The Washington Post is out with a new story that suggests the Soleimani killing was part of a larger effort to cripple the leadership of Iran’s Qud forces:
On the day the U.S. military killed a top Iranian commander in Baghdad, U.S. forces carried out another top secret mission against a senior Iranian military official in Yemen, according to U.S. officials.
The strike targeting Abdul Reza Shahlai, a financier and key commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force who has been active in Yemen, did not result in his death, according to four U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
The unsuccessful operation may indicate that the Trump administration’s killing of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani last week was part of a broader operation than previously explained, raising questions about whether the mission was designed to cripple the leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or solely to prevent an imminent attack on Americans as originally stated.
So much going on here…
1. Were any U.S. forces killed in the failed attempt to kill Shahlai in Yemen?
From the Post story:
On the day the U.S. military killed a top Iranian commander in Baghdad, U.S. forces carried out another top secret mission against a senior Iranian military official in Yemen, according to U.S. officials.
The strike targeting Abdul Reza Shahlai, a financier and key commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force who has been active in Yemen, did not result in his death, according to four U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
…
U.S. military operations in Yemen, where a civil war has created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, are shrouded in secrecy. U.S. officials said the operation against Shahlai remains highly classified, and many declined to offer details other than to say it was not successful.
So it was “not successful.” What does that mean, exactly? Were any U.S. personnel killed in the failed attempt?
2. More proof that the “imminent threat” lies were, indeed, lies.
Trump, Pompeo, Esper and Pence repeatedly lied about the reason for Soleimani’s killing. The “intel briefings” two days ago were complete and utter shams, and this new story further reinforces that fact. Their was no “imminent threat.” This was a larger effort to go after Quds.
3. Was Trump blackmailed into carrying out these strikes by Senators from his own party who held impeachment over his head?
We know that Trump’s instincts are to disengage from the Middle East. He has made statements to that effect for years, including in nearly every rally speech during his 2016 campaign. So the Soleimani assassination and apparent attack on Shahlai were surprising because they contradicted Trump’s oft-stated intention, and risked a much deeper involvement by potentially igniting a war with one the Middle East’s largest and most well-equipped armies. It was additionally surprising given the departure of neocon Iran hawk John Bolton from the administration.
According to multiple sources, Trump had been telling friends he had been pressured into carrying out the attacks by a few Republican senators:
From the story:
But whether the strike will help the president win over more voters rests on factors largely outside Mr. Trump’s control. How Iran retaliates, and how voters who responded to his 2016 campaign message about ending “forever wars” in the Middle East react to a potentially escalating conflict are the two most immediate questions.
“One of the major parts of the Trump coalition is voters who after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wanted to be much more cautious engaging in an assault with ground troops,” said Matt Schlapp, the chairman of the American Conservative Union. “There’s a significant number of libertarians and people who are weary about casually getting involved in a conflict with an Arab country that can take decades to resolve.”
So why would Trump agree to such a risky attack that would be directly contrary to one of the fundamental tenets of his 2016 campaign?
There is this from Business Insider that cites a story in The Wall Street Journal:
President Donald Trump told associates that he assassinated Iran's top military leader last week in part to appease Republican senators who'll play a crucial role in his Senate impeachment trial, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
In a lengthy piece detailing how the president's top advisers coalesced behind the strike on Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, The Journal reported that Trump had told associates he felt pressured to satisfy senators who were pushing for stronger US action against Soleimani and who will run defense for him on impeachment.
One can safely assume that Lindsey Graham would be one of those senators pressuring Trump on Iran. Tom Cotton would be another, and there may be more. Trump is absolutely obsessed with his impeachment, so if you’re Lindsey Graham, why not leverage impeachment to get your long-pined-for war with Iran?
Hey, who needs a pee tape when you control how the president’s impeachment trial goes?
4. Is the U.S. military now acting as a mercenary force for the Saudis, and, if so, who is tracking the money and who is being paid?
It was just back on October 11, 2019 that Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced that the U.S. was sending an additional 1,800 troops to Saudi Arabia. Esper said at the time that the additional troops would serve as a deterrent to Iranian aggression. Saudi Arabia has been engaged in bloody battle with Iranian-backed Yemeni forces for years.
“We would very much like to see Iran stop attacking countries in the region,” he (Esper) said. “That would be the easiest way for us to reduce our troop levels in the region, but this is very much focused around defensive, and it will continue to be defensive. We are not looking for a fight.”
Heh, “Not looking for a fight.”
President Trump, who often praises Saudi Arabia as a partner and a prolific buyer of American arms, said late Friday that the kingdom “has agreed to pay us for everything we’re doing to help them.”
Okay, so the U.S. is carrying out assassinations or attempted assassinations of top Iranian military leaders, and which nation is the biggest beneficiary of such attacks? There is only one answer: Saudi Arabia.
Trump says the Saudis are paying us “for everything we’re doing to help them.” Who is tracking this money, and who is getting paid? And linking points #2 and #3, which senators would most likely be rewarded by Saudi Arabia for pressuring Trump to green-light these assassinations? And how much would these actions be worth to the Saudis? One would guess a hell of a lot.
Someone check Lindsey Graham’s bank account. Or maybe his offshore account. And check Mitch McConnell’s accounts while you’re at it.