The Killing of Soleimani: Is This The Beginning of WWIII?

[GreyhoundFan]

I figured I'd start a thread to discuss this, as it is feared retaliation is inevitable.

"Iran vows revenge after U.S. drone strike kills elite force commander"

Spoiler

President Trump ordered a drone strike near the Baghdad airport, killing Qasem Soleimani, one of Iran’s top military figures and leader of its special operations forces abroad. Iran has vowed revenge against the United States, ratcheting up tensions in the region. Here’s what we know:

• Qasem Soleimani was a towering figure who was key in training Iran’s proxies around the region, especially in Iraq.

• Iran has vowed to retaliate against the United States. The U.S. Embassy in Iraq has called on all U.S. citizens to leave the country immediately.

• Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Soleimani was planning new attacks against U.S. diplomats in the region and stressed that Washington is committed to de-escalation.

• Iraq’s politicians have roundly condemned the strike, describing it as both a violation of its sovereignty and the agreement allowing U.S. forces in the country.

BEIRUT — Iran on Friday vowed "severe revenge" in response to a U.S. drone strike that killed Tehran's most powerful military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, and dramatically sharpened tensions across the Middle East.

Soleimani was a towering figure in Iran's power projection across the region, with close links to a network of paramilitary groups that stretches from Syria to Yemen. His death in the smoldering wreckage of a two-car convoy in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, left U.S. outposts and personnel bracing for retaliatory attacks and oil prices shooting upward. The U.S. Embassy in Iraq warned its citizens to leave "immediately."

"With his departure and with God's power, his work and path will not cease, and severe revenge awaits those criminals who have tainted their filthy hands with his blood and the blood of the other martyrs of last night's incident," Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in a statement.

The country's defense minister, Amir Hatami, said the nighttime strike ordered by President Trump would be met with a "crushing" response.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the attack was spurred by intelligence assessments indicating that Soleimani was overseeing an “imminent” attack on American citizens in the Middle East.

“I can’t talk too much about the nature of the threats, but the American people should know that President Trump’s decision to remove Qasem Soleimani from the battlefield saved American lives,” Pompeo told Fox News. In a tweet, the president said that Soleimani had “killed or badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill many more . . . but got caught!”

The basis for Trump’s statement remained unclear, although it followed comments Thursday by Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper suggesting that Iran and its proxies may be preparing renewed strikes on U.S. personnel in Iraq.

A U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the record, said that the attack was conducted by a U.S. drone and struck a two-car convoy on an access road near Baghdad International Airport. At least six people were believed to have been killed.

After a week in which frictions between the two countries had sparked a siege of Baghdad's U.S. Embassy by supporters of an Iranian-backed militia, the drone strike early Friday local time appeared to be aimed at crippling a force that has been the vanguard of Tehran's decades-long effort to shape the region in its favor.

Soleimani joined Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a young man and took control of the Quds Force, its special operations wing, in the late 1990s.

Under his command, the force built alliances across the region by paying for weapons and providing strategic guidance. Soleimani was regularly photographed on visits to affiliated militias in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere, burnishing a reputation as a talismanic operator with influence across the region.

The operational impact of his death was not immediately clear. Iranian state media said that he would be succeeded by his deputy, Brig. Gen. Esmail Ghaani. Khamenei said that the strategy of the Quds Force under Ghaani would be “identical.”

The U.S. strike appeared to have killed some of the Quds Force’s key allies. Among the dead were Jamal Jaafar Ibrahimi, a powerful Iraqi militia leader better known by his nom de guerre, Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, who was once imprisoned in Kuwait for bombing the U.S. embassy there.

It was unclear whether the United States had notified Western allies of the plan to attack, despite its potentially far-reaching implications for militaries stationed in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. Pompeo said on his Twitter feed that he had discussed the operation afterward with British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, Chinese Politburo Member Yang Jiechi and German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, telling them that “the U.S. remains committed to de-escalation.”

Experts warned Friday that the strike could instead be a catalyst for greater violence. “We have to expect some escalation in the form of retaliation on the Iranian side,” said Riad Kahwaji, founder of the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analyses.

He predicted that the Iranians would be seeking to assassinate or kidnap senior Americans in the region or strike U.S. naval targets in the Persian Gulf. That could, in turn, prompt a further U.S. escalation, perhaps to include strikes on Iranian territory.

“Everybody is worried about this coming war that will reach the Gulf countries and even the whole region,” he said. A U.S.-Iran war has become increasingly inevitable since President Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and imposed new sanctions on Iran, Kahwaji said.

“It was inevitable that this was going to reach a point of climax, that if there weren’t going to be negotiations, there would be war,” he said.

As Friday wore on, the responses from Iran’s paramilitary allies rolled in. In Lebanon, Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah issued condolences for Soleimani’s “martyrdom” and urged Shiite militia factions in Iraq not to let his death “go to waste.”

Moqtada al-Sadr, a firebrand Iraqi Shiite cleric and militia leader, used his Twitter account to order fighters from his Mahdi Army “to be ready.” Formed in the aftermath of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, the group gained notoriety for its attacks on U.S. troops before it was officially disbanded in 2008.

Videos showed the crumpled, flaming wreckage of the vehicle in which Soleimani was thought to have been traveling. On social media, a photograph appeared to show his blood and ash-smeared hand with a ring in red and gold that had been visible in earlier photos.

On Dec. 31, supporters of an Iranian-backed militia breached the gates of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, demanding that U.S. troops and diplomats leave the country.

In a statement, Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi condemned the U.S. “assassination,” adding that the killing of the Iraqi militia leader was an act of aggression against Iraq and a breach of the conditions under which American forces operate in the country.

There are few countries where the power struggle between Washington and Tehran has had such an impact, and Abdul Mahdi’s government has fought to prevent Iraq from becoming an arena for a shadow war between the two. Intensified regional violence would likely begin there, said Henry Rome, an analyst with the Eurasia Group. “Iranian-backed militias will attack U.S. bases and some U.S. soldiers will be killed; the U.S. will retaliate with strikes inside of Iraq,” he wrote in an analysis.

But he also suggested that the cycle might ultimately be contained. “Why would the Soleimani assassination not immediately trigger a limited or even major conflict? The structural factors are powerful,” he said, suggesting that leaders in Tehran might still be leery of any conflict which further damages an economy already crippled by U.S. sanctions, and that President Trump was unlikely to want to embark upon a new war with a reelection campaign looming.

Iraq’s leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, condemned the U.S. drone strike on Friday and called on all parties to practice restraint.

“The vicious attack on Baghdad International Airport last night is an insolent breach of Iraqi sovereignty and international agreements. It led to the killing of several commanders who defeated Islamic State terrorists,” Sistani’s office said in a statement.

“These events and more indicate the country is heading toward very difficult times. We call on all concerned parties to behave with self restraints and act wisely,” he said.

For its part, Russia said the killing was reckless and would fuel tension in the region and offered condolences to its ally, Iran. “Soleimani loyally served the cause of defending the national interests of Iran. We offer our sincere condolences to the Iranian people,” the Foreign Ministry said.

The attack raises fresh questions about President Trump’s approach to the Middle East. While he has employed bellicose rhetoric and authorized several strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s military — another close ally of Tehran — Trump has repeatedly promised to get the United States out of costly wars in the Middle East.

Soleimani’s killing sent shudders through world markets: Brent crude oil futures jumped nearly $3 to $69 a barrel, their highest since September. U.S. stock futures plunged. The Dow Jones industrial average was set to drop around 350 points, more than 1 percent, and European markets were trading down nearly 2 percent.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"What Trump said about Obama going to war with Iran, and what it means now"

Spoiler

The United States killed a top-level Iranian military leader in Iraq early Friday local time, and the questions on everyone’s mind are: Are we now at war? What happens next? And what is President Trump prepared to do?

The decision to take out the powerful military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, was a huge one. Reporting suggests he is indispensable to Iran-backed forces across the Middle East, and the move will be seen as a remarkable escalation of tensions between Iran and the United States — even after supporters of an Iranian-backed militia stormed the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad this week. Iran has responded to the Trump administration’s pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal and implementing heavy sanctions with increasing provocations, and Trump has now lodged a major response.

We can say two things about Trump in this moment:

1. He has shown a real reluctance as president to remain bogged down in the Middle East, and that has even been the case with regard to Iran. In June, for example, after Iran shot down a U.S. drone, he canceled a planned military strike on Iran at the last minute.
2. He has otherwise telegraphed a very hawkish approach to Iran over the past four decades — and on many occasions, conspicuously suggested war there might help his predecessor get elected. That tough rhetoric increasingly looms over what he may feel is necessary now.

I ran through Trump’s past commentary on Iran in the summer of 2018, which was one of the many times when he used very threatening language with Iran.

His earliest recorded comments about Iran were in 1980, when he said the United States should have gone in militarily to free those held in the Iranian hostage crisis and maybe even go further.

“I absolutely feel that [the U.S. should have sent troops], yes,” Trump told gossip columnist Rona Barrett. “I don’t think there’s any question, and there is no question in my mind. I think right now we’d be an oil-rich nation, and I believe that we should have done it, and I’m very disappointed that we didn’t do it, and I don’t think anybody would have held us in abeyance.”

Trump added: “That would have been the easiest victory we would have ever won, in my opinion.”

In 2011, Trump reinforced that military action should always be an option when it came to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon — but emphasized that it should be a last resort.

“I would never take the military card off the table, and it’s possible that it will have to be used, because Iran cannot have nuclear weapons,” Trump said in a November 2011 video from his office. “But you’ve got to exhaust other possibilities.”

In 2012, he said Iran would be easy to negotiate with because they know “we could blow them away to the Stone Age.” But he added, in comments that perhaps resonate today, that “they just don’t believe we would.”

In 2013, he suggested attacking Iran instead of getting involved in Syria, saying, “maybe we should knock the hell out of Iran and their nuclear capabilities?”

It was in this same window that Trump began trafficking in his theory that President Barack Obama would go to war with Iran for the purposes of rallying public opinion and getting reelected — comments that will lead to plenty of theorizing about Trump’s own motivations now that he’s in a reelection year. Trump said it repeatedly and even held on to the idea that Obama would go to war after Obama was reelected.

“Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate,” Trump said in a 2011 video blog. “He’s weak, and he’s ineffective. So the only way he figures that he’s going to get reelected — as sure as you’re sitting there — is to start a war with Iran."

More examples from before the 2012 election:

Since becoming president, Trump has repeatedly used tough rhetoric about Iran, putting it “ON NOTICE,” saying he wouldn’t be as “kind” as Obama was. In perhaps his most hawkish comments, Trump sent an ALL CAPS tweet in June 2018 warning Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to “NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE.”

At the same time, it’s not clear how familiar Trump is with what has happened in the country. In a 2015 interview with Hugh Hewitt, for example, Trump didn’t appear to be familiar with the Quds Force, Iran’s special foreign operations unit that Soleimani led, mixing it up with the Kurds. Trump also asked for more information on Soleimani.

“Are you familiar with Gen. Soleimani?” Hewitt asked.

“Yes, but go ahead, give me a little — go ahead, tell me,” Trump said. “The Kurds, by the way, have been horribly mistreated by …”

Hewitt corrected Trump that he was talking about the Quds Force. “Not the Kurds, the Quds Forces, the Iranian revolutionary Quds Forces,” Hewitt said. “The bad guys.”

Hewitt went on to describe Soleimani, to which Trump responded: “Is he the gentleman going back and forth with Russia, meeting with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin? I read something, and that seems to be also where he’s at.”

However much Trump knows about Iran now that he’s president, though, the fact remains that he’s in the driver’s seat. And, given his past comments, it’s evident that he views tough talk as necessary to keep Iran in line: If they don’t fear you, they won’t respect you, and you won’t have the upper hand. The flip side of that is if they try to call your bluff. Through provocations, Iran has apparently pushed Trump toward feeling as though he has to make good on his threats — or at least send a strong signal that he’s willing to go there.

That doesn’t mean Trump is eager for war — and his recent withdrawal announcements about Syria suggest he is indeed trying to get out of the Middle East, even over strenuous objections from those around him. But in the end, what we have is a president who has repeatedly written a check with his mouth, and the bill appears to be coming due.

 

[Smash!]

I do think and hope that there will be brave government officials who stop this madness before it escalates in WWIII. And I pray the irani military will be so wise and not attack The States on their soil. I’ve heard rumours that the country might plan a terrorist attack like 9/11 but I think it’s unlikely. Will there be war? Sure and like with Syria I regret not have visited Iran when I had the chance to do so. My guess is Iran will become another Syria which is absolutely horrible.

 

 

[Cleopatra7]

47 minutes ago, Smash! said:

I do think and hope that there will be brave government officials who stop this madness before it escalates in WWIII. And I pray the irani military will be so wise and not attack The States on their soil. I’ve heard rumours that the country might plan a terrorist attack like 9/11 but I think it’s unlikely. Will there be war? Sure and like with Syria I regret not have visited Iran when I had the chance to do so. My guess is Iran will become another Syria which is absolutely horrible.

 

 

911 took more than a decade to plan and cost about half a million dollars.  Nobody’s got that time and money anymore. That’s why ISIS just tells people to stab or shoot indiscriminately in a crowd or run people over, as well as why they claim to be involved in acts of violence that have nothing to do with them. 

The US is the only country that has a navy that can be deployed anywhere in the world, so Iran can’t fight us here. But if we do try a ground invasion, they’ll win.  Their death toll in the Iran-Iraq War was in the millions. They’ll fight tooth and nail to save their country, and the US simply isn’t willing to tolerate huge military losses. It’s amazing that so many Americans don’t understand why so many people in other countries hate this country when our government does stuff like this under the guise of “spreading freedom.” 

[Drala]

18 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

<snip> It’s amazing that so many Americans don’t understand why so many people in other countries hate this country when our government does stuff like this under the guise of “spreading freedom.” 

Or under the guise of "self defense."  I don't think US citizens have much of an appetite for escalating warfare in the middle east -- unless the Iranians attack the homeland.  Many of the talking heads are warning about a major cyber attack by the Iranians, as that appears to be an area where we are most vulnerable.  They could knock out power grids or financial systems, which would cause a world of hurt as well as whet the appetite for war in the US.  I'm hoping the Iranians show some restraint in their retaliation.

[fraurosena]

According to reports I've been reading (in Dutch) experts are expecting the Iranian retaliation to consist of sowing as much unrest and discord as they possibly can, and that in all probability they will attack targets in the Middle East --although they don't exclude the possibility of an attack on American soil, they don't think it the most likely scenario. 

In their opinion, the eventuality of WWIII because of this isn't that realistic, as Iran is well aware that America has the superior military might. 

No, the Iranians will be smart about their retaliation. It might not be swift, but you can bet it will be intense and designed to cause as much chaos and unrest as they can. If, as @Drala says, the Iranians have the capability of conducting a major cyber attack, then I believe that this is quite possibly the route they will take. Although I don't know how much stock the Iranians set on an eye for an eye retaliation though, in which case they might go for a physical attack and causing loss of life.

Trump poked the hornets nest, and they will come abuzzing. But it won't lead to WWIII. It might lead to yet another article of impeachment though, as Trump didn't inform Congress or the Gang of Eight of the imminent attack, as he should have done. And, again, it's more evidence of his complete and utter incompetence and unfitness for office.

 

[WiseGirl]

One of my senators is not too happy. Oh and right about a lot of this.

Spoiler

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Spoiler

 

Edited January 4, 2020 by WiseGirl
Whoops on the link.

[Blessings of the Corn]

War is inevitable at this point. I am freaked out today a bit. My little bro was supposed to come home on leave. That's been cancelled. I am almost sure (he can't say anything) that he's being deployed (or already has). He's only 20 and the sweetest. I KNOW he signed up, and I will support his choices, but this garbage disposal of a country is hardly worth long-lasting effects war will have on him and all the others like him  (I refuse to think about him not even coming home). It's all about oil/money/power - not ''freedoms"...

[BernRul]

So it's pretty clear that Trump is doing this for his reelection, right? That's obvious based on his own tweets.

I just am not convinced that it will work out that way. I can't see Democrats or lukewarm independents going gung-ho about war this time around. We already hate Trump. Maybe I'm wrong--that's a definite possibility that's keeping me worried. But maybe, just maybe, people are starting to wise up.

This shit can't go on forever. Eventually people wake the f up. Since so many of us hate Trump already and remember the Iraq War, hopefully at least 50% of us will see through this. 

[Smash!]

Oh dear god

Now people start to realize HRC would have been a better president. But during her campaign a lot of people where „Benghazi“! „but her emails!“ [emoji849] (not directed to the poster but to some people who commented)

[47of74]

It would be nice if we could do this

Quote

A new policy issued by the United States Department of Defense, in conjunction with online platforms like Twitter and Facebook, will automatically enlist you to fight in a foreign war if you post your support for attacking another country.

People who bravely post about how the U.S. needs to invade some country in the Middle East or Asia or outer space will get a pop-up notice indicating they've been enlisted in the military. A recruiter will then show up at their house and whisk them away to fight in the foreign war they wanted to happen so badly.

Strangely, as soon as the policy was implemented, 99% of saber-rattling suddenly ceased.

I think the fuck stickery would go way down if the members of the 69th Keyboard Warriors Batallion - both elected and those at home - had to put their money where their cakeholes are and go off and fight in these wars they all want so bad.

[Ozlsn]

I saw the news last night and my first thought was "well that's not helpful." I am still not convinced Trump realises Iraq and Iran are two separate countries, and quite different from each other. 

1 hour ago, 47of74 said:

think the fuck stickery would go way down if the members of the 69th Keyboard Warriors Batallion - both elected and those at home - had to put their money where their cakeholes are and go off and fight in these wars they all want so bad

Trump is probably too old to deploy - but his children (Barron excepted) aren't. 

I am in two minds as to whether this will lead to war. I suspect more attacks on softer targets, possibly cyber attacks and further destabilisation in the middle east. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

3 hours ago, Ozlsn said:

I am still not convinced Trump realises Iraq and Iran are two separate countries, and quite different from each other. 

Many tRumpsters probably don't.

[RosyDaisy]

And they don't care.  I am surrounded by ignorant assholes like that.  Their answer to any conflict is "blow up them mother fuckers".  They can't/won't/don't comprehend the the loss of innocent lives or the many negative consequences.

[47of74]

Trump is probably too old to deploy - but his children (Barron excepted) aren't. 

I think if older guys like the orange ingrown ass hair had to deploy when they started mouthing off in favor of military action instead of young men and women you would see a lot less of this aggressive behavior. Regardless of their age and physical condition or how many assistive devices (walkers, motorized chairs, oxygen, etc) they need.

I’m thinking for going by the armed forces recruiting place today to see how many BTs are putting their money where their mouths are now that the orange fornicate is trying to start WW III.

[GreyhoundFan]

2 hours ago, 47of74 said:

I’m thinking for going by the armed forces recruiting place today to see how many BTs are putting their money where their mouths are now that the orange fornicate is trying to start WW III.

 

I'm guessing you'd see nobody there except the recruiter.

 

10 hours ago, Ozlsn said:

Trump is probably too old to deploy - but his children (Barron excepted) aren't.

Can you imagine the three oldest spawn in the military? I was suddenly reminded of the end of the movie, "Animal House".

I am NOT advocating killing anyone, even Junior, Ivanka, and Eric, but I can imagine their comrades getting sick of their shit pretty quickly and taking things into their own hands.

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Why Soleimani’s killing is different from other targeted attacks by U.S."

Spoiler

In recent years, the United States has launched several risky military operations to kill individuals it viewed as posing a direct threat to U.S. national security, including raids against the leaders of the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.

But analysts warned that Friday’s airstrike on a two-vehicle convoy near the Baghdad airport that killed senior Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani and several other people differs greatly from earlier strikes on extremist operatives and puts the United States — and the Middle East — in dangerously uncharted territory.

“This is a very different level of escalation,” said Anthony Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. After targeted killings of extremists, he said, the greatest cause for concern “might be a brief intensification of fighting or some kind of limited reprisals against the U.S. military.”

After the killing of Soleimani, the United States could face direct Iranian reprisals, including potential cyberattacks, analysts said. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, threatened “severe revenge” but gave no indication of what could come.

Barbara Slavin, the director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council, said Trump is “trying to do a victory lap here and beat his chest and somehow show this is like killing Baghdadi.” She was referring to the October raid on the hideout of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in northwestern Syria. “But it’s not. It’s much more serious,” she said.

Like Baghdadi’s, other targeted killings carried out by the United States have typically struck at extremist leaders without affiliations to a powerful state such as Iran.

In 2011, a drone strike killed the U.S.-born al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki, marking the first acknowledged case of the United States tracking and killing one of its own citizens with a drone abroad. Three years later, a federal court released a Justice Department memo that had previously been secret, which outlined the government’s legal justification for the killing. The document claimed that Awlaki’s ties to al-Qaeda put him “within the scope” of military force approved by Congress following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Earlier in 2011, then-President Barack Obama announced that Navy SEALs had raided a compound in Abottabad, Pakistan, and killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda who plotted the 9/11 attacks. And last year, a U.S. military operation in northwestern Syria led Islamic State leader Baghdadi to detonate a suicide vest, killing himself and three of his children.

“He didn’t die a hero. He died a coward,” Trump said about the raid.

But in those cases, Cordesman said, “you were killing a leader in a context of an ongoing operation against an extremist movement which did not have a major state sponsor.”

“Here you’re talking about . . . somebody who was recognized throughout the gulf region, for good or bad, as a figure sponsoring groups and supporting countries with a great deal of popular support,” he said.

Soleimani joined Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its early days after the 1979 revolution in Iran and grew into one of the most influential military commanders in the region, eventually taking control of the elite Quds Force, a branch of the Revolutionary Guard, in the late 1990s. The group aligned itself with Shiite militias in Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, and the Pentagon has accused militias linked to Iran of killing hundreds of U.S. troops there. Iraqi militia commander Jamal Jaafar Ibrahimi, also known by the name Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was also killed in Friday’s airstrike near Baghdad’s airport.

The Trump administration has defended the attack, which came amid escalating tension between Iran and the United States, with Iraq among the venues where the confrontation is unfolding. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CNN on Friday that the attack on Soleimani was necessary to avert an “imminent attack” against Americans.

But the strike alarmed European allies of the United States, which urged restraint to avoid a full-blown conflict. Analysts also warned that the 2015 nuclear deal could now completely fall apart.

Other recent attacks against Iranians include the killings of four scientists affiliated with Tehran’s nuclear program between 2010 and 2012. Iran blamed the United States and Israel for the attacks and in 2017 sentenced an Iranian citizen to death in connection with the killings, calling the unnamed individual a “Mossad agent.” The United States denied involvement. In 2008, a car bomb in Syria killed Imad Fayez Mughniyeh, a Lebanese Hezbollah leader closely tied to Iran.

But Soleimani was an outsize figure in Iran and across the Middle East. If Iran chooses to retaliate swiftly, Slavin said, “there are just myriad ways in which we’re likely to see chaos flowing.”

The United States has ordered Americans to leave Iraq immediately. Oil prices spiked, and protests broke out in Iran. The Pentagon announced that an additional 3,500 U.S. troops would be deployed to the Middle East.

Iran has “enormous resources at its power,” Slavin said. “I think Trump has no idea what he’s done.”

 

[47of74]

Meanwhile the LAPD stepped in it

Los Angeles has the largest Iranian community outside of Iran and many of them are rightly worried about the situation.

Quote

Iranian Americans have for years wondered how long Donald Trump’s travel ban would keep them separated from their families. Now, they are questioning when the president’s actions might kill them.

Among the massive Persian community in southern California, which is home to the largest Iranian population outside of Iran, residents said the news of a US airstrike killing Iran’s most powerful general had caused them to experience panic and dread, flashbacks to childhood memories of war, and concerns that they may never see some of their friends and relatives again.

“The anxiety and fear is palpable,” said Niaz Kasravi, a Los Angeles-based advocate who came to the US from Iran in 1984 when she was nine. “Some of our generations have been through this so many times … Is this the start of a third world war?”

There are also fears of increased harassment, discrimination and violence against Iranian Americans as tensions rise, said Kasravi, who is the director of the Avalan Institute, a research group. While US law enforcement officials, including the LA police department, have vowed to step up security measures, that’s not always comforting, given histories of unjust policing, she said: “I want my community to be safer, but I don’t want that safety to depend on a system that I know is not particularly effective or fair for all communities.”

So my 47-sense is going off here.

[GreyhoundFan]

To go along with that article:

 

[FluffySnowball]

There are many things I criticize when it comes to Iran, their horrible treatment of homosexuals being one main aspect, but I have always thought of Qassim Soleimani as an admirable person, even a hero. He spent decades of his life combating groups like al Qaida and was the brain behind the successful fight against ISIS. His actions have saved more lives - possibly hundreds of thousands if not millions - than many people imagine. I am sad about his death. 

I’m aware some people might want to downvote this post and so be it. That’s how I feel about Soleimani’s assassination regardless. 

Edited January 4, 2020 by FluffySnowball

[WiseGirl]

[seraaa]

I really, really wish someone would take his twitter away from him

Also the Iranian government/military are still talking about extracting revenge and all of this looks very bad, guys.

[FluffySnowball]

9 minutes ago, seraaa said:

I really, really wish someone would take his twitter away from him.

I understand your sentiment, but Twitter might be the place where all of us - Americans and people from around the world alike - learn what’s on Trump’s mind. The Senate seems not to get all info in time it seems.