[Zionist Nationalist]

I could care less if you and yours want to go to war.

Just leave me and mine out of it...

But, that's not what's goin' on heah, now is it..

I dont expect the US to go to war for Israel. just keep the sanctions

[Code Rood]

Just leave me and mine out of it...

They won't. The Zionist elite will never stop. They've been bothering and using you for decades, so there's no reason for them to stop. Why would they suddenly stop when they've gotten away with so much already over the years? They know they got Western leaders by the balls. To this day the USS Liberty survivors are still not being heard. What does that tell you?

[Deutschmania]

Here's something interesting about Suleimani , that most people have seemingly overlooked .

In the chaotic days after the attacks of September 11th, Ryan Crocker, then a senior State Department official, flew discreetly to Geneva to meet a group of Iranian diplomats. “I’d fly out on a Friday and then back on Sunday, so nobody in the office knew where I’d been,” Crocker told me. “We’d stay up all night in those meetings.” It seemed clear to Crocker that the Iranians were answering to Suleimani, whom they referred to as “Haji Qassem,” and that they were eager to help the United States destroy their mutual enemy, the Taliban. Although the United States and Iran broke off diplomatic relations in 1980, after American diplomats in Tehran were taken hostage, Crocker wasn’t surprised to find that Suleimani was flexible. “You don’t live through eight years of brutal war without being pretty pragmatic,” he said. Sometimes Suleimani passed messages to Crocker, but he avoided putting anything in writing. “Haji Qassem’s way too smart for that,” Crocker said. “He’s not going to leave paper trails for the Americans.”

Before the bombing began, Crocker sensed that the Iranians were growing impatient with the Bush Administration, thinking that it was taking too long to attack the Taliban. At a meeting in early October, 2001, the lead Iranian negotiator stood up and slammed a sheaf of papers on the table. “If you guys don’t stop building these fairy-tale governments in the sky, and actually start doing some shooting on the ground, none of this is ever going to happen!” he shouted. “When you’re ready to talk about serious fighting, you know where to find me.” He stomped out of the room. “It was a great moment,” Crocker said.

The coöperation between the two countries lasted through the initial phase of the war. At one point, the lead negotiator handed Crocker a map detailing the disposition of Taliban forces. “Here’s our advice: hit them here first, and then hit them over here. And here’s the logic.” Stunned, Crocker asked, “Can I take notes?” The negotiator replied, “You can keep the map.” The flow of information went both ways. On one occasion, Crocker said, he gave his counterparts the location of an Al Qaeda facilitator living in the eastern city of Mashhad. The Iranians detained him and brought him to Afghanistan’s new leaders, who, Crocker believes, turned him over to the U.S. The negotiator told Crocker, “Haji Qassem is very pleased with our coöperation.”

The good will didn’t last. In January, 2002, Crocker, who was by then the deputy chief of the American Embassy in Kabul, was awakened one night by aides, who told him that President George W. Bush, in his State of the Union Address, had named Iran as part of an “Axis of Evil.” Like many senior diplomats, Crocker was caught off guard. He saw the negotiator the next day at the U.N. compound in Kabul, and he was furious. “You completely damaged me,” Crocker recalled him saying. “Suleimani is in a tearing rage. He feels compromised.” The negotiator told Crocker that, at great political risk, Suleimani had been contemplating a complete reëvaluation of the United States, saying, “Maybe it’s time to rethink our relationship with the Americans.” The Axis of Evil speech brought the meetings to an end. Reformers inside the government, who had advocated a rapprochement with the United States, were put on the defensive. Recalling that time, Crocker shook his head. “We were just that close,” he said. “One word in one speech changed history.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/30/the-shadow-commander This is a prime example of neocons creating messes which they then later have to fix . If the Bush Administration hadn't lumped Iran into the so called " Axis of Evil " , alongside Saddam Hussein's Iraq , and then stage an invasion , overthrowing the Baath party government in Iraq , and creating a political power vacuum , that was filled by Iran's geopolitical sphere of influence , we wouldn't have had this mess in the first place . And while I certainly don't sympathize with the brutally repressive regime in Tehran , I also am against an escalation of military hostility , which is not in any nation's best interest . And I stand in solidarity with the likes of the Tudeh party , in opposition to both war and sanctions . https://www.tudehpartyiran.org/en/news/4438-joint-statement-of-the-communist-and-workers-parties-on-the-heightening-of-tensions-and-dangers-of-us-war-on-iran , https://www.tudehpartyiran.org/en/news/4437-the-statement-of-the-central-committee-of-the-tudeh-party-of-iran-the-urgency-of-mobilising-public-opinion-in-iran-and-the-world-to-thwart-another-horrific-war-in-the-region , https://www.tudehpartyiran.org/en/news/4404-tudeh-party-of-iran-cpusa-say-no-to-heightening-of-tensions-and-the-drum-roll-to-war-on-iran , https://www.tudehpartyiran.org/en/news/4402-as-trump-threatens-to-destroy-iran-wpc-calls-for-the-peace-movements-internationally-to-prevent-the-slide-to-war-in-the-persian-gulf , https://www.tudehpartyiran.org/en/news/4387-the-statement-of-the-central-committee-of-the-tudeh-party-of-iran-the-mobilizations-of-warmongers-on-both-sides-of-the-world-and-the-dangers-that-threaten-our-homeland-and-peace-in-the-region

[maz]

If Donald Trump and his administration are really "America First" he would ordering targeted strikes on the leaders of Mexico's drug cartels instead of internally escalating the situation in the Middle East.

I was just listened to the guest host on Rush Limbaugh and he promoted a wild conspiracy theory that General Soleimani was responsible for the raid on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi.

The Killing of General Soleimani: Hail Mars! Hail Pluto!

If it is true the United States killed Iranian Quds Forces Commander General Qassam Soleimani in Iraq yesterday, unverified by the Iranians as I write this, then there is no hyperbole or exaggeration too great to encapsulate what may befall tens of millions of families.

The equivalent of the killing of General Soleimani would be as if the Iranians assassinated General Richard Clarke, the US four star general in charge of all US special operations, but only if General Clarke had the name recognition of Colin Powell and the competency of Dwight Eisenhower. Those Iranians in government and civil society who want restraint, de-escalation and dialogue will find it hard to argue against retaliation. After more than 20 years of Iran enduring insult after insult, provocation after provocation, and attack after attack, I find it hard to believe there are many Barbara Lees in the Islamic Consultative Assembly.

A young man, better and brighter than those who sent him to Iraq to be in my command in the Marines in 2006, asked last evening:

“So let’s assume Soleimani is responsible for the embassy raid on the 27th. What should the proper response be? I think it would have been a great reason to talk to the Iranians and start from a 0-0 standpoint.”

That is what we are promised each election cycle by the two war parties: thoughtful, wise and judicious leadership – recognize the abyss and don’t step into it.

After Mossad Targeted Soleimani, Trump Pulled the Trigger

Last October Yossi Cohen, head of Israel’s Mossad, spoke openly about assassinating Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, the head of the elite Quds Force in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

“He knows very well that his assassination is not impossible,” Cohen said in an interview. Soleimani had boasted that the Israel’s tried to assassinate him in 2006 and failed.

“With all due respect to his bluster,” Cohen said, “he hasn’t necessarily committed the mistake yet that would place him on the prestigious list of Mossad’s assassination targets.”

“Is Israel Targeting Iran’s Top General for Assassination?” I asked on October 24. On Thursday, Soleimani was killed in an air strike ordered by President Trump.

The Pentagon confirmed the military operation, which came “at the direction of the president” and was “aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.” The Pentagon claimed in a statement that Gen. Soleimani was “actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.”

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, under indictment for criminal charges, was the first and only national leader to support Trump’s action, while claiming that that Trump acted entirely on his own.

“Just as Israel has the right to self-defense, the United States has exactly the same right,” Netanyahu told reporters in Greece. “Qassem Soleimani is responsible for the deaths of American citizens and other innocents, and he was planning more attacks.”

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani vowed retaliation for the general’s death, tweeting that “Iran will take revenge for this heinous crime.”

Capable Foe

Soleimani was the most capable foe of the United States and Israel in the region. As chief of the Al-Quds force, Soleimani was a master of Iran’s asymmetric warfare strategy, using proxy forces to bleed Iran’s enemies, while preserving the government’s ability to plausibly deny involvement.

After the U.S. invasions of Iraq, he funded and trained anti-American militias that launched low-level attacks on U.S. occupation forces, killing upward of 600 U.S. servicemen and generating pressure for U.S. withdrawal.

In recent years, Soleimani led two successful Iranian military operations: the campaign to drive ISIS out of western Iraq in 2015 and the campaign to crush the jihadist forces opposed to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. The United States and Israel denounced Iran’s role in both operations but could not prevent Iran from claiming victory.

Soleimani had assumed a leading role in Iraqi politics in the past year. The anti-ISIS campaign relied on Iraqi militias, which the Iranians supported with money, weapons, and training. After ISIS was defeated, these militia maintained a prominent role in Iraq that many resented, leading to demonstrations and rioting. Soleimani was seeking to stabilize the government and channel the protests against the United States when he was killed.
In the same period, Israel pursued its program of targeted assassination. In the past decade Mossad assassinated at least five Iranian nuclear scientists, according to Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, in an effort to thwart Iran’s nuclear program. Yossi Melman, another Israeli journalist, says that Mossad has assassinated 60-70 enemies outside of its borders since its founding in 1947, though none as prominent as Soleimani.

Israel also began striking at the Iranian-backed militias in Iraq last year. The United States did the same on December 29, killing 19 fighters and prompting anti-American demonstrations as big as the anti-Iranian demonstrations of a month ago.

Now the killing of Soleimani promises more unrest, if not open war. The idea that it will deter Iranian attacks is foolish.

“This doesn’t mean war,” wrote former Defense Department official Andrew Exum, “It will not lead to war, and it doesn’t risk war. None of that. It is war.“​

The Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida reported a year ago that Washington had given Israel the green light to assassinate Soleimani. Al-Jarida, which in recent years has broken exclusive stories from Israel, quoted a source in Jerusalem as saying that “there is an American-Israeli agreement” that Soleimani is a “threat to the two countries’ interests in the region.” It is generally assumed in the Arab world that the paper is used as an Israeli platform for conveying messages to other countries in the Middle East.

Trump has now fulfilled the wishes of Mossad. After proclaiming his intention to end America’s “stupid endless wars,” the president has effectively declared war on the largest country in the region in solidarity with Israel, the most unpopular country in the Middle East.

[anasawad]

That's because nobody but Zionists and a couple of retarded boomers with a lot of thirst for blood are really celebrating this news in the West. Normal people are tired of this BS in the Mid-East and want their own country back on track.

Not everyone in here is from the west.
As far as most people in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon go, their countries are under a military occupation by the Iranian clerics regime, and the news of the death of one of the biggest war criminals responsible for the death of 10s if not 100s of thousands of people in their countries is a great news.
It's a small step in the path of victory, but it's a step either way.

[Code Rood]

If Donald Trump and his administration were really "America First" he would ordering targeted strikes on the leaders of Mexico's drug cartels instead of internally escalating the situation in the Middle East.

Good point. I think this is something what edgy far-right kids mean when they talk about ''clown world''. Nothing makes sense if you live in a Western country today.

[Rancid]

It's interesting that Iran is calling this an act of terrorism as it was really an act of war. I mean fucking shit, the US directly attacked the Iranian military. How is that terrorism and not war?

[anasawad]

@Rancid
The clerical scum are only tough when facing unarmed civilians, they all turn into a bunch of peace-loving soyboys whenever they're facing an actual enemy.

[Nonsense]

To put it simply, they're not that dumb.

If Iran wanted nukes, they would already have them. They wouldn't have signed off on the JCPOA. They've left the door open for a negotiated settlement.

IMHO, your assertion doesn't compute, if they were smart, they would probably possess them already, but they don't, as far as any outsider is aware of, if they did , just where do you think they tested them, because I know of no nuclear country that did not go through the testing stage first, before becoming operationally nuclear, therefore, they are still 'dumb' - relatively speaking.

[Nonsense]

@Rancid
The clerical scum are only tough when facing unarmed civilians, they all turn into a bunch of peace-loving soyboys whenever they're facing an actual enemy.

The Iranians over-egg it when they are playing the 'victim', yet, when they attack shipping, or imprison innocent western women on false charges, in order to inflict suffering on those women, they play all 'innocent' to the world's media, whilst inflicting injustice on others.

[late]

IMHO, your assertion doesn't compute, if they were smart, they would probably possess them already, but they don't, as far as any outsider is aware of, if they did , just where do you think they tested them, because I know of no nuclear country that did not go through the testing stage first, before becoming operationally nuclear, therefore, they are still 'dumb' - relatively speaking.

I used your wording as a cue in the first part.. Oh well, Israel first part, Iran second part.

Iranians are Persians, historically famous for cleverness. Dumb is not a word I would use to describe them.

[skinster]

This guy was leading fighting against ISIL, the Taliban etc. and everyone is celebrating what could be the start of much more death and destruction in the ME. If those cheering on the Zionist side - you know who you are - think you'll escape this, well, I guess time will tell but I can't imagine Iran will go down alone.

Or even at all.









Apparently there were plans to assassinate him before by Israel in 2014, opposed by Obama.

There are literal celebrations right now across Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq due to this news.

There is also mourning in all of these countries. This guy was leading the fight against Islamists.

Not saying Iran isn't playing its part, but the Trump admin was out for confrontation for a while.

The U.S. regime has been making war on Iran for a long time now.

As far as most people in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon go, their countries are under a military occupation by the Iranian clerics regime

[Political Interest]

Mad, completely and utterly mad.

No other words.

[Donna]

Trump will immediately back down. Classic Trump hit-and-run.

[skinster]

WW3 brought Donald back.

[Godstud]

As it turns out, Trump is a war-hawk. That, or he's doing it to distract from his IMPEACHMENT.

[JohnRawls]

This guy was leading fighting against ISIL, the Taliban etc. and everyone is celebrating what could be the start of much more death and destruction in the ME. If those cheering on the Zionist side - you know who you are - think you'll escape this, well, I guess time will tell but I can't imagine Iran will go down alone.

Or even at all.









Apparently there were plans to assassinate him before by Israel in 2014, opposed by Obama.




There is also mourning in all of these countries. This guy was leading the fight against Islamists.



The U.S. regime has been making war on Iran for a long time now.

Soleimani is complicated figure. He is disliked by a lot of people in the middle east but he is also lover by a lot more people actually in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Afganistan. Most people forget that Suleimani was not necessarily a "terrorist" as america likes to label him. He wanted re-approachment with US back in the 90s and early 2000s but ultimately got back stabbed by the US. Ever since Americans declared Iran an enemy, he has been fighting for Iran in the region against the US so he is indeed responsible for a lot of proxy wars and attacks basically.

The main problem is that the US attacked him directly. De facto he was within the top 5 most powerful people in Iran. May be even somewhere in the top 3. Just imagine if Russia all of a sudden droned Pelosi or Mitch McConnel

[skinster]

Disastrous Soleimani Decision will Likely Hit US Politically, Economically and in Blood
In a massive escalation of tensions, the US has killed Iran’s most senior general Qasem Soleimani, a man revered not only throughout Iran but also in much of the Middle East and elsewhere, not least due to his victories over Islamic State (IS) in Syria and Iraq.

The US claims the killing was a pre-emptive strike aimed at preventing attacks on Americans, but has yet to produce specific evidence to support this claim. President Donald Trump meanwhile announced the attack by simply tweeting an image of the US flag.

Reaction from much of the world in condemning the attack as an unnecessary and unlawful escalation has been swift, with even traditional US allies such as in Europe notably not offering their support for what is in effect an act of war that almost certainly will produce further escalation, bloodshed and instability in the Middle East and beyond.

Many are understandably asking what strategy lies behind Trump’s move, and what the US could possibly gain from carrying out an attack the negative consequences of which were entirely foreseeable. The answer is that, at least as far as can be discerned, there is no strategy.

US foreign policy, forever pulled in different and often contradictory directions by numerous lobbies and special interest groups such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and US arms companies, has rarely been entirely coherent or consistent - and arguably indeed usually serves such special interest groups rather than the American people themselves.

Under Trump however, what passes for US strategy appears to be a president often acting impulsively either on his own initiative or on the advice of a small group of seemingly neocon officials and advisors who seek to exploit opportunities for conflict whenever they arise. Thus for example in July Trump ordered an attack on Iran in response to the downing of a US drone, only then to realize the likely catastrophic consequences and cancel the attack plan.

At the time, the former head of the UK’s Royal Navy, Admiral Lord West, described how ‘powerful groups in Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US want war and think a strike on Iran will lead to regime change.’

Those such as John Bolton who promote such a war likely don’t envisage a protracted conflict of the type that the US would almost certainly lose. They imagine instead that a short sharp conflict for example based on air strikes would topple the Iran government at low cost to the US in terms of money and lives. In this they are almost certainly wrong. As West pointed out, such an attack would likely lead to ‘open ended war with catastrophic consequences across the world’.



Now such an attack has occurred, and this is the new and highly dangerous situation in which the US and the wider world now finds itself.

Iran, just as would the US if Iran had done the same, views Soleimani’s killing as an act of war. And just as for Iran if it had done the same, the consequences for the US, as Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has now promised, are likely to be severe.

Iran’s response is perhaps unlikely however to be immediate, nor will it likely involve a conventional military confrontation with powerful US forces. Instead, Iran has a range of asymmetric response options available that have the potential to cause great harm to US interests over a protracted period of time, and all around the world.



Regardless for example of whether last year’s attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf or the crippling drone strikes on Saudi oil refining facilities were actually carried out directly by Iran, such actions demonstrated how at little material cost it would be possible to severely disrupt the oil supplies on which much of the West depends. If this was to happen, the resulting rise in oil prices would likely have a substantial impact on the economies of the US and its allies.

Similarly, Iran may exploit other areas in which, along with drones, it has achieved technological progress. An example is the possible use of cyber attacks on the US and its allies, which again has the capability of causing severe economic and even physical harm - particularly if financial, energy and other infrastructure were to be targeted.

Iran’s response to the US killing of its beloved general is unlikely to be purely economic however, and at least some of the price exacted on the US will almost certainly be in blood. If so, that blood will likely be of the ordinary US diplomats, servicemen and women, together with the private contractors to whom US military work is increasingly outsourced, who live and work often in exposed locations in dozens of countries in which they are now vulnerable to attack not necessarily from Iran directly, but by members of what western media describe as Iranian proxies - such as Hezbollah and the various militias in Syria and Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and Iran’s many other supporters around the world.

Hence in reality, the US killing of Soleimani that was purportedly intended to protect US lives will almost certainly cause the deaths of very many more.

Political consequences will surely follow too. Mindful of the possibility of a repeat of past events such as the killing of 240 US Marines in Lebanon in a bomb attack in 1983 blamed on Hezbollah, increased security measures for US forces and diplomats may lead to a physical US withdrawal from some areas, and perhaps even whole countries.

The killing of Soleimani may also mark a tipping point in continued Arab and other tolerance of US forces being stationed in the Middle East, with increased impatience at continued US actions in for example Syria and Iraq that act to exacerbate tensions and instability, and that undermine the sovereignty and credibility of the very governments the US is claiming to support - hence for example today’s Iraq government condemnation of Soleimani’s killing.

Such US actions also act to further widen the gulf between US and its allies, for example in a Europe already alienated by US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and subsequent US sanctions, and may add further impetus to a European drive for a military capability that isn’t dependent on a US and UK dominated Nato.

Indeed, in respect of the nuclear deal and proliferation generally, the killing of course also risks sending a clear message: that if a country wants to avoid being attacked by a US that insists on its own self declared universal jurisdiction to kill citizens of other countries at will, then that country must acquire weapons of mass destruction. Certainly this is the lesson that so-called hard liners in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere will once again relearn.

All of these negative impacts for the US, as well as for ordinary people around the world including in Iran and the US, were entirely predictable.

Trump campaigned on a promise to the American people to end the US record of unnecessary and disastrous overseas interventions and wars. Despite this, US interventions around the world have continued - for example the catastrophic loss of life from US attacks in Afghanistan, the continued support of political and military groups overseas to pursue US interests, and the use of sanctions as a crippling blunt tool in an attempt to overthrow non compliant governments such as those of Venezuela, Cuba and Iran.

Nevertheless, his supporters have been right to claim that, just as he promised, Trump was a rare US president who hasn’t started any new wars. With the carrying out of an act of war by killing Soleimani however, this has now changed - and while the nature, time and place of Iran’s response to this act won’t be of Trump’s choosing, the wholly unnecessary provocation that will have caused the response certainly was.

Iran’s response to the US attack perhaps won’t be immediate, but almost certainly the response will come. To that extent, Iran and the US are in effect now in a state of undeclared war. That war is entirely of US making, and as so often with US wars the likely effects will be the deaths of innocent civilians and ordinary US and other soldiers, economic hardship as a result of oil price rises, and a further deterioration of US international standing and influence.

In short, and depending on how Iran chooses to respond, the killing of Soleimani may prove to be the most disastrous decision of Trump’s presidency, the full consequences of which may yet take years to unfold. Unless he can find a means of quickly reversing the situation he has now created, Trump’s legacy will be to have created, especially for the US, a very much more dangerous world.
https://ahtribune.com/world/north-afric ... ation.html

[Godstud]

Many are understandably asking what strategy lies behind Trump’s move, and what the US could possibly gain from carrying out an attack the negative consequences of which were entirely foreseeable. The answer is that, at least as far as can be discerned, there is no strategy.

US foreign policy, forever pulled in different and often contradictory directions by numerous lobbies and special interest groups such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and US arms companies, has rarely been entirely coherent or consistent - and arguably indeed usually serves such special interest groups rather than the American people themselves.

Under Trump however, what passes for US strategy appears to be a president often acting impulsively either on his own initiative or on the advice of a small group of seemingly neocon officials and advisors who seek to exploit opportunities for conflict whenever they arise. Thus for example in July Trump ordered an attack on Iran in response to the downing of a US drone, only then to realize the likely catastrophic consequences and cancel the attack plan.

QFT, and likely to be extremely accurate.

[Code Rood]

As it turns out, Trump is a war-hawk.

Not a big surprise seeing that he surrounds himself with neocons.