Monday, January 6, 2020

Links — 6 Jan 2020

Gold, Goats, 'n Guns
After Soleimani Killing Suddenly the U.S. is Alone
Tom Luongo

Dances with Bears
AGAINST THE BLITZ WOLF — RUSSIAN REINFORCEMENTS FOR IRAN’S DEFENCE IN WAR AGAINST ALL
John Helmer

India Punchline
Iran loathes Pompeo’s Chabahar gift
M. K. Bhadrakumar | retired diplomat with the Indian Foreign Service

Caitlin Johnstone — Rogue Journalist
On The Idiotic Partisan Debate Over Regime Change In Iran Or Syria
Caitlin Johnstone

Moon of Alabama
The Axis Of Resistance Announces The Project That Will Avenge Qassem Soleimani

Sic Semper Tyrannis
Trump moves to unite the Middle East! (irony)
Col. W. Patrick Lang, US Army (ret.)

The Grayzone
Iraqi PM reveals Soleimani was on peace mission when assassinated, exploding Trump’s lie of ‘imminent attacks’
Max Blumenthal

The Intercept
TV Pundits Praising Suleimani Assassination Neglect to Disclose Ties to Arms Industry
Lee Fang

The Vineyard of the Saker
Is the Chairman of the JCS freaking out (answer: he should and he is!)
The Saker

Zero Hedge
Chaos: Pentagon Denies "Poorly Worded" Iraq Withdrawal Letter, Esper Says "No Decision To Leave Iraq, Period"
Tyler Durden

The Week

10 comments:

Joe said...

So what is going on in the Pentagaon?
So the story is that military leaders presented Trump with an array of options, and no one expected him to pick this option, the most extreme. They were then shocked when he did. The Trump team couldn't even get on the same "imminent threat"-page prior to the attack.
After the Iraqi parliament votes for us to leave, that not "poorly worded" letter gets sent to Iraq, by "accident", informing Iraq of our departure.
I find it difficult to imagine a "mistake" like that that happening.

A) Why was the letter drafted in the first place?
B) Once drafted, is it even possible that someone did a sort of inter-governmental "reply-all"-style mistake? (I needed Bob in the next office over to proof-read this letter I supposedly had no reason at all to write and I accidentally clicked the Iraqi Defense Minister instead, whoops)
C) If it's it's not, in fact, "a mistake", what was the purpose? Exactly what signal does it send?

What would a US adversary be reading from this? The entire thing sounds clownish.
It seems there's significant dissension inside the Pentagon.

Peter Pan said...

The prevailing assumption is that the Trump administration is unwilling to go to war against Iran. They are willing to engage in tit-for-tat. A dangerous strategy, but not as dangerous as having decided to go to war upon the next pretext.

Trump could spin this by claiming he got the US out of Iraq. Maybe he forgot that a letter to that effect had been drafted.

When presenting an array of options to a monkey, never include a banana.

Matt Franko said...

Trump wants to get out of the ME he ran on it and won and his base supports him on this... he's working on it but its not a slam dunk (needs to get Iran to negotiate which they are not doing... maybe without the Salami guy they will now negotiate.. ).. and there are other GOP and Military elements that support the current unending low intensity conflict that he has to work...

That said if Iran hits us presently (injures/kills US persons) he's going to hit back disproportionately... he's a self-described "counter puncher"... "get even!"... "eye for an eye!" etc... plus he knows we can kill them all in 2 or 3 days if we have to which is a solid fallback...

Not hard to figure out...

S400 said...

Not hard to figure out...

An analysis worthy of someone with no pubes..

Joe said...

The accidental letter is a strange one. Maybe it doesn't have the significance I think it has, but it was drafted in the first place.

The US lost in Iraq and Syria, maybe killing Solemani was just our face-saving maneuver to allow to withdraw. But I'll believe that when I see it.

If Trump would smart, which he's no signs of being, he'd pull the US out and he'd claim triple victory. Victory against ISIS, victory against Iran, and he brought the troops home. Of course only bringing the troops home part would be true, but the truth matters exactly zero. Taking credit for shit we didn't do is sort of our thing.
But Trump's history is one of being a conman and serial bungler so he'll fuck this up somehow too, all it'll take is for one neocon to call him weak.

Joe said...

Matt's analysis holds no water.
If Trump wanted out of the ME he could have done so on day one, but, he surrounded himself with neocons. Instead, he childishly withdrew from the JPCOA, which the Iranians continued to abide by. If he just had to stroke his ego, he could have just changed the name of the agreement to "The Donald J Trump Make Middle East Peace Again Peace Treaty" told his cult supporters it's the best agreement since sliced bread and they would have eaten that shit up.
But no, he makes a bigger mess.

Joe said...

OK, so the letter sent by "mistake" *definitely* was not sent by mistake.
https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/us-iran-soleimani-tensions-intl-01-07-20/h_153c5ecb7783d2e04b32766637d2d8cb
----
The prime minister said he received two versions of the letter — one in Arabic and another in English.

"The Arabic translation in one of the paragraphs contradicted the English one," he said in the cabinet meeting.

"When we told them the Arabic text is different from the English, they sent us another version that matched the English version," Abdul Mahdi explained.

"This is not a paper that fell out of a photocopy machine or something that came by accident. They told us this is a draft but this is what a received. How do we act as a state?" he said.
-------

So what kind of message is this?

Peter Pan said...

A message of resistance from inside the State Department?

Peter Pan said...

Letter drafted by Gen. William Seely, a US commander in Iraq.

Joe said...

Yeah Bob, I sort of thought a similar thing. The apparent shock and the initial signalling of capitulation to Iraq's wishes coming out of the Pentagon may have been a way to say "Yeah, we know, we done fucked up. Yeah, we know, we have a petulant child as a leader". But who knows. That general behind Trump during his most recent address sure looked uncomfortable.

It seems the Iranians have reset the chessboard. We have the Saudi disaster in Yemen, the humiliating Saudi oil vulnerability and the reports the Saudi's were entering into discussions with Tehran (the whole reason Soleimani was in Bahgdad). And now the Iranians, in their shrewd, face saving action, have shown they can hit targets hundreds of miles outside their borders with precision. Total war would have very high costs for the entire globe. It's in no one's interest.

Opportunities exist now, but we know how the Americans aren't agreement capable. So who knows.