you do.
The septics have been formenting revolts in other countries for decades.
“For all those complaining about Soleimani killing, what else should the US have done in response?”
1. Not attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq 16 years ago. (An unprovoked war of aggression, the supreme international crime).
2. Not continued to occupy Iraq (apparently indefinitely) in order to plunder its resources (mainly oil).
3. Removed all US people (except possibly a small embassy staff) from Iraq, where they have no legal right to be.
4. Not murdered millions (literally) of Iraqis since 1990.
5. Not urged Saddam Hussein to launch a murderous war against Iran that killed at least 1 million Iranians.
6. Not created, funded and directed ISIS, Al Qaeda and the rest of the terrorist alphabet soup to kill people in the Middle East and elsewhere.
If the Americans were not illegally in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere (their very presence being a war crime) they would not be in danger.
A good start, Tom. Now back to “The lying 77th” for Ian’s thoughts on the matter.
Apparently his mind’s a blank at the moment.
General Suleimani was about to wipe ISIS from the whole Middle East. That’s why the US and Israel killed him. They committed an atrocity to save their abomination.
If the latest rumour is the General was in Iraq in response to an American diplomatic approach to Iraq to act as mediator between the US and Iran. If that’s true then the General was in Baghdad on a diplomatic mission not a military one; and if the arrangement was made to put him in Baghdad Airport at a given time so he could be killed, then words like atrocity and betrayal are just not strong enough condemnation. If it turns out this is the case I don’t see how even Boris Johnson could support it.
Are you trying to say that the U.S. “embassy” in Baghdad was really stormed by ordinary, angry Iraqis? This den of conspiracies is inside a fortress, guarded like no other in the world, and no Iraqi could have entered the area alive. The “attack” was staged by the U.S. for the reasons it is being used for.
Do you think you made enough unwarranted assumptions, completely unsupported by any shred of evidence?
This can only be stopped by Russia and China. If not Iran is destroyed, taking with it KSA, Gulf States and Israel gets attacked from Lebanon. Gulf is closed and the we can thank the BBC, Friends of Israel in the Labour Party and the rest of the War Mongers. They got the War they wanted and worked so hard for.
Wikikettle, I see much more easier way, without war. It only takes UK to say they don’t support it. It even may be France + Germany who say the same. Or Australia+Canada. Or even US itself finds a decent person somewhere in their country to stop it all with one precise action.
Tatyana, I can assure you that “UK does not support it”. I am a British citizen and I do not support it. I very much doubt if anyone living on my street would support it.
But what does that matter? It’s not as if we were living in a democracy. I can write to my MP (who is a Conservative, and for whom I did not vote); she will have a soothing letter of boilerplate sent to me explaining that everything is fine.
The only important fact is that the decision-makers in London support it. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Tom Welsh, all i can say is, that it’s sad.
I blame it on your electoral system, in which anyone can stand for elections provided he has 500 pounds in his pocket. Compared to our system, we are becoming more responsible, candidates need to collect a certain number of signatures from real people, with passport data etc. Thus our electoral system truly reflects real public support.
Your mechanisms of influence on power seem funny to me (you know, I’m Russian and absurd things are funny for me).
I ran a store once, and we were obligated, by law, to have a Book of Complaints and Suggestions, there dissatisfied customers write complaints. So, I see your right to go to a protest as a legitimate right to ‘write a complaint in a book’. It’s just a means ‘let the steam out’ and does not oblige any side of the conflict to further actions.
—
I suspect that this my comment will be regarded as “undermining British Democracy,” for which I sincerely apologize to all adherents of British Democracy.
Thanks for your reply, Tatyana. Actually I found it both instructive and surprising. You see, one of my main criticisms of Western “democracy” is that candidacy is not open enough. In general, to stand in an election with any chance of success you must join one of the major parties, and then submit to their rules. That means that the party bosses can choose who stand as candidates.
Thus candidates are already filtered and selected before the election. The voters can choose Brand X, Brand X, Brand X or Brand X.
Iran is not Iraq or Syria, it has eighty million population and a highly educated youth. She has indigenous defence industries. Destroying Iran is not as easy as you imagine, despite the technological edge of the US forces. Fact is Persian Gulf makes for shooting fish in the barrel scenario that seems to be conveniently overlooked by the idiots in the West whose calculations so far has backfired into getting the US and NATO troops expelled from Iraq and designated as an occupation force. Get it?
Well Said Fedup…And Good to see you Back here
” Iran is not Iraq ”
Dead right there.. And we will all Suffer now.. As The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most important oil transit chokepoint
Hi Brian,
It is a pleasure to see you too.
Very true, this is not going to end well, a quarter of the oil of the planet is going through Hormuz and any interruption will cripple the world economy, and especially the weak economies like our own that is only made viable because of the aggregation of the fluidity (money) that includes the stock market and the loans made to foreign governments etc. Stripping away such income from the GDP (what a joke) would clarify the extent of trouble we all are in.
But if Iran mines the Straits, what does that do for demand and price of US shale oil and gas?
Sadly, some would see that scenario as some sort of win.
They cannot sell oil at such inflated prices and furthermore they are not in a position to supply quarter of the oil needs of the world in a stroke.
Post-modernist unreason/nonsense masquerading as neoreason should not blind you to the actualities.
Not just US oil but Russian oil too. Russia exports three times as much oil as the US.
We should all sincerely and reverently hope that Russia, China – and, one hopes, India and Pakistan – have Iran’s back.
@Tom Welsh
I disagree with that, but myself personally, I have always had “Iran’s back”. I love the Persian history.
With regards to “having Iran’s back” it is in the published internet record and I’ve been consistent on that. I don’t care for the way Israel has behaved for many years, and that is in the record as well.
Basically though – who gives a shit.
2020 – Year of Peace
Iran and Iraq were at war for 8 years and neither side won. The US rolled over the Iraq’s army in about 3 days. Do you really believe Iran is now so much more mighty! Come on, the same thing would happen if there was ever an all out war with Iran. The fact is they are not stupid enough to start one. They know they will lose. They are talking tough like they have always done.
“The US rolled over the Iraq’s army in about 3 days”
Iraq did not have an army or a functioning weapons systems array to fight the yanks. The media sold the weapons of mass destruction and evidently you bought it. Those tanks on the telly were just carcases taken to site and left there by Iraqis. You have not heard the latest then!
If after our revenge US takes another action we will destroy Israel.
This one has teeth and can kick as good as it gets kicked.
Iran won that war by not losing. They would do the same with us, unless we used nukes. If we did use nukes, we would make ourselves an international pariah, and lose that way.
That’s wrong, Lysias, Iran did lose in 1988, because they could no longer defend their frontier. But it was hushed up after the invasion of Kuwait the following year, and Saddam was no longer to be defended.
Laguerre, may I suggest you read The Saker’s latest post.
As for your judgment about Iran having lost because it could no longer defend its frontier, may I draw your attention to the Great Patriotic War? In 1941-2 the USSR could hardly defend its frontiers – the Germans penetrated hundreds of miles beyond them. Yet in the end, the USSR utterly smashed the German invaders.
I do not care to argue the toss with someone who evidently has not taken the time and trouble to inform himself.
So I will merely quote Mark Twain, who said that “It’s a difference of opinion that makes for horse races”. (Essentially a plug for the experimental method).
Let’s wait and see what happens.
They did advance very rapidly, but that was because of the terrain. Iraq is mostly flat desert, easy for tanks and other vehicles push, Iran is not. Capable air defence systems, difficult terrain and a well trained army would mean Iran would be a very costly nut for the US to crack. I think the game plan of destabilizing Iran from within will remain and any military action will stay focussed on containment.
Moronic re-writing of hostory.
Is that why our troops took years to leave and there are still thousands there? Why do you morons bother? Take it to the Mail and Sun you’ll get a lot of upticks many morons there.
And the US has been 18 years in Afghanistan and still losing. Russia lost there but that was with America’s help. America is good at starting wars, flattening countries, killing and displacing millions, but piss poor at actually winning. Unlike Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, against Iran the war would be one they had to win but they’re not up to it. They can’t say they won by killing ten or twenty million, they can only say they won if they defeat Iran and they’re just not good enough to do it.
They formed a coalition in 1991 against Iraq because they weren’t good enough on the ground alone.
The whole US war machine is about US taxpayers paying the costs and US corporations looting the resources.
The corporations could not care two hoots how much money the US wastes on ‘war’. All they care about are the licenses to loot and plunder. Afghnaistan gave the CIA the heroin trade, Iraq gave Texans oil wells.
You should focus solely on the shady individuals and corporations who make hay from war.
“The US rolled over the Iraq’s army in about 3 days.”
Yes, Ian. And then what? Within months tiny groups of patriots had begun to make life unbearable for the US occupiers. Conquering ground in war is easy, very easy when one side has all the resources-holding it is the hard part.
“US Americans are cursed with a special mental block: many (most?!) of them sincerely believe that war is an end in itself. It is not. Wars ALWAYS have a POLITICAL objective. This is why the USA has both won each war it fought since WWII AND lost each one too”.
– The Saker, https://thesaker.is/short-intermission-of-sorts-with-a-few-apparently-needed-explanations/
That whole post is STRONGLY recommended reading for everyone who is sincerely interested in the repercussions of General Soleimani’s murder.
fedup: “Destroying Iran is not as easy as you imagine”
You honestly have no idea how easy it would be. They’d do it too. Iran is completely surrounded by a massive array of force. The US on its own has enough to wipe Iran out between breakfast and lunch. Add to that Israel, the UK, Saudi Arabia, and a bunch of others.
Anyone who has watched the video of the latest strikes will have no trouble imagining what could unfold here if Iran makes one bad move. https://twitter.com/i/status/1213930954919677954
Give over mate, you are talking out of your hat, included posting clips of video games as sources of news. What are you? A propagandist?
You really think that’s a clip from a video game?
No ofc not!!!!
Give over mate that is a video game clip.
Killing a bunch of defenceless women and children is not the same as going to war with a professional battle hardened army. Go back to your video games now, you will get your kicks there.
” between breakfast and lunch ” …. like Afghanistan perhaps ?
Thankyou fedup for exposing the fraud.
Hitler thought beating Russia would be easy.
The U.S. had no idea we would lose in puny Vietnam.
“Hitler thought beating Russia would be easy”.
And it really looked that way, too – for the first three months.
Afterwards, not so much.
Iran is not completely surrounded. Russia has warships in the Caspian from which cruise missile attacks on Daesh in Syria were successful. There is no way the US could destroy Iran if Russia comes to its defence. The balance in cyber forces is not publicly known but I doubt that’s tilted the US’s way given Estonia, Ukraine, and NATO bleating, and comparing for example in the wider infowar domain Russian influence on US (or British) politics with (magnitudes weaker) US influence on Russian politics.
Do you seriously think Russia would go to war for Iran? I don’t. More likely Russia would wait until the country was suffering serious war damage and then offer limited support while mopping up strategic advantages in the country and region
“Russia would wait until the country was suffering serious war damage and then offer limited support while mopping up strategic advantages in the country and region”
Supposing that you are right can you not see that such an outcome would be as much to the US disadvantage as the 2003 conquest of Iraq, leading to the enormous strengthening of the Iranian position, turned out to be.
But your supposition underestimates Iran’s capacity to defend itself and over estimates the US ability to invade without secure bases.
The only way the US can ensure victory over Iran would involve the use of nuclear weapons. And that would completely change the attitudes of both Russia and China. And probably Europe too would finally get the message that its alliance with the US has very dangerous consequences.
The last generation, facing US aggression in the 1980s did.
KERPOW!!
Quite a blood thirsty missus ain’t ya!
You do know that just a couple of weeks ago the Iranians and Russia AND China conducted joint naval exercises?
Iran is almost a full member of the Shanghai Co-Operation Organisation- which now comes with mutual security! Sort of like a nato of Eurasia, but bigger and BETTER because they have weapons that really work and millions of soldiers.
You better get ready for a severe bruising lady – KERPOW! BOSH!!
Strangely not mentioning the Tories and BoJo which could actually not support any war like response but of course jump to be USAs lapdog
The UK could not contribute anything to a US war against Iran. At best it could get most of its “Navy” sunk and a few aircraft shot down.
Ok a final selection summary that i have been posting – it states clearly how the General DID marshal resources for Phase 3 & 4 of the grand plan from progressing into Iran and Syria.
The following quotes more from
https://ctc.usma.edu/qassem-soleimani-irans-unique-regional-strategy/
—–
‘In 2003, the U.S. invasion of Iraq pushed Syria and Iran still closer together, as both regimes realized that if the Americans succeeded in Iraq, they could be next. To damage the U.S. occupation, Soleimani helped Syrian intelligence create pipelines for funneling Sunni jihadis into Iraq. Once there, the jihadis attacked U.S. forces, often using roadside bombs supplied by Soleimani’s Quds Force from factories inside Iran.
Soleimani soon intervened more directly in Iraq, too, sending in Shi`a militias as proxies. Under his leadership, the Quds Force stood up a number of militias for the express purpose of attacking U.S. and allied troops. Collectively, these organizations were responsible for hundreds of coalition deaths. One of them, Asaib Ahl al-Haq (League of the Righteous), claimed more than 6,000 such attacks between its creation in 2006 and the U.S. withdrawal in 2011—an average of more than three per day, every day, for five years. ‘
—–
But that is not the reason why he was assassinated now or more aptly then!
Goodnight all hope we wake up without a bang!
That article comes from the Combating Terrorism Center of the US miltary academy,, so you can guess what its approach is going to be and whether to take it with several tons of salt or not.
Dig deeper dear war.
I did.
Wouldn’t hire you as a navvy, gravedigger or miner or farmer, bet you have a concrete garden too.
Unless you have a specific objection about anything i have quoted from a report presented over a year ago, i suggest you go pound sand in a rat hole as a third rate general might say to a superior enemy oppo.
The US struck Iran at the heart of its pride by killing Major General Soleimani. But the “axis of the Resistance” killed him before that. This is how:
https://ejmagnier.com/2020/01/05/fragmentation-in-the-axis-of-resistance-led-to-soleimanis-death
Dungroaning
I think Elijah Magnier is a great journalist and analyst with much inside knowledge . The article is very illuminating. But I think there are a couple of things that Magnier did not mention. The first is that one of the major successes of the Axis of Resistence (AoR) is that it recruited Russia as an active participant and backer. This had led to reversal of then inevitable takeover of Syria by the empire!s proxies. The second thing is that by definition the AoR is what it says, resistance and that is in recognition of the superiority of the empire enemy. Therefore it would be only an empty gesture for this axis to respond to each provocation with action that escalates to the point that the empire uses its full might. Putin also understands this.
Thirdly, if Soliemani’s death means that there has been unifications of the disunity in Iraq exposure and elimination of the fifth columnists and resulting of departure of the US forces from Iraq then that would be a very great achievement and would even allow Russia perhaps to assist in Iraq.
The AoR is not just one country and will not die because of the death of one person but as we often see such obviously cowardly action by the US denotes desperation. We shall see.
SA agree with all you say, the AoR has been made anew by the martyrdom of both the Generals.
I perhaps think Soleimani may not have been the primary target – unless Trump confirms with release of the intelligence he claims.
The only thing I know is that war is politics, and politics is not black and white and a week is a long time in that game… i expect any move by bozo to do a Yo Bliar act with the US will lead to a much much bigger anti-war campaign here – and this time we will not be ignored.
The fact that the Times has lied that Iranians are ready to kill British soldiers and the Guardian claims the funeral crowds to be just hundred thousands, when it is clearly MILLIONS – we still don’t have an effective news regulator that allows the msm and social media to get away with such bollocks.
Another important things to know:
Erdogan is sending his troops into Lybia.
Geoduck is thrown away of Venesualian National Assabley.
Greece, Macedonia and Bulgaria start receiving their first portions through Turkish Stream.
—
If they strike in the night and you don’t see me here tomorrow, please remember I love this world and all of you, and please be kind, and wise, and patient, have fun and remember we only die once, but live every day 🙂
—
p.s. And if you see a long tunnel, stay away from the light! (c) Donkey
Tatyana
There is an Arabic saying that is roughly translated as follows
“The dogs bark but the camels keep going”
The western leaders remind me of this chorus of futile barking whilst the ?, symbol of endurance and power and determination, just continued in its journey .
Also, US firms now extracting oil and gas in Eastern Mediterranean.
Erdogan is trying to kibosh agreements over divvying up the assets between Greece, Turkey, Cyprus and Israel by challenging the nature of Cyprus as a ‘nation’.
The US is solely interested in finding new ways to exploit oil and gas. That is why it wanted to loot Russia back in the day……..
Just wondering here.
Judging by the crowds I’m seeing in the various reports of the mourning of Soleimani, has anybody considered that All parties despite the public utterances of some, may be glad to see the back of the guy ?
With the elimination of ISIS, and his public popularity in Iran and Shia land, this fella was ideally positioned to build on his success to the detriment of all the players concerned, even Israel ?
Whatever one may think of the ruling theocracy in Iran, its probably fair to think that they are not idiots, and that they realise that their best plan is in a slow realisation of their aims. It would not be beyond the realms of reason to suppose that Soleimani, buoyed by success and popularity, could have overestimated his abilities to the point where the whole apple-cart would have been upset simply because his public acclimation could have brought his aims into conflict with those of Iran’s rulers ?
Students of history may care to research what might be a similar event when a certain Douglas MacArthur, was deemed for a short period to have represented a threat to the Truman presidency due to the administrations unwillingness to use nuclear weapons in Korea. Fortunately for all concerned MacArthur’s public support for such a move was short lived.
In my opinion, the word “imminent” should be understood literally. Like…..”its gonna happen at any moment”. For all other situations, the act of assassination is criminal.
To clarify….”at any moment” means within minutes.
and ‘within 45 minutes’ means ‘and we are still waiting 18 years on for it to happen….’
To further clarify because sometimes I like to talk to myself.
The word “imminent” in and of itself is obviously inadequate. There had to also be a credible threat. Not only credible, but a threat to the level of “scale” that it could jeopardize the fate of many. Now hear me out on this. What is credible? How do you get to the bottom of the facts. Moreover, how do you do this in a matter of minutes? From my perspective it just does not matter. If you are going to take someone’s life in your hands – take it away; then you better have your facts straight and you better be able to do that in a matter of minutes.
In ALL other situations assassination is illegal, and often, even with all of these conditions met, it is illegal. Assassination reflects desperation and that perhaps is the story here. Nonetheless, I’m saddened by the loss of life.
The Assassination of individuals deemed to be rocking the boat to an unwarranted degree has been going on probably since mankind developed ruling groups ?
It will probably continue as long as we are dominant species on the planet ?
Disagree with that for sure.
With no disrespect meant, more than being saddened by the loss of life I feel a need for justified retribution. I’ve felt it for a long time. It mainly started when George W and his pals and attorney advisers started an illegal war.
Buffalo_Ken
I agree with what you have said, mainly because there is no balance in the World. The USA is out of control and has an evil, narcissistic monster in charge. The US spends more than all other countries combined on its military might and feels the need to use it regularly.
The UN, OPCW are controlled by the US, and the US does not recognise the ICC.
The key question, CasualObserver, is very simply this: “Do you believe in law?”
If not, you are clearly aligned with Washington, London and Tel Aviv.
If you do believe in law, then the next question is “Do you believe that law should apply to all alike, or only to some?”
Why did Airey Neave pop into my mind as I read that?…………..
Buffalo Ken
The use of the word imminent is curious if taken literally because the war against Iran is well mapped out prior to to this stupid act of terror. Include in that the fraudulent election of Johnson by the Tories and the fraudulent election. All preparation for the attack.
English doesn’t express the completeness of an action easily, but it seems likely that the pre-planning of this murder was completed after the failure of the Houtha chemical scam and after Russia thwarted May’s rocket attacks on Syria.
As soon as Usukis realised it was defeated in Syria, it began preparations for attacks on Iran. The arrangements will have been planned in advance by the assassinator Muhammad bin Salman who lured General Suleiman to fake peace talks. You can get a murderer to do anything.
Like the war on Iraq , all this has been long pre-planned.
For which the word imminent is a smokescreen.
You have not read the comments, have you?
Soleimani was on a diplomatic mission to Iraq, he was on his way to see the Iraqi prime minister and discuss the Saudi proposals with him. This could have included the end to Saudi entanglement in Yemen, and end of that war. He was on a civilian flight and travelling in civilian cars. Hence, the opportunity to hit him. Yanks and zionists had tried to blow him up with around five thousand other souls in his home town and the plot was discovered the cell captured.
Can I take all that to the bank ?
Or could it be that there are at this time two concerted efforts, one to paint Soleimani as a saint, and the other as the Devil incarnate.
None of the above!
What you see is an ill-judged “wag the dog” moment that has gone south with serious repercussions to follow. Already Bojo has sent a telegram to ask Iraqis for permission to let British troops to stay in Iraq.
The postmodernist pap that is being fed as the regular news diet does not come remotely to reflect the actualities on the ground.
Soleimani was very popular. I heard one vox pop xith a woman student in Tehran who said she was opposed to the regime, but nrvertheless thought QS’s death was a catastrophe, he was such an icon. She was nationalistic, as most Iranians are.
This guy is a pretty good commentator. How about his theory? As opposed to the combined death of both the death of al-Muhandes, as a Shia, would not have caused the same united Shia/Sunni rejection of the US.
Lozion@62 – Re: Your Magnier quote, “The US did not plan to kill the vice commander of the Iraqi Hashd al-Shaabi brigade Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes when it assassinated Iranian Brigadier General Qassem Soleiman”
The light bulb above my chimpanzee brain just flickered (briefly). Somewhere on SST (maybe Lang?): something to the effect of ‘Never underestimate US gov/mil incompetence’. Maybe it was the opposite of what Magnier thought really took place.
Treasonous, dual-citizen chickenhawks of the US possibly targeted Hashd al-Shaabi vice-commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes. They were trying to kill him because they found out from some snitch that he just showed up at the airport for some reason. The all-seeing US didn’t realize Soleimani was even there. I guess because the sneaky Soleimani flew commercial into Baghdad and probably carried his bags to the waiting SUVs. Who would have expected that? How devious!
This seems entirely plausible to me. Soleimani was too expensive a target – end of the State of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE and all. But whacking a vice-commander of Hashd al-Shaabi with a quarter-million dollar JAGM? Hell YEAH! We live for this kind of preventative assassination heroism in the US. Especially if accompanied by colorful graphics.
The awkward and delayed response of the usual US mil/gov mouthpieces makes this ridiculous scenario even more believable. I have thoroughly convinced myself that this was a US screw-up of EPIC proportions. In case the US government is reading MoA, this was all Lozion’s doing. I’m an innocent conspiracy primate.
Posted by: PavewayIV | Jan 5 2020 1:00 utc | 135
……………….
Or perhaps it is more the case that they didn’t expect to have to launch a massive damage control operation this weekend? PavewayIV’s speculation back @135, though evidence doesn’t exist at the moment to prove it, fits what we do know surprisingly well. The outrageous incompetence, not just of the current administration in Washington but of the entire imperial establishment, is certainly extreme enough for them to not even know Gen. Suleimani was there. That and the casual attitude Americans have about murder such that they wouldn’t bother checking who else they might be killing in their enthusiasm to spill blood easily explains why they didn’t double check the target.
Americans are convinced that they can wield violence like a sculptor wields a chisel, carving a pro-empire masterpiece out of the raw material that the world represents like Michelangelo working a block of marble. A sick blend of hubris and psychosis.
Relying on low-skill second string spin management staff to cover the screw-up? The Tweeter-in-Chief’s uncharacteristic silence after the deed was done? The US now trying to negotiate their way out of the the justified response that is inevitable? The US starting a war with not nearly enough troops and hardware in the theater to have any hope at success? I think the speculation by PavewayIV @135 might be right. The fools who think themselves to be artistes de violence shattered their “masterpiece” with an errant blow and now must change their adult incontinence garments.
Posted by: William Gruff | Jan 5 2020 19:00 utc | 324
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/01/the-revenge-for-the-assassination-of-qassem-soleimani/comments/page/2/#comments
” The all-seeing US didn’t realize Soleimani was even there. I guess because the sneaky Soleimani flew commercial into Baghdad and probably carried his bags to the waiting SUVs. Who would have expected that? How devious!”
This does not seem supported by the Iraq PM’s statement in its parliament that he was deceived by Trump into inviting Soleimani to Baghdad on the pretext that he would be party to some diplomatic talks thereby indicating to the American assassins where he would be and at what time. He feels, quite rightly, a tad aggrieved by this duplicity.
Trump did not consult any of the US sources, despite fact that three days before he had discussed the case with Israelis!
No cigars there.
However, both parties had flown from Damascus to Baghdad on a commercial flight (reading the scant data). This was supposed to be a simple hit-and-run (another cakewalk), in the minds of the morons initiating it, and now it has blown out to be the last straw and the US forces are declared as occupation forces in Iraq, and they are told to get out. ie the war in Iraq has just got back on line.
Someone, it may have been Kissinger, is reported to have said that the world was a safer place, ironically,, when Nixon was president. Because he was so unpredictable, no one wanted to provoke him. For fear of the consequences.
I agree with posters here who say the US embassy in Baghdad is almost impenetrable in the Green Zone. There must have been some very high level agreement at government level for the Iraqi troops guarding it, to stand aside and let in the protestors, who, we are told, were members of the Irani backed local hezbollah. This is funded by Iran and was run by the two men the Americans just assassinated.
Maybe Al Kaemenei will indeed now think twice about goading Trump on Twitter , like he did last week.
Impenetrable!
Lol missus. Drones as you know will get places crowds won’t.
“Drones as you know will get places crowds won’t”.
Very true. As the world saw when Saudi Arabia’s oil installations went up in flames. Two thoughts:
1. Saudi Arabia had spent very heavily for the best US air defence systems.
2. To this day no one knows for sure where the attack came from.
Americans would do well to think on.
Great!
That is a video game clip mate, American flag and image of Trump should have given the game away for you. Part of the “Psychological warfare” shit, these dudes don’t understand the gravity of the situation hence these feeble efforts included the last edit of the tearful Iranian newscaster broadcasting the news and the army officer present.
We are living in a postmodernist nightmare that makes 2 and 2 five, recollecting Orwell.
Please don’t call me “mate”. Everything else I’ll ignore. I hate people that call me “mate”.
Iran has done a lot of chanting, it has roused the rabble, it has even called in favours to have the Iraqi parliament pass a vote that will have no meaningful impact. What is has not yet done, is retaliate, and every hour that passes in which it fails to do so, the outpouring of support from supporters and critics alike, will ebb away. It faces an impossible situation: if it responds it gives the US an excuse to escalate its attacks, but, if it fails to respond, the show of weakness will destabilize it domestically, and embolden the US to attack it further, confident that Iran has been so cowed by threats of annihilation that nothing they do will elicit retaliation.
In a situation in which you are doomed if you do, and doomed if you don’t, the only logical decision is to choose whichever option has the longest time horizon.
” it has even called in favours to have the Iraqi parliament pass a vote that will have no meaningful impact”
The Iraqis have decided they have had enough, it is not a favour called in. Already the various factions are gathering around and some are going so far as demanding the closure of the US embassy there. You are underestimating the strength of the feeling in Iraq. The US orchestrated demonstration and October protests ala Hong Kong ought not fool you.
Iraqi prime minister spilling the bins was not a favour but his contribution to Iraqi sovereignty.
We’ll see, but you must admit the lack of any military response from Iran thus far, will have the hawks in Trump’s administration salivating. Right now, Iran is all mouth, and now thawb.
The Iranians prefer their revenge cold. They will not be goaded onto the kind of instant reaction Trump can be.
The immediate military response from Iran would be falling into the trap set. Y US/ apartheid state. The Iranians are too Cairngorms that. Remember when the Russian plane was shot in north Syria by Turkey and Putin did not respond in kind? The good generals know how and when to respond and win the war if not the battle.
Ross, military operations are not generally planned “on the hoof” in the way you seem to believe.
If and when the Iranians carry out some sort of reprisal against the Trump regime I am sure they will so in a carefully planned way.
Goading them will get no result here, Ross, Iraq has been wronged and threatening Iran by mouthing off illegal threats to destroy Heritage sites, whilst Herr Tugendhart MP on Radio 4 today is claiming to be on the right side of the law will not wash with anyone.
Iran can wait until the US hawks are running out of sloven saliva dribblin down their chinny chins, before they act. Whether its tomorrow or in three month, they have the ball at hand.
All day yesterday and today the bibice has reiterated that an Iraqi Parliament vote is not binding. Well its clear to me, ‘ Amis pack up and go home’ is the message, and take your f…inng airport base with you.
In my experience, justified retribution takes time, but when it is delivered it is convincing.
The great country of Cyrus the Great has none to fear from anybody. That should be most evident. This too will pass as it always has and always does and probably always will.
Study up on some Kropotkin or Mendeleev or even E.F. Schumacher if you want to know the future in the imagination of some who are rapidly becoming many and who will have no tolerance for the few who insist on disarray for their own profit or visions of glory. That story is over.
I don’t care if this could be considered propaganda because it is not. A link to expound on an earlier comment about a Russian genius of which there have been many and I hope there will be many more:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution
I’ve been reading your blog for some time now, but I’ve never been moved to comment before today.
Thank you for writing this, it needs to be said so badly, and your clarity is admirable.
Amen to that!
The Wall Street Journal has also reported (like NPR’s Jane Arraf) that Soleimani was on a peace mission in Iraq:
> In his address to parliament on Sunday, [Iraq’s Prime Minister] Mr. Abdul-Mahdi said he had been due to meet Gen. Soleimani at 8:30 a.m. on the morning he was killed as he left Baghdad International airport. Mr. Abdul-Mahdi said Gen. Soleimani was carrying Iran’s response to a message Iraq had conveyed on behalf of Saudi Arabia aimed at easing tensions between the two countries in the region.
Iraqi Parliament Votes in Favor of Expelling U.S. Troops — The Wall Street Journal — Jan. 5, 2020
https://www.wsj.com/articles/iraqi-parliament-votes-in-favor-of-expelling-u-s-troops-11578236473
Iraq to Expel US Troops, Iran Cancels Nuclear Agreement — Money Maven — 2020-01-05
https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/iraq-to-expel-us-troops-iran-cancels-nuclear-agreement-9hVIjZMexkqLHaDVlU6VMA
And Iran’s response to the Saudi initiative would have been what exactly? Making peace with SA? None of this exactly square with Saudia’s reported support for the Iranian assassinations does it? My view is both sides speak with forked tongue.
You psychic?
The WSJ may finally be getting the message that all US MSM organisations are now ‘legitimate targets’. They have sung in unison for war repeatedly for 60 years, now maybe someone has whispered in their ear that a few hundred/thousand dead US journos is acceptable collateral damage.
They need to beat a hasty retreat from the warmongers tune: whether it is too late, only time will tell.
In my eyes, the BBC is a legitimate target too.
Boris bumbles back into view declaring (according to BBC) “we will not lament” the death of Soleimani and describing him as “a threat to all our interests”. Would those be legitimate or illegitimate interests, Boris?
What interests? Sadly a lot of Brits will just accept it as another dirty Muslim terrorist dead
Those who choose to remain ignorant of the truth must accept the consequences of their choice.
Who is “we” in this context?
I’d be willing to bet that more than half of Johnson’s cabinet hadn’t even heard of Suleimani before the assassination.
With Boris there’s absolutely no substance behind the utterances. Not surprisingly, he is just parroting the US position albeit in a more subtle way.
I am sure no Iraqi would lament Johnson’s death either.
He voted without due diligence for Blair’s war and therefore as 500,000+ dead on his hands.
Not exactly in a strong position to moralise, is he?
sewn into the denouement of 9/11 where the laws of physics were not suspended for a day to allow the official conspiracy theory,were a whole series of casus belli one of which is against Iran ….there will be more lies to come,probably of a “legal” nature, to implicate Iran following an extraordinary multibiliion $ judgment against Iran 2 years ago…
The bully boy doubles down on his threats
In a speech that betrayed an ignorance of history and geography, Trump was heard saying :
“They say we cannot bomb their cultural centres but I tell you we can. The great Genghis Khan was able to plunder at will and even the feeble Taliban were able to destroy the huge statues of the Bhuda in Afghanistan. ISIS was allowed to destroy Palmyra undeterred, I am greater than any and can do what I want”
https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/trump-threatens-to-hit-iraq-with-sanctions-like-theyve-never-seen-before/
I have no words, Trump is psychopathic, isnt there any way to stop this madness? UN? EU are more silent than ever and Germany, France, UK have already given support their Trump.
Jack
Europe in the 1930’s drifted slowly into the madness that ended in WW2. The whole structure, the elaborate propaganda machine, the economic situation, the inordinate wealth gap seems to be on a much bigger scale now. The destructive power of the belligerent nations is much more. Humanity has no hope against this madness.
SA, WW2 was merely the “second half” of the match that began in 1914. The Versailles Treaty and the reparations that it imposed on Germany made a return match inevitable – and presumably was designed to do so.
And Jack
I hope you can now begin to see why some of us felt instinctively against Brexit. Brexit has now made us fully aligned with US and has considerably weakened European political Independence which now means that the madman Donald and the clown Boris will determine the fate if mankind. Well done we have got Brexit done.
SA
I would say the exact opposite. You see now that the attitude of EU isnt any different from that of UK position. That is also why US supports the EU as an institution. Before EU was born, nations in europe could actually take a stance against the US. Today no one does. Prove me wrong!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/07/macron-warns-of-nato-brain-death-as-us-turns-its-back-on-allies
https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-emmanuel-macron-eu-army-to-complement-nato/
Jack
These two above links indicate my general drift. The EU is not a monolithic hegemonic structure. The project was derailed from within by the lure of increased membership of former Warsaw pact countries with unequal financial structures, to let them join so that they can join NATO. This has perverted the course of the EU as a possible economic and political and eventually a militarily independent counterbalance to the US. Within the EU there are elements who would like some cooperation with Russia.
Unfortunately because the US is such a strong figure and threatens economic sanctions, and is de facto occupying Germany since end of WW2, the resistance within the EU has been rather carefully calculated. This of course means that currently the EU is aligned with the US but the only hope for it to break away is by slow action such as attempts to get rid of NATO and be politically independent. The weakening of the EU makes this much less likely to occur.
So what have we achieved now is elected a very powerful Tory government, fully aligned with the madman in the White house and no hope of any resistance. I congratulate all those who have achieved this astounding result.
SA
Imagine if Corbyn had won the election, dont you think his foreign policy, view on Iran would have been far better than that of the EU?
SA
We have not elected anyone. Arch Tory Peter Lilley was instructed to rig the vote.
The important thing when you’re a zionist is not to have black hair. Too much of a giveaway. Bald, white, yellow or orange.
Any thinking person who saw Bonkers’ first cabinet knew that war was coming, unless Corbyn could win an election
Anybody who voted Tory in the election was voting for war and I would like to know who they were, not individually , but what motivated them. I don’t believe the myth that a new generation of young Tories found MacDonnell’s Old Labour policies irrelevant because Corbyn’s anti-war policies were popular with the young.
I do think that millions of young Corbyn supporters are scared rigid by Tory Britain and refused to vote for anyone.
They have learned their lesson.
Giyane, I hate the Tories as much as anyone here, but I am confident that the election was not rigged by Peter Lilley!
I know in the “bubble” of Craig’s comment threads the idea that anyone would vote for Johnson and his rabble is inconceivable, but unfortunately people do vote for them!
My father being one of them. He is a simple man who worked hard and ran a business for a few years. He votes Tory because he has always voted Tory – he doesn’t think about it. He’s not really interested in politics, but buys the Daily Mail because he likes the Sudoku in it. I daresay it influences him and many others like him.
He probably thinks Jeremy Corbyn would steal his pension. Not everyone thinks about these issues very deeply.
Johnson is no clown. He’s very bright.
https://londonist.com/2012/08/extra-extra-dangling-boris-special
I rest my case.
I truly like to think you are being ironic but I fear not.
I agree, N_ Johnson’s “clowning” is an act to fool people into thinking he is benign and harmless.
@SA – Few politicians could have carried that wire-hanging thing off. Here he is reciting maybe 100 lines of Homer’s Iliad in Ancient Greek without a crib, and here he is showing his knowledge of rhetoric. I only learnt Ancient Greek to a basic level and I disliked it intensely, so I’m not qualified to mark his effort but his delivery seems more likely to be word perfect rather than a bluff – he seems to be one of those classicists who have memorised a large number of lines. Who knows, perhaps he can recite all 16000 lines of the Iliad? 🙂 It used to be the case that some of the masters at Eton and Winchester knew the whole text (Iliad, Aeneid, whatever) by heart and didn’t need to bring the book to class, but that was more than a century ago. Rhetoric I know to a higher level, however, and he doesn’t put a single foot wrong in that second clip; moreover he wears his learning lightly. That’s a bright guy all right. Note in the first clip how he clearly understands how memory serves both intellect and character; and in the second how careful he is, how conscientious he is to stay on top of details, when he deals with Churchill’s use of “but” – that’s not an act; 99.9% of the audience wouldn’t care, notice, or remember.
That he can play the clown too doesn’t mean he is one.
N_ (12.50)
Being able to memorise and recite reams of text is not a measure of brightness, intellect or intelligence. You may recall how eager he was to recite Kipling’s ‘Road to Mandalay’ on a visit to Myanmar, much to the extreme consternation of the UK Ambassador.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqLIm0HOvuQ
He’s not stupid and he enjoys classics. Most of us don’t know much about classics, as you can tell by all the immature laughing in the otherwise enjoyable clips that you posted. But he was heavily exposed to all this at school, at university, and in his family, so it was not as peculiar in his background as in mine. It doesn’t mean he is a genius.
I don’t think he is a genius. The Road to Mandalay thing was foolish – even if we ignore the content, he didn’t consider the consequences of his action. Perhaps he was drunk. Which would also have been foolish. And the racist side to him (“piccaninnies”) is idiotic.
But if being able to memorise let’s say the whole of the Iliad in Ancient Greek isn’t an intellectual skill, what kind of skill is it? It’s not to do with its being Homeric poetry. I would say the same about somebody who was able to take a car apart, completely apart, into all of its pieces, and put it back together again. OK the latter is practical as well as intellectual, but neither of those skills is akin to memorising the first 10000 digits of pi. Which is not to say that even that doesn’t require mental training and discipline.
There’s also how he talks about rhetoric.
N_ (17.30)
I think I’d feel more confident having a car mechanic who can take a car apart and put it back together again leading the country than Johnson! 🙂
I disagree strongly: Boris may be a US poodle, but the 17.4m who voted for Brexit most certainly are not.
I have not spoken to people who voted for Brexit to get out of the EU frying pan only to jump straight into the US fire. They voted to get out of the EU to take back control of their own nation.
The narrative for war no longer sings, nor is it tolerable in the UK.
Boris is an idiot if he thinks otherwise.
Rhys those who voted for de Peffel Johnson voted for war with Iran/Iraq, for more bypassing of the exchequer into tax havens, and for the full privatisation of the NHS
Clever people they are not. If that referendum would have been to remove US bases from the UK, the Us would still be here, threatening to take their nukes home and make us pay for cleaning up Mildenhalls pollution, moving Trident, not to speak of their spy bases in Yorkshire.
Hmmm
The reason the “Bethlehem Doctrine” is a legal farce is simple. Consider the following: Applying the “logic” of the Bethlehem Doctrine” one can claim the “legal” right to “preemptively” and thus unilaterally murder their neighbor on the grounds they hold the belief that their victim was going to commit some unspecified act and some unspecified future time that could be construed as a threat. This is it the logic that Benny I have outstanding arrest warrants in half a dozen countries for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide NutenYahoo is trying to get Trump, like Bush Jr, and Obama before him to once again foist on the American people. Wake up, it is a lie.
This legal “theory”, like “free speech zones” and “enemy combatant” was dreamed up by the same lunatic zionist fascist neocons that tricked America in to war after 9-11 in a pitifully transparent attempt at an end run around the rule of law, not to mention logic, critical thinking and plain old common sense.
So actually it is NOT a ” formal legal justification” because this alleged “doctrine” has never been formally codified into law by the Congress, let alone tested by the Supreme Court. This ruse came about in 2002 as the Cheney, ah, I mean Bush Jr. administration was scrambling to find a way to get around a (they thought) potential veto of invading Iraq by the Congress. Like “enemy combatant” and “free speech zones” it is a complete fraud, a legal fiction created out of thin air. There is NO legal, let alone moral justification for unilaterally attacking another country because you think they might be going to do some unspecified act and some unspecified time in the future. Such an idiotic position expresses the mentality of a war mongering lunatic.
“There is NO legal, let alone moral justification for unilaterally attacking another country because you think they might be going to do some unspecified act and some unspecified time in the future. ”
You are right, but this is not a matter of law or of morals.
Like Iraqi WMDs it is just a pretext which the United States is using to undertake military action against countries, governments and now it seems individuals it does not approve of.
It had no reason to attack Iraq in 2003. It had no reason to kill Suleimani in 2020. So it invents an excuse.
I wonder if Sacha Baron-Cohen reads Craig’s Blog? Borat does seem to have an accurate world-view, telling Hollywood how things are….
https://www.indiewire.com/2020/01/sacha-baron-cohen-golden-globes-mark-zuckerberg-nazi-propaganda-1202200828/
David
Are you serious? Did you read this?
“Cohen took social media platforms to task in November during his speech at the Anti-Defamation League’s Never Is Now Summit on Anti-Semitism.”
true SA, I saw that AS made-up-stuff, but I now automatically skip any such sentences!
I was more impressed that ‘Borat’ called Facebook out as the world’s largest ever propaganda machine, on live TV
Sacha Baron-Cohen has done a hell of a lot of racist work himself, to an extent where in millions of minds the entire country of Kazakhstan is now associated thanks to him with foolish backward degeneracy. He has also purveyed racism against black and Asian British people and also against white people in the southern states of the US. (I’m thinking of his song with the line “Throw the Jew down the well”.) His whole act is racist (easily as much as Bernard Manning’s was) and he’s the kind of person that student unions should ban, but sadly they ban Germaine Greer and Tom Jones instead. When Baron-Cohen attacks Facebook as Nazi-helping all he’s doing is fighting the Zionist war at the front line, which is way inside what used to be enemy territory, and also he is taking the piss. For a similar example of taking the piss, see how Jeremy Piven responded when Russell Brand called out Hugo Boss for kitting out the Nazis. “I’ve been sitting in the corner sweating like a Hebrew slave”, he said. If that’s not taking the piss, what is? Piven obviously doesn’t give a toss about what the real Nazis did to their victims, any more than Baron-Cohen cares about surveillance, but what they both care about is the interest of their own elite group and its control over how certain things are mentioned.
Facebook has helped Zionism to the hilt but in respect of much of the help the Zionists receive it’s never enough – ask Robin Cook or Jimmy Carter.
No thinking person thinks that Kazakhstan was represented by Borat: they all thought it was just one way to cock a snook at the US warmongers from a suitably non-establishment source.
Borat was conceived after Hollywood decided against ‘the son of Crocodile Dundee’……
That is all.
Your analysis is also relevant to the U.S. breach of its Status of Forces Agreement (“SOFA”) with Iraq. The Strategic Framework Agreement for a Relationship of Friendship and Cooperation between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq, (Nov. 17, 2008), effective January 1, 2009, https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/dod/iraq-sofa.htm in section 3 resurrects the Defense and Security cooperation provisions of the former Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq (27 November 2008), https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/national/iraq-strategic-framework-agreement.htm
That agreement provides in Article 4:
“Missions:
“1. The Government of Iraq requests the temporary assistance ofthe United
States Forces for the purposes of supporting Iraq in its efforts to maintain
security and stability in Iraq, including cooperation in the conduct of
operations against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, outlaw groups, and
remnants of the former regime.
“2. All such military operations that are carried out pursuant to this
Agreement shall be conducted with the agreement of the Government of
Iraq. Such operations shall be fully coordinated with Iraqi authorities. The
coordination of all such military operations shall be overseen by a Joint
Military Operations Coordination Committee (lMOCC) to be established
pursuant to this Agreement. Issues regarding proposed military operations
that cannot be resolved by the JMOCC shall be forwarded to the Joint
Ministerial Committee.
“3. All such operations shall be conducted with full respect for the Iraqi
Constitution and the laws of Iraq. Execution of such operations shall not
infringe upon the sovereignty of Iraq and its national interests, as defined by
the Government of Iraq. It is the duty of the United States Forces to respect
the laws, customs, and traditions of Iraq and applicable international law.
…
“5. The Parties retain the right to legitimate self defense within Iraq, as
defined in applicable international law.”
The murder of Gen. Soleimani massively violates SOFA sections 2 and 3 unless the U.S. can fit into the “legitimate self defense” loophole of section 5. Your analysis shows it cannot so fit, hence the U.S. is in breach of the agreement.
So Iraq want US to leave, US refuse and threat them instead, rest of the west back Trump. What the hell is this?
Trump: ” If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis. We will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame.”
https://www.axios.com/trump-threatens-iraq-iran-sanctions-sites-06abb035-1eaf-42ec-8135-b9f82269529c.html
Jack
Trump has succeeded in offending both the Kurds and Baghdad and Iran at the same time. Muqtada has turned out to be much more moderate than the stooges Malik and Obadi who the US left in charge.
Iraq is like a house somebody bought cheap because of its poor condition. The US rented it out cheap to a mean landlord who didn’t spend anything on it. So the US rented it out to criminals and drug gangs. Now the landlord wants shot of it but nobody wants to buy it because it is both run down and has a reputation.
Trump is not interested in the problems of his foaming bonkers mouth frothing predecessors. All he wants is an excuse to knock it down and sell the land. Unfortunately the fact that sovereign countries are not real estate is not something President Trump comprehends.
Jack
“What the hell is this?”
This is the US/Trump showing the World what they really are, what they stand for. The mask has not just slipped but has fallen from the face.
Iran has for decades been one of the bravest countries on earth, consistently defying the hegemon, standing by the Palestinians when the Arabs abandoned them. That is why Iran is so loathed and demonized by all the worst people. Nothing whatever to do with elections or women’s rights. Soleimani himself in a sane world would have been a celebrated figure in the west for preventing ISIS from taking Damascus and Baghdad. Instead he is assassinated, then character assassinated, reduced to a childish cutout malevolent evildoer; traduced by people like Elizabeth Warren as, a “murderer” of hundreds of Americans, as if he had entered a mall and opened fire on shoppers rather than resisting occupying forces thousands of miles from where they should be.
Unfortunately I can only see this backwards-arse demonization of Iran intensifyng in the days, weeks and months ahead. The bewildered herd do not yet hate Iran as much as they will be required to.
Indeed we will see all kinds of racist demonisation and all sorts of bogus claims of what Iran is up to or have allegedly done.
Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand started a world war, where is EU today taking a stance against this madness?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand
When it comes to the EU look no further than what they did when the Trump gang tried to take Venezuela. They are worms compared to Iran.
Anthony
So true, as is your post at 09.07.
Thanks BC, it’s a topsy turvy world we’re living in!
Actually a secretive clique of warmongers in charge of British policy at the highest level form the 1890s onward started the First World War. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a useful catalyst, however if it hadn’t been that it would have something else, they were ready to go in 1914 – that was the important thing.
The question is, is Trump, or more accurately his string pullers ready to go today?
@Anthony “standing by the Palestinians when the Arabs abandoned them”
That’s a strange way to refer to murdering an average of about one Palestinian child every three days for decades.
Is “1 shot, 2 kills” on Israeli soldiers’ t-shirts a way of showing love and respect for pregnant Palestinian women and their unborn children too? Israel is a Hitler state and you know it.
What are you on about? I was talking about Iran.
I see, pre-crime.
So, I might be justified in killing Bush, Blair, Kissinger or (insert your favourite mass murderer here) on the basis that having done it once they might do it again. How about we target the pentagon because they used WMD in Japan ~70 years ago, or any IDF for sniping civilians?
How about we stick to common definitions.
Die Kriege gegen den Irak, Libyen und Syrien sind illegal. (Historiker Daniele Ganser, Schweiz:, illegale Kriege)
Eine vorsätzliche Tötung ist ein Mord und ist weder legal noch ethisch vertretbar.
richtig, OS !
Jawohl. Und diese Kriege und Toetung sind auf Luegen basiert.
Wo steht Tony Blair?