Killing of Qassem Suleimani

C

cremeegg

Registered User
Messages
4,152
In my opinion both the US and Iran are culpable in the conflict between them in the Middle East. For someone who grew up seeing the US as morally superior to its opponents, because it was a democracy, because of the Marshall plan this is a shift in view point.

The US doesn't need to be involved in the ME, Iran has no choice.

This particular act is clearly murder, whether it is murder of a malign influence or murder of a patriotic Iranian is a matter of opinion, perhaps both.

Two new things flow from this killing.

The idea of asymmetric war has been turned on its head. it used to mean that small state or non state actors could strike against major powers who were restrained in striking back. This successful drone strike against a man who presumably had serious security shows that the US does not need aircraft carriers or armoured divisions to strike its enemies. Kim Jong 3 will never sleep soundly again.

The other thing is that I believe that this signals Trump's intention to withdraw from Iraq. Last week he couldn't leave, it would have been seen as weakness, now if he leaves his domestic audience won't see it as weakness and the other ME players will think twice about taking advantage. You read it here first, Trump is preparing tl leave Iraq.
 
cremeegg said:
The other thing is that I believe that this signals Trump's intention to withdraw from Iraq. Last week he couldn't leave, it would have been seen as weakness, now if he leaves his domestic audience won't see it as weakness and the other ME players will think twice about taking advantage. You read it here first, Trump is preparing tl leave Iraq.
Click to expand...

I was thinking along similar lines.

The mainstream media can bleat the line that the US has terminated another 'No.1 terrorist in the world' (i've lost count of how many no.1 terrorists there are).
But to me, and this is just my speculation, this attack smacks of a parting shot.
I was under the impression that Baghdad was governed by a US friendly administration and effectively cordoned off by US military. So it struck me as to why, the most senior military general of Iran was in Baghdad at all? It would seem like a curious place for such a senior official to be conducting military operations as alleged?
The only reason I can fathom is that Iraq is not, or soon not to be, governed by US friendly but rather a government friendly to Iran and reflective of the majority Shia population.
Despite US claims that they defeated ISIS, my own cursory understanding is that it was the combined military alliance of Syria, Iran and Russia that defeated ISIS. This is reflected in fact that Assad remains in power in Syria, and that the 'moderate rebels' (is there such a thing?) are seemingly no longer a thing.
It would also go to explain somewhat, why the most senior military general of Iran felt confident (overly so, as it happens) enough to travel to Baghdad.
Reading between the lines of Trumps statement, he spoke in a manner of a Marvel comic hero citing the US ability to come after, and strike down, whomever, wherever, the US considered necessary to do so.
It didn't resonate to me as US military might, but of an acceptance that the US has lost Iraq but still has a sting in its tail.
 
You know my main source for political wisdom are the betting markets. The Donald has just gone odds on for the first time to Keep America Great in November.
Wolfie, I presume that given your Worldview that you welcome US withdrawal from the ME.
 
Last edited:
WolfeTone said:
So it struck me as to why, the most senior military general of Iran was in Baghdad at all? It would seem like a curious place for such a senior official to be conducting military operations as alleged?
Click to expand...

Yes I also thought the same, what was he doing there? It does back up the american narrative that the iranians were stirring trouble in the region. I think they were very surprised that the americans carried out this hit as trump had been very reluctant to engage the iranians before this when they took down the american drone and attacked the saudi refinery earlier this year.
How will they respond now though?, Maybe they will target a senior US diplomat somewhere in the world possibly not in the middle east. Whatever they do though they will have to claim direct responsibility for, they cant really use proxies like hezbollah because that would show that they are afraid to retaliate against the americans directly, and because the americans have claimed responsibility for this hit
 
joe sod said:
It does back up the american narrative that the iranians were stirring trouble in the region.
Click to expand...

I agree. But also suggests that Iran has, under its various militia, taken control of large areas of Iraq up to, and including Baghdad itself.
Im only speculating, but the most senior official of any military are rarely engaged in the frontline. They tend to operate out of harms reach (in this case, a miscalculation), but nevertheless, it only makes sense to me that Sulemani was in Baghdad because he was satisfied that Iranian militia could secure his safety in controlled areas.
In other words, Iraq has, or is likely to, to fall under the control of Iran.
If im correct, this would be a major propaganda coup for the Islamic regime, and a humiliation for the US.
Not something any President seeking re-election would like to have on their books.
Hence, the targeted strike against Sulemani and Trumps comments that the US can target anyone, anywhere.

joe sod said:
How will they respond now though?,
Click to expand...

Your guess is as good as mine. Certainly targeting US diplomats is now an option.
My (total) guess is the Iranian objective is to drive out all US military and diplomatic personnel from Iraq and that will remain the focus.
Since this attack I have been trying to brush up on political affairs in Iraq and far from my impression that the Iraqi government was a US puppet government, it appears that it is firmly under the hold of Iranian supported Shia politicians.
17yrs after the invasion and the 'War on Terror', after one million dead Iraqis, thousands of US soldiers killed, the displacement of millions of people and the destabilization of the entire region, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars - what have they gained?
Makes me sick to see how these war-mongers and their cheerleaders in the media have debased the United States of America.
 
The Twitter feed is on overdrive now.
And if the latest news is accurate, then we are truly looking at a despicable act.
Apparently, allegedly, Trump called the Iraqi PM Madhi, to act as a mediator between US and Iran for peace talks in Baghdad. Then Trump gave the order to kill him!
If this is true, and as much as I dont like Trump, I really hope it isnt true.
If it is true, then the office of President of the United States has truly been dragged into the gutter. Impeachment wouldn't be near good enough.
 
cremeegg said:
The other thing is that I believe that this signals Trump's intention to withdraw from Iraq. Last week he couldn't leave, it would have been seen as weakness, now if he leaves his domestic audience won't see it as weakness and the other ME players will think twice about taking advantage. You read it here first, Trump is preparing tl leave Iraq.
Click to expand...

They'll be kicked out. And I'm not convinced they want to be - they have significant military bases which I think they'd still like to maintain even if they want to reduce numbers in country

WolfeTone said:
I was under the impression that Baghdad was governed by a US friendly administration and effectively cordoned off by US military. So it struck me as to why, the most senior military general of Iran was in Baghdad at all? It would seem like a curious place for such a senior official to be conducting military operations as alleged?
Click to expand...

He was returning from Saudi Arabia after a de-escalation meeting. Allegedly bringing back Saudi's proposals to reduce tension in the area. Some speculation that the meeting was US sponsored. Essentially a diplomatic meeting
 
Whether right or wrong, whether justified or not, it's pretty impressive that the US knew where Soleimani was & was able to take him out less than 3 days after their embassy was attacked.
 
Firefly said:
Whether right or wrong, whether justified or not, it's pretty impressive that the US knew where Soleimani was & was able to take him out less than 3 days after their embassy was attacked.
Click to expand...
Not if this is true;
EmmDee said:
He was returning from Saudi Arabia after a de-escalation meeting. Allegedly bringing back Saudi's proposals to reduce tension in the area. Some speculation that the meeting was US sponsored. Essentially a diplomatic meeting
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Some interesting points here and I thought the attack was caused somewhat by the aircraft company Boeing being in big trouble and it needed a war to jump-start its provision of aircraft and missiles.
 
Leper said:
Some interesting points here and I thought the attack was caused somewhat by the aircraft company Boeing being in big trouble and it needed a war to jump-start its provision of aircraft and missiles.
Click to expand...

Nah - Occom's razor. You don't need a complex conspiracy to explain something when there are much more straightforward explanations. President under pressure looks for decisive action to impress base. And war (or threat of war) tends to immunise Presidents from domestic pressures - at least initially.
 
Purple said:
Have you a source for that?
Click to expand...
Well, RTE, BBC and SKY have failed to report this stunning revelation of Wolfies. But what would we expect from these mouthpieces of the Anglo Saxon imperialist. Disappointingly, we might have expected better from Al Jazeera, but nought. Hopefully Wolfie will respond to your question and point us towards the fountain of TRUTH.
 
EmmDee said:
He was returning from Saudi Arabia after a de-escalation meeting. Allegedly bringing back Saudi's proposals to reduce tension in the area. Some speculation that the meeting was US sponsored. Essentially a diplomatic meeting
Click to expand...
That seems to be the case, this is really bad so. It looks like this is a massive mistake. How are negotiations supposed to happen when the negotiator gets killed
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Well, RTE, BBC and SKY have failed to report this stunning revelation of Wolfies. But what would we expect from these mouthpieces of the Anglo Saxon imperialist. Disappointingly, we might have expected better from Al Jazeera, but nought. Hopefully Wolfie will respond to your question and point us towards the fountain of TRUTH.
Click to expand...

BBC story including why he was in Baghdad including quotes from Iraqi PM who was due to meet him during the trip - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50998065
 
War is the failure of politics and despite WW2 ending 75 years ago we still have not found a way of doing it well. Reality is that since humans formed into tribes one tribe is for a time always on top. In our lifetime that's being the USA. ROMAN empire lasted 1200 years so living in it at say 900 years you could believe it was and always will be the same. Same to for the many long run empires like the British one and others. Given this to be the statis quo of the world then when the USA falls off that persh let's hope it is not replaced with a 4th Reich type. Imagine if a government like Iran has having the power of the USA.
Confucius had his tongue in his cheek when he penned the phrase, "may you live in interesting times ".
 
EmmDee said:
BBC story including why he was in Baghdad including quotes from Iraqi PM who was due to meet him during the trip - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50998065
Click to expand...
EmmDee I had seen that already. Of course if you are a conspiracy theorist you can read anything you like into anything. Make no mistake what Wolfie is gleaning from his twitter friends is the following narrative. The Donald called his friend the Iraqi PM to set up exploratory peace talks with Suli. But right from the beginning it was just a trap to lure Suli to Baghdad where The Donald could kill him.

It is an outrageous narrative and who am I to say it is untrue but one would have expected that even the suspicion of such treachery would be headline news in the World's news channels and certainly in the likes of Al Jazeera and Channel 4 News. But the deafening silence on those fronts, not to mention that no such claims are being made by the Iranians, incline me to believe that this is just a typical fantasy of Shortie syndrome.
 
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade said:
EmmDee I had seen that already. Of course if you are a conspiracy theorist you can read anything you like into anything. Make no mistake what Wolfie is gleaning from his twitter friends is the follwing narrative. The Donald called his friend the Iraqi PM to set up exploratory peace talks with Suli. But right from the beginning it was just a trap to lure Suli to Baghdad where The Donald could kill him.

It is an outrageous narrative and who am I to say it is untrue but one would have expected that even the suspicion of such treachery would be headline news in the World's news channels and certainly in the likes of Al Jazeera and Channel 4 News. But the deafening silence on those fronts, not to mention that no such claims are being made by the Iranian, incline me to believe that this just a typical fantasy of Shortie syndrome.
Click to expand...

Ah - I suspect you may be over interpreting what WolfeTone is saying (and I say this as someone who disagrees with him on US politics). I think the supposition doing the rounds was not that the US were working with the Iraqi PM to set up false peace talks - for a start the current Iraqi PM leans more towards Iran than Washington. Also, the talks have been ongoing for a number of months (post the attacks on the Saudi oil refinery). I think the supposition is that the US were aware of the current round of meetings including the visit to Baghdad, didn't raise any concerns or warnings and then ordered the drone strike - behind the back of the Iraqis - and so could be seen to have effectively laid a trap.

But not one that was a long time in the making - it was only decided to take this option after the US embassy in Iraq was attacked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top