67
votes
Iran's Qassem Soleimani killed in US airstrike at Baghdad airport
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Rocket attack at Baghdad airport kills Iraqi paramilitary officer
- Published
- Jan 3 2020
- Word count
- 215 words
So, for some extra context on this act, The Intercept and The New York Times published the contents of a batch of Iranian cables in November.
The relationship between Iraq and Iran has enormous historical complexity, largely along Sunni/Shiite lines, and the notional Iran/Iraq border has always been problematic because it split tribal territories.
One of the major counterarguments to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was that it would blow up these historical instabilities. Iraq, as a patchwork territory of peoples with Sunni, Shiite, Baathist, and Kurdish identities, could not be adequately secured by U.S. troops; Saddam Hussein was barely able to hold it together. This was particularly true as the Bush Adminstration's invasion advocates were trying to sell a limited, quick war to the public, with few troops at risk. Attempts to "nation build" where no definite national identity existed in the absence of an authoritarian nationalist leader like Saddam Hussain, would prove futile and empower Iran's attempt to consolidate Shiites. This had already been one of the major factors in the eight-year Iran/Iraq War.
Those predictions have largely proven true, further underpinned by an haphazard, incompetent, corrupt occupation.
Iraq's current governing coalition is fragile, immensely corrupt, and weighted toward the Shiite factions that occupied the power vacuum after Saddam Hussain's largely Sunni Baathists were purged. It's no wonder that astute Iranian intelligence forces could gain influence.
As to General Qassem Soleimani, as @Arshan indicated, he's the next most powerful Iranian political figure after Ayatollah Khamenei - it's as if someone had assassinated, say, Mike Pompeo, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, or Vice President Pence. Soleimani was a popular, charismatic figure noted for rallying generations of Iranian soldiers, since the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980's, with promises of glorious martyrdom. He helped engineer the Iranian regime's covert alliances with Russia and China, that resulted in the recent joint forces exercise in the Gulf of Oman. The U.S. has prudently turned away from killing him previously, in consideration of the consequences.
Soleimani's assassination is a turning point that will inflame a quarter-billion Shiites worldwide against the U.S., Israel, and Saudi Arabia, regardless of his provocations. Russia and China are now reacting as well, given that this is a rebuke to their projections of influence.
No one but a rash, intemperate idiot like Trump would have kicked the hornet's nest this way, and I don't think anyone, whether in involved nations or not, will be safe from the consequences.
Edit: Not even getting into the Quds Force's financial, logistic, and arms supply support for Hezbollah, the Assad regime in Syria, the drone attack on Saudi Arabia, etc. There's no question that Iran is dangerously ambitious, and General Soleimani was instrumental in many of these actions, if not actively responsible for the underlying policy. However, if history has any lesson, it's that (morality aside) targeted strategic leadership assassinations are ineffective, highly polarizing, and usually escalate to open warfare.
Trump likely sees no personal downside to kicking a hornest net, to justify starting a war with Iran in order to rally his base.
He accused Obama of doing the same exact thing: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/141604554855825408
It's a damn near certainty that this is precisely his odious calculation given Trump's proclivity for psychological projection.
Soleimani's death has also been confirmed from Iran state networks. As someone who has been closely following recent spites between Trump and Khamenei, this can definitely be seen as an attack of war from Iran's government's point of view, and is an extremely worrying start to 2020. I hope it doesn't escalate to such.
I don't think anyone could reasonably say this is not an act of war. To assassinate the commander of an enemy's elite armed force goes way beyond just a diplomatic incident. Imagine if another country assassinated the head of the US Navy Seals. There's no way the USA would not retaliate. By killing General Soleimani, the USA has effectively declared war on Iran. All we can do now is wait and see if Iran accepts the invitation.
A proportionate response to one civilian being killed might be killing 25 soldiers. That's proportionate, right? 25 for 1? And then, of course, assassinating one of the most senior figures in Iran evens things out even more.
Sarcasm aside, there's a saying: an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Is even a proportionate response appropriate? If someone hits you, and you hit back, is that person really go to just take their lumps and back off? Or will they take your counter-attack as an excuse to hit you again? And then you hit back again. And so on. Every time you respond to violence with violence, you're just encouraging the next round of violence. That's what a proportionate response achieves: an escalation in violence.
Someone who doesn't want to start another war wouldn't look for a proportionate response. Someone who wants to avoid war would look for a different response.
I never said or implied there shouldn't be reprisals of some sort.
I'm nowhere near expert enough to be able to devise the best response to Iran's actions against the USA, but I am at least smart enough to recognise that killing a senior military figure is not that best response.
Historically it seems like the appropriate response is approximately ten congressional investigations focusing heavily on political opponents use of private email servers.
Mmmm. Buttery males. My favorite.
So, I used to be really into Middle Eastern Geopolitics. Soleimani is huge in the region; he is the face of Iran's military expansion over the last decade. He has been on the ground in both Syria and Iraq. He is the leader of the Quds force, Iran's equivalant to the US' Green Berets, as well as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the actual military of Iran. He is not a low level figure. He is equivalant to at least a US head of a military branch, probably closer to the secretary of defense. If any country publically assassainated a US secretary of defense, it would rightfully be considered an act of war. Its possible Ayatollah Khamenei will not respond in kind, but especially with the protests in Novemeber, he will not want to cave to US aggression. He also gave an ultimatum; three days of mourning and then retaliation. I guess will see on Monday if I need to burn my draft card.
So far 2020 really fucking sucks
this is a needless escalation that brings the us dangerously close to entering yet another unwinnable war that will accomplish nothing other than throwing away incredible amounts of money and countless human lives. so much for any hope of a nuclear deal with iran
Source for the curious: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-iran-tweets-obama/
On further reflection and research, I don't think this assassination can be characterised as solely due to Trump's agenda, though it's certainly in character for him to personalize national enmities.
U.S. and Israeli military strategists and foreign policy hawks have been wishing for Soleimani's demise for years, but knew it wasn't likely to diminish Iran's aggressive proxy wars and they couldn't see how to accomplish it without making him a martyr. Mike Pompeo, on the other hand, is one of the U.S.'s most aggressive advocates for intervention.
God people are dramatic. The internet feels like 4chan these days where people perversely want something to happen just for a bit of escapism.
There will be a short term spike in Shia attacks around the middle east. A lot of sabrerattling and impassioned speeches about martyrdom. An unlucky American or Brit (or five) will be arrested for spying in Iran. There will be jockeying in Iran for Soleimani's position and quite few sighs of relief that the Americans got him before he got ambitions.
Soleimani had been in the crosshairs for a long time and the longer the Americans left it the more he increased Irans influence across the region. In my opinion it was a good move by Trump and will be widely popular in the Middle East.
Your first paragraph is largely hysterics. I think many do subconsciously want it because it confirms their views and gives them a soapbox to stand on. Anyone with real interest in being anti war will follow a few experts see that they consider it an escalation but not a declaration of imminent war and will not spread hysterics but information to try and cool all the disaster merchants and warhawks rhetoric.
Which it was. Iraq's PM is also so deep in Irans pockets that he cant see the sun.
Lets talk about sovereignty. A few months ago Soleimani flew direct and uninvited to a security meeting the Iraqi PM was holding about the protests. Soleimani, taking chair of that meeting, told the PM that Iran knows how to handle protests and Soleimani will deal with it. That week there were 150 deaths because black clad snipers were put on the roof tops. Soleimani's snipers failed to cow the Iraqi protesters but now over 500 people have been killed and 20,000 have been seriously injured.
The world didnt begin in 2001 and inaction doesn't prevent war. History is littered with examples. The world is less likely to stumble into war with 2 less men like Soleimani and Abu Mahdi running around with paramilitaries.
I haven't really invested too much time reading in to this topic just yet, but I really gotta say your comments here have been coming off as incredibly hostile so far. I get if this topic is sensitive to you, but you're not going to convince anyone by angrily cursing at them.
I hate to "both sides!" an issue...but this comment chain being hostile and counterproductive is not one-sided. Opening a comment with "Your first paragraph is largely hysterics" for example, is extremely dismissive and not a great way to signal "we disagree on this issue but I still want to discuss it with you in good faith".
Meta idea, Tildes could use a "both of you, knock it off" label that applies to a whole comment tree and not just one comment.
Kindly name them...and establish their qualifications.
Soleimani was a monster with 40 years of experience and was responsible for tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Arab/Iraqi/Kurdish deaths and hundreds of western deaths. He was ruthlessly competent. If Iran wanted war he could have gave it to them at any time in the past 20 years. They don't. There is no possibility of any shade of victory for the people in charge. They are not fighting a religious war like Osama Bin Laden, they dont want to live in caves while the MIC brings down america and brings forth a galvanised global ummah.
Most of the Iranian elite are not the zealots of the revolution any more. They are IRGC commanders with tangible self interests
I haven’t been on Tildes for a while. I was expecting a more reasoned response from folks.
The world is the safest and most stable it’s been in centuries. https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace
This is a man that has facilitated the deaths of probably hundreds of thousands of civilians.
He was a uniformed member of a military actively responsible for the recent death of an American citizen and the attack on a US embassy.
There was a unanimous security council resolution passed in 2015 preventing his travel outside of Iran.
This is all too much. I now can understand why the 1940s happened.
The concern isn't that Iran wants a war. The concern is that Trump wants a war. Because he thinks that is how you win re-election.
I really hope you are right, but I fear you are not. :/
https://tildes.net/~news/kpp/irgc_missile_attack_on_us_base_in_iraq_is_revenge_for_soleimani_killing
I replied to Asimov in that thread but this is a simple, face saving message that says they aren't escalating for war.
One thing I havent seen anywhere is there's a sizable contingent within the administration who are literally praying for an apocalypse because they think Jesus will come take them to heaven first. That includes Pompeo and Pence and any other crazies they've managed to get into the administration - which, three years in, is probably quite a few people. I feel like that is an important piece of context with which to understand this decision. They are hoping for Iran to nuke Israel which they think will fulfill biblical end times prophecy.
I've seen this theory around for a while. It's supposedly the explanation for the USA's ongoing support of Israel (through multiple American administrations): the evangelists in the USA believe that Armageddon is going to happen in Israel, so the Holy Land needs to be defended.
Looks like Trump's re-election campaign is off to a great start.
The next guy? The goal is to use this misdirection to eat news cycles that would otherwise be spent on impeachment. The goal is that Trump IS the next guy.
What I don't understand is how helicopters were able to get close enough to high-ranking military officials at an airport. Does Iran or Iraq not have any air defenses? Something temporary or mobile? It seems like there was a degree of incompetency or ignorance here. If it were fighter jets or stealth bombers that would be different.
It was a drone strike, and the drones were already in position.
Small profile drones are as hard to hit as missiles, which is part of the reason that the U.S. was so alarmed by the prior Iranian takedown of a U.S. drone, and the Iranian drone attacks on Saudi oil refineries.
Ah, the Wikipedia Current Events portal chose this source which said it was a helicopter. But indeed, a drone makes more sense.
By the way Al Jazeera is owned by the Qatari government, a local player with a cordial relationship with Iran.