Coming Soon - War with Iran?

[FourthBase]

Any chance people here could at least demonstrate that they're equally as cynical and antagonistic toward fascist Iran by deconstructing something like the theater of official state mourning for Soleimani? Maybe ask the same kind of questions you'd ask about Trump, like, "Does the Ayatollah really expect us to think he's crying?" Maybe make the same bitter remarks about the spectacle, like noting how the cranes in Iran do double duty as perches for cameramen and gallows for gays?

[Harvey]

Former British Ambassador Craig Murray:

Lies, the Bethlehem Doctrine, and the Illegal Murder of Soleimani https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... soleimani/


In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani, Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. It is a careful choice of word. Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence.

Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu’s government and then Blair’s, the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of “pre-emptive self-defence” against “imminent” attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept. Including me.

What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here “Imminent” – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either “soon” or “about to happen”. An attack may be deemed “imminent”, according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of “intelligence” you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again.

I am not inventing the Bethlehem Doctrine. It has been the formal legal justification for drone strikes and targeted assassinations by the Israeli, US and UK governments for a decade. Here it is in academic paper form, published by Bethlehem after he left government service (the form in which it is adopted by the US, UK and Israeli Governments is classified information).

So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were “imminent” he is not using the word in the normal sense in the English language. It is no use asking him what, where or when these “imminent” attacks were planned to be. He is referencing the Bethlehem Doctrine under which you can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something.

The idea that killing an individual who you have received information is going to attack you, but you do not know when, where or how, can be justified as self-defence, has not gained widespread acceptance – or indeed virtually any acceptance – in legal circles outside the ranks of the most extreme devoted neo-conservatives and zionists. Daniel Bethlehem became the FCO’s Chief Legal Adviser, brought in by Jack Straw, precisely because every single one of the FCO’s existing Legal Advisers believed the Iraq War to be illegal. In 2004, when the House of Commons was considering the legality of the war on Iraq, Bethlehem produced a remarkable paper for consideration which said that it was legal because the courts and existing law were wrong, a defence which has seldom succeeded in court.

(b)
following this line, I am also of the view that the wider principles of the law on self-defence also require closer scrutiny. I am not persuaded that the approach of doctrinal purity reflected in the Judgments of the International Court of Justice in this area provide a helpful edifice on which a coherent legal regime, able to address the exigencies of contemporary international life and discourage resort to unilateral action, is easily crafted;

The key was that the concept of “imminent” was to change:

The concept of what constitutes an “imminent” armed attack will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats

In the absence of a respectable international lawyer willing to argue this kind of tosh, Blair brought in Bethlehem as Chief Legal Adviser, the man who advised Netanyahu on Israel’s security wall and who was willing to say that attacking Iraq was legal on the basis of Saddam’s “imminent threat” to the UK, which proved to be non-existent. It says everything about Bethlehem’s eagerness for killing that the formulation of the Bethlehem Doctrine on extrajudicial execution by drone came after the Iraq War, and he still gave not one second’s thought to the fact that the intelligence on the “imminent threat” can be wrong. Assassinating people on the basis of faulty intelligence is not addressed by Bethlehem in setting out his doctrine. The bloodlust is strong in this one.

There are literally scores of academic articles, in every respected journal of international law, taking down the Bethlehem Doctrine for its obvious absurdities and revolting special pleading. My favourite is this one by Bethlehem’s predecessor as the FCO Chief Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood and his ex-Deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst.

I addressed the Bethlehem Doctrine as part of my contribution to a book reflecting on Chomsky‘s essay “On the Responsibility of Intellectuals”

In the UK recently, the Attorney
General gave a speech in defence of the UK’s drone policy, the assassination
of people – including British nationals – abroad. This execution
without a hearing is based on several criteria, he reassured us. His
speech was repeated slavishly in the British media. In fact, the Guardian
newspaper simply republished the government press release absolutely
verbatim, and stuck a reporter’s byline at the top.
The media have no interest in a critical appraisal of the process
by which the British government regularly executes without trial. Yet
in fact it is extremely interesting. The genesis of the policy lay in the
appointment of Daniel Bethlehem as the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office’s Chief Legal Adviser. Jack Straw made the appointment, and for
the first time ever it was external, and not from the Foreign Office’s own
large team of world-renowned international lawyers. The reason for that
is not in dispute. Every single one of the FCO’s legal advisers had advised
that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and Straw wished to find a new head
of the department more in tune with the neo-conservative world view.
Straw went to extremes. He appointed Daniel Bethlehem, the legal
‘expert’ who provided the legal advice to Benjamin Netanyahu on the
‘legality’ of building the great wall hemming in the Palestinians away
from their land and water resources. Bethlehem was an enthusiastic
proponent of the invasion of Iraq. He was also the most enthusiastic
proponent in the world of drone strikes.
Bethlehem provided an opinion on the legality of drone strikes
which is, to say the least, controversial. To give one example, Bethlehem
accepts that established principles of international law dictate that
lethal force may be used only to prevent an attack which is ‘imminent’.
Bethlehem argues that for an attack to be ‘imminent’ does not require it
to be ‘soon’. Indeed you can kill to avert an ‘imminent attack’ even if you
have no information on when and where it will be. You can instead rely
on your target’s ‘pattern of behaviour’; that is, if he has attacked before,
it is reasonable to assume he will attack again and that such an attack is
‘imminent’.
There is a much deeper problem: that the evidence against the
target is often extremely dubious. Yet even allowing the evidence to
be perfect, it is beyond me that the state can kill in such circumstances
without it being considered a death penalty imposed without trial for
past crimes, rather than to frustrate another ‘imminent’ one.
You would think that background would make an interesting
story. Yet the entire ‘serious’ British media published the government
line, without a single journalist, not one, writing about the fact that
Bethlehem’s proposed definition of ‘imminent’ has been widely rejected
by the international law community. The public knows none of this. They
just ‘know’ that drone strikes are keeping us safe from deadly attack by
terrorists, because the government says so, and nobody has attempted to
give them other information

Remember, this is not just academic argument, the Bethlehem Doctrine is the formal policy position on assassination of Israel, the US and UK governments. So that is lie one. When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning “imminent” attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which “imminent” is a “concept” which means neither “soon” nor “definitely going to happen”. To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem.

Let us now move on to the next lie, which is being widely repeated, this time originated by Donald Trump, that Soleimani was responsible for the “deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans”. This lie has been parroted by everybody, Republicans and Democrats alike.



The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11, in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90% of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf satellites, and less than 10% of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to Iran.

This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which, regardless of party, are beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money. It is, the USA affirms, the Sunnis who are the allies and the Shias who are the enemy. Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni, every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni, the Benghazi attack was by Sunnis, Isil are Sunni, Al Nusra are Sunni, the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis.

Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which the Shia forces of Soleimani were responsible? Is there a list? It is of course a simple lie. Its tenuous connection with truth relates to the Pentagon’s estimate – suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became the designated enemy – that back during the invasion of Iraq itself, 83% of US troop deaths were at the hands of Sunni resistance and 17% of of US troop deaths were at the hands of Shia resistance, that is 603 troops. All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani, remarkably.

Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion. The Iraqi Shia militias – whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion. The idea that the killing of invading American troops was somehow illegal or illegitimate is risible. Plainly the US propaganda that Soleimani was “responsible for hundreds of American deaths” is intended, as part of the justification for his murder, to give the impression he was involved in terrorism, not legitimate combat against invading forces. The idea that the US has the right to execute those who fight it when it invades is an absolutely stinking abnegation of the laws of war.

As I understand it, there is very little evidence that Soleimani had active operational command of Shia militias during the invasion, and in any case to credit him personally with every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense. But even if Soleimani had personally supervised every combat success, these were legitimate acts of war. You cannot simply assassinate opposing generals who fought you, years after you invade.

The final, and perhaps silliest lie, is Vice President Mike Pence’s attempt to link Soleimani to 9/11. There is absolutely no link between Soleimani and 9/11, and the most strenuous efforts by the Bush regime to find evidence that would link either Iran or Iraq to 9/11 (and thus take the heat off their pals the al-Saud who were actually responsible) failed. Yes, it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to Afghanistan. But there is zero evidence, as the 9/11 report specifically stated, that the Iranians knew what they were planning, or that Soleimani personally was involved. This is total bullshit. 9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.

Soleimani actually was involved in intelligence and logistical cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan post 9/11 (the Taliban were his enemies too, the shia Tajiks being a key part of the US aligned Northern Alliance). He was in Iraq to fight ISIL.

The final aggravating factor in the Soleimani murder is that he was an accredited combatant general of a foreign state which the world – including the USA – recognises. The Bethlehem Doctrine specifically applies to “non-state actors”. Unlike all of the foregoing, this next is speculation, but I suspect that the legal argument in the Pentagon ran that Soleimani is a non-state actor when in Iraq, where the Shia militias have a semi-official status.

But that does not wash. Soleimani is a high official in Iran who was present in Iraq as a guest of the Iraqi government, to which the US government is allied. This greatly exacerbates the illegality of his assassination still further.

The political world in the UK is so cowed by the power of the neo-conservative Establishment and media, that the assassination of Soleimani is not being called out for the act of blatant illegality that it is. It was an act of state terrorism by the USA, pure and simple.

Edit to add: more links at source.

[Harvey]

Any chance people here could at least demonstrate that they're equally as cynical and antagonistic toward fascist Iran by deconstructing something like the theater of official state mourning for Soleimani? Maybe ask the same kind of questions you'd ask about Trump, like, "Does the Ayatollah really expect us to think he's crying?" Maybe make the same bitter remarks about the spectacle, like noting how the cranes in Iran do double duty as perches for cameramen and gallows for gays?

He knew him you fucking idiot.

[Laodicean]

@fourthbase: By your reasoning Saddam Hussein would have been justified in killing five million Americans, and someone should nuke Washington to prevent Trump from starting a massive war in the Middle East.

Right, well, that's where the dominance I'm happy about comes into play. However evil my country can be, to whatever evil extent it has not been genuinely trying to suppress the evil of others: Nobody can out-evil America like that. Unless they want to be exterminated. Call me a smug, ugly, arrogant American and worse. But it is what it is. Any of you who live within the borders of an American ally are probably secretly grateful about it, too.

And your hypothetical about nuking Berlin is bullshit. You're arguing through 20-20 hindsight goggles.

No, it's not bullshit.

You people just can't answer it without losing.

Either you condone nuking a city and you lose face as an anti-fascist who's always condemned evil, evil America for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Or you condone letting the Nazis kill several million Jews and tens of millions of Soviet comrades. In which case, you really lose face as an anti-fascist.

You said 1941. People didn't know just how bad it would get at that point. Bad, yes, but not 50 million bad. It's not as black and white as you want it to be. If that makes me "lose" your little game, so be it.

But let's assume that people back then knew exactly how bad it would get and that they nuked Berlin and cut the war short. Yay!
Except then the Soviet Union wouldn't be an ally, and they wouldn't have a broken back and would be in a much better position to challenge America, which at that point hadn't gotten their war machine up and running. Perhaps the only reason the US is top dog today is because WW2 happened as it did (one dumb hypothetical is as good as any other).

Evading the game isn't losing. But it is evasion, which is telling. You obviously know it's a lose-lose for any anti-fascist who's ever condemned Hiroshima. And it's not really a game. It's a hypothetical scenario designed to reveal something real about your principles. As I said, the history of the counterfactual isn't the point. This isn't an alt-history novel being written. This is one question, in a vacuum. Any complications of the nuke relating to which country would then have how much power are irrelevant. Any practical concerns about how the bomb-droppers would know that 50 million lives are on the line are irrelevant. Let's say the bomb-dropper is you, in a time machine. This is basically just a large-scale scale version of "Would it be okay to assassinate Baby Hitler if it could prevent the Holocaust?" The unintended consequences make for interesting sci fi, the potential precedents set would make for interesting spinoff dilemmas, but to get to the ethics of it, the choice must be simple, no further worse consequences, no precedents set. It's simple: Nuke Berlin, or let 50 million people die.

Ffs. If it's a choice between nuking Berlin or letting 50 million people die then you nuke Berlin, but no one at the time had that information available, as time travel wasn't invented back then, so your entire hypothetical is just a really dumb trolley problem trying to boil messy reality down to a simplistic binary choice in an attempt at a cheap gotcha. It's not clever, or really that interesting, just annoying.

The Dr's prognosis is correct.

How many nukes would be dropped? And which way would the wind be blowing?

Travel back in time to save 50 million, but end up killing all of Europe.

Ffs, take your meds.

[MacCruiskeen]

Any chance people here could at least demonstrate that they're equally as cynical and antagonistic toward fascist Iran by deconstructing something like the theater of official state mourning for Soleimani? Maybe ask the same kind of questions you'd ask about Trump, like, "Does the Ayatollah really expect us to think he's crying?" Maybe make the same bitter remarks about the spectacle, like noting how the cranes in Iran do double duty as perches for cameramen and gallows for gays?

What sharp eyes you have, grandma. Of course those "tears" were glycerine. It's unimaginable that anyone could genuinely be saddened by the murder of an Iranian leader, even in Iran,

So let's all laugh at Persians mourning, cos it stands to reason that only American Lives™ are non-ridiculously mournable. FourthBase has established that, by fiat.

A staged spectacle, by the way, all that public grief and rage. Whaddaya, whaddaya, Media manipulation, pixel-fiddling. Anyway, if them ragheads really did come out in their millions, they only done it because they were promised 72 virgins each. Ask anyone who really knows that part of the world, they're primitive there, Ruled by passion, not reason. Sly. Excitable. Not fully human, not like Americans.


https://c8.alamy.com/compde/mph2rh/isfa ... mph2rh.jpg

(No, I do not speak a word of the language. No, I have never read a book about Iran. No, I won't at least the visit the place once, get real, I don't have time. I am a very busy man.)

Anyway, in their secret hearts, all Eye-ranians actually love America. Obviously they do. How could they not?

From the recreational songbook of a USAF fighter squadron:

"Phantom Fliers in the Sky"

Phantom Flyers in the sky,
Persian-pukes prepare to die,
Rolling in with snake and nape,
Allah creates but we cremate.

North of Tehran, we did go,
When the FAC said from below,
'Hit my smoke and you will find,
The Arabs there are in a bind.'

https://books.google.de/books?id=bJbCBA ... es&f=false

("The Arabs there" Sic. In Teheran.)

Unlike our brave men and women, Iranians care nothing for human life.

1988: Iran Air Flight 655
Main article: Iran Air Flight 655

George H. W. Bush said that he would "never apologize for the United States of America. Ever. I don't care what the facts are."[89]

On July 3, 1988, near the end of the Iran–Iraq War, the US Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iranian Airbus A300B2, which was on a scheduled commercial flight in Iranian airspace over the Strait of Hormuz.[90] The attack killed 290 civilians from six nations, including 66 children. USS Vincennes was in the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Earnest Will. The United States initially contended that flight 655 was a warplane and then said that it was outside the civilian air corridor and did not respond to radio calls. Both statements were untrue, and the radio calls were made on military frequencies to which the airliner did not have access.[91][92] According to the Iranian government, the attack was an intentional and unlawful act. Iran refused to accept the idea of mistaken identification, arguing that this constituted gross negligence and recklessness amounting to an international crime, because the aircraft was not on a trajectory that threatened the Vincennes and had not aimed radar at it.[93] The United States has expressed regret for the loss of innocent life but has not apologized to the Iranian government.[94]

The men of the Vincennes were all awarded Combat Action Ribbons for completion of their tours in a combat zone. Lustig, the air-warfare coordinator, received the Navy Commendation Medal, often given for acts of heroism or meritorious service, but a not-uncommon end-of-tour medal for a second tour division officer. According to the History Channel, the medal citation noted his ability to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure."[95] However, in 1990, The Washington Post listed Lustig's awards as one being for his entire tour from 1984 to 1988 and the other for his actions relating to the surface engagement with Iranian gunboats. In 1990, Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ... from April 1987 to May 1989." The award was given for his service as the Commanding Officer of the Vincennes, and the citation made no mention of the downing of Iran Air 655.[96]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%8 ... tra_Affair

Need I go on? Need I recall Mossadegh? List the Shah's crimes? Mention Iran-Contra?

I will remind you briefly of the Iraq-Iran war:

According to the American Senate Banking Committee, the administrations of Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous dual-use items, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.[74]

So what's not to love about America? Why Do They Hate Us instead? They must have swallowed the propaganda.

Persian pukes, prepare to die.



Nuke 'em.

But that would mean X number of dead innocent people in Y country? So. They're not Americans. I'm a chauvinist, yep. I think the lives of my fellow Americans are more important. Important enough to kill a disproportionate number of other nationalities in order to save. Not sure of the exact ratio, but it's somewhere between 1:1 and 1:1,000,000. I'm not an internationalist, guys. I'm a patriot.

[FourthBase]

So, that's a no, then. Paranoia and cynicism are perfectly reasonable and useful when applied to America. But such attitudes must be deactivated when it concerns Iran. One has to understand the nuances of the situation, see. There are principles involved. First principle: Iran is better than America. Of course the Ayatollah was really crying, he knew him! How dare I question whether anything about his reaction is artificial. (EDIT: Hold up. Glycerin? Where do you even see any wetness? Mac, of all people, is seeing something that isn't even there just because the Official Narrative told him it's there. Amazing.) These are good people. Iranian leaders are just innocent victims of the Great Satan! They would never lie. They would never manufacture a spectacle in order to galvanize their nation for war. They have no ulterior motives. Not like the capitalists and Jews. When Iranians go to war, it's for legitimate reasons, like destroying the Zionist menace and avenging a noble lion like Soleimani and striking fear into the heart of evil, evil America. Death to America! How could I be so crazy to ever doubt Iran. I should go back on my meds.




























FUCK. YOU.

Done with this thread.

[Laodicean]

[liminalOyster]

Fuck.

Iran warns US not retaliate over missile attack in Iraq
By NASSER KARIMI, AMIR VAHDAT and JON GAMBRELL
18 minutes ago

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran says it has launched “tens” of surface-to-surface missiles at Iraq’s Ain Assad air base housing U.S. troops over America’s killing of a top Iranian general.

State TV described it early Wednesday as Tehran’s revenge operation over the killing of Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard then warned the U.S. and its regional allies against retaliating over the missile attack in Iraq. The Guard issued the warning via a statement carried by Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency.

“We are warning all American allies, who gave their bases to its terrorist army, that any territory that is the starting point of aggressive acts against Iran will be targeted,” The Guard said. It also threatened Israel.

U.S. forces could not be immediately reached for comment. White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said the White House is aware of the reports.

“The President has been briefed and is monitoring the situation closely and consulting with his national security team,” she said.

Ain Assad air base is in Iraq’s western Anbar province. It was first used by American forces after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled dictator Saddam Hussein. It later saw American troops stationed there amid the fight against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria.

State TV said the operation’s name was “Martyr Soleimani.” It said the Guard’s aerospace division that controls Iran’s missile program launched the attack. Iran said it would release more information later.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.

A stampede broke out Tuesday at the funeral for a top Iranian general slain in a U.S. airstrike, and at least 56 people were killed and more than 200 were injured as thousands thronged the procession, Iranian news reports said.

As the crowds mourned Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani, more angry calls rose from Iran to avenge his death, drastically raising tensions in the Middle East.

The U.S. continued to reinforce its own positions in the region and warned of an unspecified threat to shipping from Iran in the region’s waterways, crucial routes for global energy supplies. U.S. embassies and consulates from Asia to Africa and Europe issued security alerts for Americans. The U.S. Air Force launched a drill with 52 fighter jets in Utah, just days after President Donald Trump threatened to hit 52 sites in Iran.

Tuesday’s deadly stampede took place in Soleimani’s hometown of Kerman as his coffin was being borne through the city in southeastern Iran, said Pirhossein Koulivand, head of Iran’s emergency medical services.

There was no information about what set off the crush in the packed streets, and online videos showed only its aftermath: people lying apparently lifeless, their faces covered by clothing, emergency crews performing CPR on the fallen, and onlookers wailing and crying out to God.

“Unfortunately as a result of the stampede, some of our compatriots have been injured and some have been killed during the funeral processions,” Koulivand said, and state TV quoted him as saying that 56 had died and 213 had been injured.

Soleimani’s burial was delayed, with no new time given, because of concerns about the huge crowd at the cemetery, the semi-official ISNA news agency said.

A procession in Tehran on Monday drew over 1 million people in the Iranian capital, crowding both main avenues and side streets in Tehran. Such mass crowds can prove dangerous. A smaller stampede at the 1989 funeral for Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini killed at least eight people and injured hundreds.

Hossein Salami, Soleimani’s successor as leader of the Revolutionary Guard, addressed a crowd of supporters gathered at the coffin in a central square in Kernan. He vowed to avenge Soleimani, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike Friday near Baghdad’s airport.

“We tell our enemies that we will retaliate but if they take another action we will set ablaze the places that they like and are passionate about,” Salami said.

“Death to Israel!” the crowd shouted in response, referring to one of Iran’s longtime regional foes.

Salami praised Soleimani’s work, describing him as essential to backing Palestinian groups, Yemen’s Houthi rebels and Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria. As a martyr, Soleimani represented an even greater threat to Iran’s enemies, Salami said.

Soleimani will ultimately be laid to rest between the graves of Enayatollah Talebizadeh and Mohammad Hossein Yousef Elahi, two former Guard comrades killed in Iran’s 1980s war with Iraq. They died in Operation Dawn 8, in which Soleimani also took part. It was a 1986 amphibious assault that cut Iraq off from the Persian Gulf and led to the end of the war that killed 1 million.

The funeral processions in major cities over three days have been an unprecedented honor for Soleimani, seen by Iranians as a national hero for his work leading the Guard’s expeditionary Quds Force.

The U.S. blames him for killing U.S. troops in Iraq and accused him of plotting new attacks just before he was killed. Soleimani also led forces supporting Syrian President Bashar Assad in that country’s civil war, and he also served as the point man for Iranian proxies in countries like Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Assad in Syria on Tuesday amid the tensions between Washington and Tehran.

Soleimani’s slaying already has led Tehran to abandon the remaining limits of its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers as his successor and others vow to take revenge.

In Iraq, pro-Iranian factions in parliament have pushed to oust American troops from Iraqi soil following Soleimani’s killing. Germany and Canada announced plans to move some of their soldiers in Iraq to neighboring countries.

According to a report on Tuesday by the semi-official Tasnim news agency, Iran has worked up 13 sets of plans to avenge Soleimani’s death. The report quoted Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, as saying that even the weakest among them would be a “historic nightmare” for the U.S. He declined to elaborate,

“If the U.S. troops do not leave our region voluntarily and upright, we will do something to carry their bodies horizontally out,” Shamkhani said.

The state-run IRNA news agency later published a statement from the Supreme National Security Council denying Shamkhani made the comment.

The U.S. Maritime Administration warned ships across the Mideast, citing the rising threats. “The Iranian response to this action, if any, is unknown, but there remains the possibility of Iranian action against U.S. maritime interests in the region,” it said.

Oil tankers were targeted in mine attacks last year that the U.S. blamed on Iran. Tehran denied responsibility, although it did seize oil tankers around the crucial Strait of Hormuz, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf through which 20% of the world’s crude oil travels.

The U.S. Navy’s Bahrain-based 5th Fleet said it would work with shippers in the region to minimize any possible threat.

The 5th Fleet “has and will continue to provide advice to merchant shipping as appropriate regarding recommended security precautions in light of the heightened tensions and threats in the region,” 5th Fleet spokesman Cmdr. Joshua Frey told The Associated Press.

Meanwhile, Iranian Gen. Alireza Tabgsiri, the chief of the Guard’s navy, issued his own warning.

“Our message to the enemies is to leave the region,” Tabgsiri said, according to ISNA. The Guard routinely has tense encounters with the U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf.

Separately, Iran summoned the British ambassador over comments by Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the British defense minister about Soleimani’s killing, the semi-official Mehr news agency reported.

Iran’s parliament, meanwhile, has passed an urgent bill declaring the U.S. military’s command at the Pentagon and those acting on its behalf in Soleimani’s killing as “terrorists,” subject to Iranian sanctions. The measure appears to be in response to a decision by Trump in April to declare the Revolutionary Guard a “terrorist organization.”

The U.S. Defense Department used that terror designation to support the strike that killed Soleimani. The action by Iran’s parliament was done by a special procedure to speed it into law and also saw the lawmakers approve funding for the Quds Force with an additional 200 million euros, or about $224 million.

Also Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the U.S. had declined to issue him a visa to travel to New York for meetings at the United Nations. As the host of the U.N. headquarters, the U.S. is supposed to allow foreign officials to attend such meetings.

“This is because they fear someone will go there and tell the truth to the American people,” Zarif said. “But they are mistaken. The world is not limited to New York. You can speak with American people from Tehran too and we will do that.”

Asked about Zarif, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told journalists America would comply with its obligations under U.N. rules to grant visas. He then referred to the Iranian diplomat as “a propagandist of the first order.”

A U.S. official who wasn’t authorized to speak on the record said the application couldn’t be processed in time for Zarif’s travel although it wasn’t clear if his request had been formally denied. A formal rejection would trigger legal technicalities that could affect future visa applications and could violate the host country agreement the U.S. has with the U.N.

___

Gambrell reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Associated Press writer Matthew Lee in Washington contributed.

https://apnews.com/add7a702258b4419d796aa5f48e577fc

[Harvey]

^ Seems moot but an interesting perspective on the Trump administration here (and the Obama years) with Colin Powells Chief of Staff (edit) basically admitting to the MIC takeover of government. Among other things, Lawrence Wilkerson corroborates Wesley Clark's 'memo' story, at least in part.

"I had security clearance and I did see it," he says (the memo, and then goes on to elaborate.)

[Elvis]

Enough devil's advocate of this sort. I'm putting FrothBase out of our misery for one month. Fourth, have a rest and see how you feel in 30 days. Sorry to have to do this.

[Harvey]

Reports of US military jets taking off from the UAE. IRGC journalist says that if these jets attack #Iran, Iran will "rain missiles down on the UAE."

https://twitter.com/SinaToossi/status/1 ... 3778621440

[Elvis]

"I had security clearance and I did see it," he says (the memo, and then goes on to elaborate.)

This is a really great interview. Thanks again, Harvey. Some excellent background from someone "in the room." Always thought Wilkerson was on the level.

[Luther Blissett]

A Ukrainian flight carrying 180 passengers just crashed shortly after takeoff from Tehran.

[norton ash]

Jesus H. Christ. And here I was thinking that Iran made a truly wise move by missing on purpose. Hoping the plane crash won't scuttle the possibilities for a stand-down.

[RocketMan]

Apparently Iran chose "the weakest revenge option" and reports of casualties are scant.

I think this sort of thing is plainly schoolyard level tit-for-tat and Iran had a chance (maybe theoretical, considering the demands of the population) to take the high ground, but STILL, pretty expert statesmanship from Iran.

I believe they have also indicated that the demands of honour have been satisfied regarding Suleimani's assassination if the US refrains from further escalation.