Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Agree with Hedges on this (Iran)
- This topic has 10 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 11 months ago by nittany ram.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 4, 2020 at 12:59 pm #110077ZooeyModerator
War with Iran
Chris HedgesThe assassination by the United States of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force, near Baghdad’s airport will ignite widespread retaliatory attacks against U.S. targets from Shiites, who form the majority in Iraq. It will activate Iranian-backed militias and insurgents in Lebanon and Syria and throughout the Middle East. The existing mayhem, violence, failed states and war, the result of nearly two decades of U.S. blunders and miscalculations in the region, will become an even wider and more dangerous conflagration. The consequences are ominous. Not only will the U.S. swiftly find itself under siege in Iraq and perhaps driven out of the country—there is only a paltry force of 5,200 U.S. troops in Iraq, all U.S. citizens in Iraq have been told to leave the country “immediately” and the embassy and consular services have been closed—but the situation could also draw us into a war directly with Iran. The American Empire, it seems, will die not with a whimper but a bang.
The targeting of Soleimani, who was killed by a MQ-9 Reaper drone that fired missiles into his convoy as he was leaving the Baghdad airport, also took the life of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias in Iraq known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, along with other Iraqi Shiite militia leaders. The strike may temporarily bolster the political fortunes of the two beleaguered architects of the assassination, Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but it is an act of imperial suicide by the United States. There can be no positive outcome. It opens up the possibility of an Armageddon-type scenario relished by the lunatic fringes of the Christian right.
A war with Iran would see it use its Chinese-supplied anti-ship missiles, mines and coastal artillery to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which is the corridor for 20% of the world’s oil supply. Oil prices would double, perhaps triple, devastating the global economy. The retaliatory strikes by Iran on Israel, as well as on American military installations in Iraq, would leave hundreds, maybe thousands, of dead. The Shiites in the region, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, would see an attack on Iran as a religious war against Shiism. The 2 million Shiites in Saudi Arabia, concentrated in the oil-rich Eastern province, the Shiite majority in Iraq and the Shiite communities in Bahrain, Pakistan and Turkey would turn in fury on us and our dwindling allies. There would be an increase in terrorist attacks, including on American soil, and widespread sabotage of oil production in the Persian Gulf. Hezbollah in southern Lebanon would renew attacks on northern Israel. War with Iran would trigger a long and widening regional conflict that, by the time it was done, would terminate the American Empire and leave in its wake mounds of corpses and smoldering ruins. Let us hope for a miracle to pull us back from this Dr. Strangelove self-immolation.
Iran, which has vowed “harsh retaliation,” is already reeling under the crippling economic sanctions imposed by the Trump administration when it unilaterally withdrew in 2018 from the Iranian nuclear arms deal. Tensions in Iraq between the U.S. and the Shiite majority, at the same time, have been escalating. On Dec. 27 Katyusha rockets were fired at a military base in Kirkuk where U.S. forces are stationed. An American civilian contractor was killed and several U.S. military personnel were wounded. The U.S. responded on Dec. 29 by bombing sites belonging to the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia. Two days later Iranian-backed militias attacked the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, vandalizing and destroying parts of the building and causing its closure. But this attack will soon look like child’s play.
Iraq after our 2003 invasion and occupation has been destroyed as a unified country. Its once-modern infrastructure is in ruins. Electrical and water services are, at best, erratic. There is high unemployment and discontent over widespread government corruption that has led to bloody street protests. Warring militias and ethnic factions have carved out competing and antagonistic enclaves. At the same time, the war in Afghanistan is lost, as the Afghanistan Papers published by The Washington Post detail. Libya is a failed state. Yemen after five years of unrelenting Saudi airstrikes and a blockade is enduring one of the world’s worst humanitarian disasters. The “moderate” rebels we funded and armed in Syria at a cost of $500 million, after instigating a lawless reign of terror, have been beaten and driven out of the country. The monetary cost for this military folly, the greatest strategic blunder in American history, is between $5 trillion and $7 trillion.
So why go to war with Iran? Why walk away from a nuclear agreement that Iran did not violate? Why demonize a government that is the mortal enemy of the Taliban, along with other jihadist groups, including al-Qaida and Islamic State? Why shatter the de facto alliance we have with Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why further destabilize a region already dangerously volatile?
The generals and politicians who launched and prosecuted these wars are not about to take the blame for the quagmires they created. They need a scapegoat. It is Iran. The hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed, including at least 200,000 civilians, and the millions driven from their homes into displacement and refugee camps cannot, they insist, be the result of our failed and misguided policies. The proliferation of radical jihadist groups and militias, many of which we initially trained and armed, along with the continued worldwide terrorist attacks, have to be someone else’s fault. The generals, the CIA, the private contractors and weapons manufacturers who have grown rich off these conflicts, the politicians such as George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, along with all the “experts” and celebrity pundits who serve as cheerleaders for endless war, have convinced themselves, and want to convince us, that Iran is responsible for our catastrophe.
The chaos and instability we unleashed in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, left Iran as the dominant country in the region. Washington empowered its nemesis. It has no idea how to reverse its mistake other than to attack Iran.
Trump and Netanyahu, as well as Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, are mired in scandal. They believe a new war would divert attention from their foreign and domestic crises. But they have no more rational strategy for war with Iran than they did for the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria. European allies, whom Trump alienated when he walked away from the Iranian nuclear agreement, will not cooperate with Washington if the U.S. goes to war with Iran. The Pentagon lacks the hundreds of thousands of troops it would need to attack and occupy Iran. And the Trump administration’s view that the marginal and discredited Iranian resistance group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), which fought alongside Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran and is seen by most Iranians as composed of traitors, is a viable counterforce to the Iranian government is ludicrous.
International law, along with the rights of 80 million people in Iran, is ignored just as the rights of the peoples of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria were ignored. The Iranians, whatever they feel about their despotic regime, would not see the United States as allies or liberators. They do not want to be occupied. They would resist.
A war with Iran would be seen throughout the region as a war against Shiism. But these are calculations that the ideologues, who know little about the instrument of war and even less about the cultures or peoples they seek to dominate, cannot fathom. Attacking Iran would be no more successful than the Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon in 2006, which failed to break Hezbollah and united most Lebanese behind that militant group. The Israeli bombing did not pacify 4 million Lebanese. What will happen if we begin to pound a country of 80 million people whose land mass is three times the size of France?
The United States, like Israel, has become a pariah that shreds, violates or absents itself from international law. We launch preemptive wars, which under international law is defined as a “crime of aggression,” based on fabricated evidence. We, as citizens, must hold our government accountable for these crimes. If we do not, we will be complicit in the codification of a new world order, one that would have terrifying consequences. It would be a world without treaties, statutes and laws. It would be a world where any nation, from a rogue nuclear state to a great imperial power, would be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations to others. Such a new order would undo five decades of international cooperation—largely put in place by the United States—and thrust us into a Hobbesian nightmare. Diplomacy, broad cooperation, treaties and law, all the mechanisms designed to civilize the global community, would be replaced by savagery.
Chris Hedges, an Arabic speaker, is a former Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times. He spent seven years covering the region, including Iran.
January 4, 2020 at 1:06 pm #110080znModeratorBased on a first fast read…not much to disagree with there.
January 4, 2020 at 1:21 pm #110081nittany ramModeratorWell, I think the US would destroy Iran’s ability to wage conventional war pretty quickly. But I agree with everything else.
January 4, 2020 at 2:24 pm #110084znModeratorAnalyst: ‘Everything the Trump administration has done has escalated Iran situation’
Iran analyst Trita Parsi reacted to the U.S. airstrike that resulted in the death of one of Iran’s most powerful generals during an interview with Hill.TV on Friday.
Parisi argued that “everything the Trump administration has done has escalated the situation,” tracing it back to President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal in 2018.
Under the Obama-era deal, Iran had agreed to curtail its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
“The moment when it all started is when Trump pulled out of this, so if we’re actually looking for deterrence we know how that would work,” Parisi said. “It would mean proper diplomacy, trying to figure out how you can find some sort of a way of coexisting with elements that you may not like in any way, shape or form.”
Parsi is executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a think tank with a focus on shifting U.S. foreign policy away “from endless war and toward vigorous diplomacy in the pursuit of international peace.”
His comments come as lawmakers on Capitol Hill still reel from the news surrounding a targeted U.S. strike in Iraq that killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani among others. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said a day after the attack that the action was not authorized and Congress was not consulted on the decision.
The Pentagon, meanwhile, has described the U.S. drone attack at Baghdad International Airport as a “defensive action,” but Parsi pushed back against this notion in his interview with Hill.TV.
“The mere fact that the State Department immediately issued a statement saying all Americans should leave Iraq immediately is Exhibit A that this made America less not more safe,” he said.
Trump’s actions in Iran have sparked international condemnation.
The United Nations Secretary General António Guterres said he was “deeply concerned” after the U.S. strike, according to a spokesman for Guterres.
“The world cannot afford another war in the Gulf,” the secretary-general’s deputy spokesman said in a statement.
January 5, 2020 at 7:28 am #110110znModeratorTrump’s Biggest Fox News Boosters Suddenly Stop Railing Against ‘Deep State’ Intelligence
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-biggest-fox-news-boosters-234154938.html
Suddenly, it appears the U.S. intelligence community is back in good standing over at Fox News.
Since Trump’s election, an inescapably common refrain of the president and his biggest boosters in conservative media has been to rail against the “deep state.” The Russian election interference probe, they’ve repeatedly said, was nothing more than a coup or disinformation campaign perpetrated by the anti-Trump intelligence community.
Over the past 24 hours, however, incessant Fox griping over “deep state” suddenly went quiet, replaced by sober pleas that—when it comes to the info allegedly justifying Trump’s ordered airstrike killing Iran’s top general Qassem Soleimani—the U.S. intelligence community’s findings should be heeded and taken seriously as unimpeachably correct information.
Immediately after the Pentagon confirmed U.S. responsibility for the strike, claiming it “was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans,” Fox News host Sean Hannity—perhaps the most well-known “deep state” critic in media—heaped praise upon the intelligence community.
“The ability of the military, our intelligence community, the State Department, and the president making the call, very quickly, you know, understood that the Iranian forces on the ground bore a direct threat to the American people,” said Hannity, calling into his own show on Thursday night. “Once the intelligence was confirmed, once the understanding that they were there to sow the discord and discontent, the president acted as quickly as possible, taking out this top general.”
“But I will say the big headline is, this is a huge victory for American intelligence, a huge victory for our military, a huge victory for the State Department, and a huge victory and total leadership by the president,” the primetime host, who has spent more than two years and countless on-air segments railing against shadowy “deep state” intelligence, concluded.
By Friday morning, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went even further than the Pentagon, saying that it was necessary to take out Soleimani as it disrupted an “imminent attack,” adding that “the risk doing nothing was enormous” and the “intelligence community made that assessment and President Trump acted decisively last night.”
Following Pompeo’s assertions, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade—who last month chastised a Daily Beast writer for not asking Lisa Page about a deep-state conspiracy theory—openly defended and applauded the intelligence community.
After Fox News star Geraldo Rivera sarcastically noted the “U.S. intelligence has been excellent since 2003 when we invaded Iraq, disrupted the entire region, for no real reason,” he told Kilmeade not to “start cheering this on” while claiming his colleague “never met a war you didn’t like.”
“I will cheer it on. I am elated,” Kilmeade exclaimed, adding that it’s “not true” that he loves war.
During a later appearance on Fox News’ The Daily Briefing, host Dana Perino—a former Bush White House press secretary—repeatedly claimed an attack was “imminent,” asking Kilmeade what the consequences would have been if Trump didn’t act.
“What everyone is missing, it’s not our choice,” the Fox & Friends host replied. “These things are happening. It’s how we react to what is happening.”
Kilmeade—no longer skeptical of intelligence officials—also insisted that the president didn’t need to brief Congress before killing the Iranian leader because he needed to act quickly due to the information obtained.
“But if you want him to get congressional approval over a strike that is time sensitive when an attack is imminent and he landed at the airport? Are you kidding me?” Kilmeade huffed.
During Friday’s broadcast of Fox Business Network’s Varney and Co., anchor Stuart Varney also seemed a bit amnesiac over his previous missives against the intelligence community. Despite claiming in the past that the “deep state” was trying to undermine Trump’s presidency, the pro-Trump host credulously touted Pompeo’s “imminent attack” claim throughout his show.
“That’s what Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, told Fox News earlier this morning, that there was an imminent attack and the president ordered the killing to stop that imminent attack,” Varney proclaimed at one point. “Good cause to do it.”
In a later segment, Fox & Friends Weekend host and unofficial Trump adviser Pete Hegseth—who once noted that the “American people didn’t vote for the Deep State”—also found newfound praise for the intel community, adding that Trump likely waited until the “intelligence lined up.”
A Fox News guest, however, seemed to reveal one of the biggest self-contradictions.
Former Trump adviser Christian Whiton lamented Friday on Fox News’ Outnumbered Overtime that it is “really sad” that Democrats “aren’t willing to give our president and our military the benefit of the doubt in a crisis.”
A few weeks ago, though, Whiton gave no such benefit of the doubt to a member of both the military and intelligence community. During an interview with Fox Business host Lou Dobbs, Whiton called former National Security Council member and impeachment witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman a “deep state crybaby” who “poured himself into an Army outfit to go and frankly speak contemptuous things against the commander-in-chief.”
January 5, 2020 at 2:50 pm #110114znModeratorWhite House Notifies Congress of Soleimani Strike Under War Powers Act
https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-notifies-congress-soleimani-164147914.html
The White House sent Congress on Saturday a formal notification under the War Powers Act of the drone strike ordered by President Donald Trump that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani on Friday, two congressional officials said Saturday.
The notification, required by law within 48 hours of introducing American forces into armed conflict or a situation that could lead to war, has to be signed and then sent to Congress, according to the officials with knowledge of the plan.
Lawmakers expected the document to publicly lay out the White House’s legal justification for the strike on Soleimani, Iran’s top security commander, who officials have said has been behind hundreds of American deaths over the years. But the notification first sent to Congress late Saturday afternoon contained only classified information, according to a senior congressional aide, likely detailing the intelligence that led to the action. It is unclear whether the White House will send a separate, unclassified document.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement Saturday evening that the notification “raises more questions than it answers,” including “serious and urgent questions about the timing, manner and justification of the administration’s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran.”
“The highly unusual decision to classify this document in its entirety compounds our many concerns, and suggests that the Congress and the American people are being left in the dark about our national security,” Pelosi said.
The document itself was brief, a senior Democratic aide said. But its contents are all but certain to animate a fierce debate among lawmakers about the reach of presidential war powers and Congress’ role in matters of military conflict. Many Democrats have called the strike against Soleimani, which threatens to escalate tensions between the U.S. and Iran and reverberate throughout a violent and volatile region, illegal and unauthorized. They are already searching for ways to curb Trump’s ability to strike Iran in the future.
Trump’s advisers have maintained that they were operating on credible intelligence showing that Soleimani was involved in imminent plans to attack U.S. interests in a handful of countries. They have not detailed that intelligence, and Democratic lawmakers, among others, have raised questions about its veracity.
Briefing reporters Friday, Robert C. O’Brien, the White House national security adviser, pointed to Trump’s “constitutional authorities as commander in chief to defend our nation” as justification for the strike. He also cited the measure Congress approved in 2002 granting President George W. Bush the legal authority to wage war on Saddam Hussein and the government of Iraq.
While Republicans praised the action against Soleimani as a definitive blow against a longtime enemy, Democrats voiced concern that the president was risking a new war in the Middle East, and argued that the White House exceeded its legal authority by conducting the strike without explicit authorization from Congress.
A small group of lawmakers Friday were already preparing efforts to cut off any further military confrontation with Iran without Congress’ express approval, setting up an array of legislative vehicles Democrats may use to try to rein in the president’s war powers.
A number of bipartisan resolutions similar to those measures had already been considered last year, but lawmakers declined to take them up or ensure their survival in pieces of must-pass legislation.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., introduced a resolution Friday invoking the War Powers Act that would a force a debate and vote in Congress to prevent further escalation of hostilities with Iran.
Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in a statement that they would resurrect legislation to prohibit any funding for offensive military force in or against Iran without prior congressional authorization.
That measure was passed in the House last year along bipartisan lines, with nearly two dozen Republicans voting in support of it, but was later stripped from the must-pass annual defense bill. The political dynamics of taking such a vote after the strike, however, may change the calculus for Republicans and a number of Democratic lawmakers in conservative districts who initially backed the measure.
January 5, 2020 at 2:54 pm #110115znModeratorTrump’s advisers have maintained that they were operating on credible intelligence showing that Soleimani was involved in imminent plans to attack U.S. interests in a handful of countries. They have not detailed that intelligence, and Democratic lawmakers, among others, have raised questions about its veracity.
Even if it were true, why would killing Soleimani prevent or mitigate these alleged attacks?
…
January 7, 2020 at 8:39 pm #110190wvParticipantNot real complicated to me. Trump and his deep-staters committed Murder.
Nothing new for an American Prez.
Granted this one will probly have a ton of blowback.
w
vJanuary 8, 2020 at 4:56 pm #110211Billy_TParticipantGood article.
I’ve been in an apolitical mood of late, probably due to reading about Climate Change and feeling kinda bleak about things . . . but decided to turn on the TV news yesterday for the first time in a bit. Saw that Iran had retaliated against the assassination and the bleak mood sunk lower. Was surprised that MSNBC and CNN both seemed to be, at least in general, calling for deescalation. I may have missed it, but I didn’t see anyone beating the war drums, for a change.
A hopeful development. This needs to be the norm.
This morning, I tuned in briefly to Morning Joe and was again pleasantly surprised by the panel’s call for deescalation, and the host’s comparison of Suleimani to Ike, after an historian suggested this. Scarborough’
s original comparison had been Marshall. As in, how Iranians viewed him, and why this matters. Ironically, I had made a similar point to family last night, but wasn’t able to convince.I picked the wrong hour to stop drinking.
January 8, 2020 at 5:00 pm #110212Billy_TParticipantTrump’s advisers have maintained that they were operating on credible intelligence showing that Soleimani was involved in imminent plans to attack U.S. interests in a handful of countries. They have not detailed that intelligence, and Democratic lawmakers, among others, have raised questions about its veracity.
Even if it were true, why would killing Soleimani prevent or mitigate these alleged attacks?
…
That’s what struck me too. If there really was some kind of imminent attack planned, assassinating a general won’t stop it. If anything, it will make the attack far more likely, and perhaps expand its range.
Aside from the moral/ethical component, it flat our seems stupid and pointless, strategically.
January 9, 2020 at 10:40 am #110230nittany ramModeratorTrump’s advisers have maintained that they were operating on credible intelligence showing that Soleimani was involved in imminent plans to attack U.S. interests in a handful of countries. They have not detailed that intelligence, and Democratic lawmakers, among others, have raised questions about its veracity.
Even if it were true, why would killing Soleimani prevent or mitigate these alleged attacks?
…
That’s what struck me too. If there really was some kind of imminent attack planned, assassinating a general won’t stop it. If anything, it will make the attack far more likely, and perhaps expand its range.
Aside from the moral/ethical component, it flat our seems stupid and pointless, strategically.
Yeah, right. It’s not like D-Day wouldn’t have happened if Ike had a heart attack the day before.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.