"And I ran, I ran so far away. I couldn't get away.' A Flock of Seagulls.
"Everyone is full of shit". T.C.
Didn't your hear? America is going to war with I-ran. You can't get away from it.
Oh my.
I can't keep up with the spinning of the spinned news by spinsters anymore. They just rewrite history as they go along.
It certainly helps to revise history by acting as if the world started on November 2016.
That way you can pretend anything Trump does as literally the first thing to ever happen.
What's especially astonishing to me is how easily smart people are converted into NPCs swallowing whole the idiotic narratives pimped out.
I believed we all operated from a common baseline of what is truth and what is not. For example, even if one held ruthless criticism of American foreign policy they still understood the difference between objecting to how foreign policy is conducted and playing useful idiot outright enemies.
There seems to have been a relativist malaise that set in where people can no longer distinguish between fact from fiction.
Iran presented itself as a perfect example.
No sooner had the news come out the United States killed Soleimani, people over-reacted to the news convinced WWIII was commencing and with it the reigniting of the draft.
The emotional just took over the rational. All knowledge of what we know about Iran-American relations and the history of the region in proper context was incinerated in an instant.
All of a sudden out came from their basement the anti-war protestors shouting, 'No war with Iran!' t
The killing of a terrorist or military general like Soleimani aren't declarations of war. They can be perceived, as the media has been hammering at, provocations leading to an escalation of war but the act in of itself is not a declaration of one. Hence, the argument the President need not go through Congress thanks to the expansion of power of the executive granted by the AUMF as part of the ongoing war on terror.
Know what is?
Constant provocations (including the killing of private contractors and military personnel and attacking a foreign embassy are.
Iran has been running amok in the region facing little consequences for their violent acts and a message was sent to the theocracy.
The press led by the usual suspects - New York Times et al - spewed their typical anti-American posture by running interference for an enemy.
In one instance, a writer at The New Yorker romanticized the beastly Solemaini. Major publication have a fetish for despicable humans. Recall Rolling Stone magazine putting on its cover a murderer in Tsarnaev - the Boston Marathon bomber. And in the after math of the incident, we had the added tragic shooting down of a passenger plan filled with innocents (and mostly Canadians - of whom almost half held Iranian passports) by the cynical and beastly hands of Iran resulting in blowback from its own citizens the regime didn't see coming.
I will attempt to demonstrate here none of this has anything to do with being anti-war and that in fact is everything about
anti-Trump hysterics.
****
An essay on this incident here.
****
It's hard to unpack all that has been said since the assassination but, a couple of assertions caught my attention. One is the claim 'America went rogue' (as MacLean's here in Canada and other publications did) and to those who pretended to be more measured conceded the hit was fair game but asked if it was a 'wise' move claiming it would 'embolden Iran'.
Many actions (conducted through the ghoulishly comical CIA) by the U.S. since the coup they helped orchestrate in 1953 resulting in the installing of The Shah, were seldom 'wise' and fair territory for criticism. It remains to be seen exactly how his death impacted the region - if at all.
Fast forward to the Iran deal under Obama where the 'unwise' move was thought to threaten the deal.
But were the Iranians adhering to it as alleged?
Key buzz phrases used to help build the narrative such as 'escalation of war' and Soleimani being an 'imminent threat', were designed to give the appearance of Trump 'going rogue.'
Here's an excellent in-depth timeline of Iran's proliferation issues. In it, you'll see just how intricate.
****
It's important to pay close attention to the arc of this story that stretches back decades; if not centuries in the context of the Sunni-Shia war for the Caliphate. That way, it helps inoculate from potentially falling prey how the issue is being portrayed.
Let's tackle the the 'rogue' part, in our effort to bring context, because it's simple and straightforward.
While going through Congress (note, Bush got authorization from Congress to invade Iraq which is why the media couldn't use the 'rogue' angle but instead claimed it was 'unilateral' which was another way of saying 'rogue') to consent on a proposed military measure. There's a lot of leeway and nuance and interpretations to how the Commander in Chief can lead the nation into war. But one little tidbit the people saying 'gone rogue' aren't mentioning is the Use of Authorized Military Force introduced under the
Patriot Act in 2001 which gives expanded powers to the Executive to prosecute the war on terror.
"...The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001. In December 2016, the Office of the President published a brief interpreting the AUMF as providing Congressional authorization for the use of force against al-Qaeda and other militant groups."
And expand they did. Which brings me to Obama. Obama utilized the UAMF to raw point of being the only President in
U.S. history to be at war every single say of his Presidency. The irony, of course, is for someone who lamented having 'inherited a mess' from Bush, he handed messy conflicts of his doing to Trump. That's how the ball rolls.
I won't go further into this because it would end up being a book but I'll close with one simple fact that should dispel once and for all Trump's decision was a 'provocation of war 'and was proof of his 'mental illness'.
The Obama administration, of which Hilary was instrumental, killed Muammar Ghaddafi. An actual leader of a sovereign country. That action has had serious ramifications for Europe to this day and the migrant crisis it helped foster.
Also killed by the previous administration were
Bin laden. Al Bagdadhi and al-Awlaki.
How convenient to over look this. Another inconvenient reality is Iran's constant aggression and penchant for mayhem in the region. Arabs fear Iran, Israel is annoyed and on guard against them, while in Turkey around 60% of the population views Iran favourably despite relative peace between the two counties.
******
"Folks clutching their pearls that Trump might be leading us to war were awfully quiet when Droney McPeaceprize dropped 26,000 bombs in 2016, and had military actions in 7 nations."
"Obama conducted more strikes in his first year than Bush carried out during his entire presidency. A total of 563 strikes, largely by drones, targeted Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen during Obama’s 2 terms.... Between 384 and 807 civilians were killed."
Yet, where was all this hysteria then? Does Trump remotely match this record?
Thus proving we have shallow grasps of foreign affairs and that this is more anti-Trump sentiment than anything rooted in principles.
Trump killing a popular general is proof of his incompetence for bring the nation closer to war. Yet, when he correctly assessed it was better for the U.S. to pull out of Syria (along the way we were once again treated to disingenuous cries of having abandoned the Kurds not realizing the nation was divided into five factions and the one they were supporting were the communist PKK. But they're Kurds, right? As long as we use them to bash Trump!) , the very same 'anti-war' people chastised him for 'doing it the wrong way'. Which is it?
Of course, it's better for the United States to just pull out of the region but as we saw with Syria, the intoxication of war is well entrenched among the establishment.
*****
As noted, the media was turning Soleimani into a victim who was popular and good looking. The press loves to romanticize monsters. They portrayed him as merely a defender of his country. But he was much worse than that as reports have clearly indicated.
Nor was the hit a 'Black Swan'.
Israel and the United States had been considering killing him for about 15 years but both Bush and Obama declined to do so. Trump, for his part, took his shot.
So began the histrionics that war was coming.
Except behind the noise, the chances of war was slim all along. Notice how the media has suddenly gone silent as they pivot back to the theatrics of impeachment.
For a couple of reasons.
1) Trump isn't irrational. And Iran may be a brutal and loathsome theocracy (
who murder protestors (incidentally in which Soleinmani orchestrated) and kill gays) aren't either.
2) Iran doesn't have the financial recourses to fight a war.
Moreover, the regime is constantly under threat from within from its own population.
3) Even if it did decide to declare war, they would not mount much of a resistance to the United States. The U.S. can easily disrupt and destroy all major facilities within a week without committing a single solider on the ground. Recall, this is a country who fought Iraq to a stalemate in the 80s. Who could forget the cartoonish lobbing of grenades between the two? That country is going to fight America in a war?
This country? Really?
Iran wasn't emboldened by the move. But know what may in fact keep them at least confident? The media (and the Democrats) constantly siding with them.
The first three points move to debunk the idea of 'escalation of war'.
4) As to Soleimnai as an imminent threat. How can someone who has been the chief architect of terrorist activities for almost decades and was targeted by the U.S. and Isreal, be an imminent threat?
He was a constant threat. He was at the heart of Iran's plans to dominate Iraq and with it the wider Middle-East posing a huge problem for Arab neighbours as well as Turkey and Israel.
There was, also, a cult of the personality growing around Soleimani. He was increasingly challenging the Ayatollah's power even engaging in unauthorized activities without regard to the Mullahs wishes. So confident he had become, he felt safe meeting with Lebanese Hizbollah (I believe) leaders in open space in an airport field in Tehran at the time the U.S. slew him.
In some way, I wouldn't be surprised if the Iranian felt a favour was done for them as he was probably growing into a problem but they couldn't risk killing him given his popularity.
It's not like this hasn't happened before.
Consider the Soviet General Georgy Zhukov. Serving under Stalin, he had grown too popular and powerful controlling large portions of the Red Army. As a result, Stalin could only change his positions.
In the end, the Iranians 'saved face' and attacked a base half-assedly and everything just kinda diffused itself.
*****
At the end of the day, the Americans took out a bad dude as they've been doing since the War on Terror began. The antics of the Democrats demanding the be notified is just political posturing. Why? As mentioned, because the AUMF dictates the CinC need not do so.
However, let's say Trump decided to inform them. Given the way they've treated him, it's not out of the realm of possibility they would use this as a weaponized political tool and refuse to authorize action merely to humiliate him.
For three years all they've done, in trying to orchestrate a soft coup (notice how Hilary and Obama keep in the news while John Kerry jet-sets around the world conducting a shadow foreign policy. Since when do former administrations behave this way? How is this not treasonous behaviour?) is hold the country hostage. The fact they expected Trump come to them in good faith while they've been impeaching him goes to show how feckless and partisan they've become. They'd side with Iran just to 'stick it' to Trump.
Don't listen to me.
Does Pelosi's threat sound like a party who wouldn't make a scene?
Acting as if somehow Trump is lawless, mentally ill and acting on impetus impulses that operate outside the realm of this reality takes one helluva a leap of logic.
*****
Word to the Iranian protestors. You guys have balls. Good luck. You can't count on the anti-American left and media supporting you but you have the silent majority quietly praying and hoping for your safety and success.
****
That is not to say, there aren't legitimate counter points against having assassinated Solemaini. There are. One can even go a step further and argue whether or not the United States should be present in the Middle-East in the fist place.
They can dispute and criticize actions under taken over the years. They can debate the merits - or not - of American foreign policy in the entire region.
But what they're not entitled to is to pretend Trump is 'bumbling into war' based on breathlessly obvious flimsy facts and hyper-partisanship as if everything began in 2016.
My goal was to shed some light into the entire incident and perhaps help contextualize (infused with personal opinion of course) the unfolding events.
*****
Last, I completely reject yet another dubious assertion claiming Trump's actions led to the shooting down of a Ukrainian passenger airline killing everyone on board including 62 Canadians.
It's tragic but Canadians are best to keep their anger directly where it belongs: With Iran.
By all accounts, this plane was 'marked for death' by Iran. There was no soldier scared of America attacking Iran since the plane was taking off from Tehran. The closest American bases are in Iraq.
There's been reports the Iranian grounded all planes except that one which obviously is suspicious and have held on to the blackbox. Worse, they have since bull dozed the crash site (which is appalling and points to their depravity) before Ukrainian and Canadian officials could ever go and investigate. Clearly, they have something to hide.
And we all know what it is. They purposely and fiendishly shot down the plane in an effort to have the media turn on Trump. And people are buying it like fools.
Imagine hating Trump so much so as to believe the very worse to the point of believing Iran.
By contrast, the Iranian people aren't fools like we are in the West. They're keeping their ire and anger squarely where it belongs: With the Mullahs.
So bizarre is the situation you have some twit CEO of Maple Leaf Foods unleashing blaming Trump for the actions of Iran.
