The USA has assassinated one of Iran's top Generals at Baghdad aitport

[chomalungma]

AIBU to think this will lead to just more escalation in what is already a volatile area, given all the issues in Iran at the moment, the proxy wars, the recent arrival of US troops in Iraq.

We also have some British troops in Iraq, as well as Royal Navy ships in the region. This escalation affects us as well.

This person who was assassinated does have blood on his hands www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/03/who-is-qassem-suleimani-profile-iran but does a drone strike killing of him.

The response from Iran

"The Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said on Twitter: “The US’ act of international terrorism, targeting & assassinating General Soleimani – THE most effective force fighting Daesh (ISIS), Al Nusrah, Al Qaeda et al – is extremely dangerous & a foolish escalation. The US bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism.”

What consequences will there be?

Iran has - paradoxically - done a lot for regional unity, despite having proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Syria: their actions have even improved relationships with the Sunni world (including the Gulf) and Israel.

This isn't going to start WW3: it's really not. What is most likely is Hezbollah-orchestrated attacks on Israel from Lebanon, possible escalation in PIJ activity across the Gaza border, and proxy attacks on Western soft targets in the region.

Iran is a shitty, shitty regime, but in an IR sense, they are a rational actor (which doesn't mean quite the same as rational in the commonly used sense) and they are aware that they are considerably on the back foot in the region: they aren't going to risk the regime's very existence by starting something they can't win because of this.

The popular press like to present Iran as a regime driven solely by ideology and religion, but not only is this a gross-oversimplification, it's also not correct in any meaningful way.

This was an ill-advised decision, because unilateral targeted killings generally are:and Iran will have to retaliate because they won't want their "honour" to be impugned. But it's not going to lead even to (more) regional war, let alone a world war.

BBC World Service is doing a profile on the assassinated (de facto) VP right now. Very poor background & charismatic military man, popular with the troops & masses. Had pop songs written about him. 3 days of national mourning!! Mike Pence's assassination would not lead to that.

Ordinary Iranians will unite against the Great Satan. These events play nicely into the hands of the hardliners. :(

He wasn't as popular with the general public as pictures portray, though - there's a great deal of rejoicing going on amongst ex-pat communities because he was a murderous, torturing brute, and though it can be hard to get a handle on inside Iran, there's a lot on domestic Farsi social networks (admittedly self-selecting and anti-regime by definition, otherwise they wouldn't be there) applauding the US.

Of course, we'll be treated to pictures of massive demonstrations, but these will be regime-staged and full of the usual fellow travellers, rather than actually representative of Iranian domestic opinions.

Just because he was - as one Iranian has described him today- "a sodomising, torturing murderer" doesn't excuse extrajudicial killing of a foreign national in a third country. But he was very, very far from the universally loved, admired and aped character Western news networks are portraying him as.

@Lifecraft

You seem to be confused.

You have said that Trump is way ahead in the polls and on course for an easy re-election.

However, the US's best and most prominent poll aggregator, FivethirtyEight, who were the only aggregator that gave Trump a real shot at winning the last election, has his unvafourability at 53% and his favorability at 42.5%. He has been underwater in the polls since February 2017 and his unfavorability has been at least 10% higher than his favorability rating for over 2.5 years. It was a big factor in the Republicans losing their majority in the House in the last elections.

RealClearPolitics' average is a little kinder, and has his approval at 45% and disapproval at 52%.

That is not to say he won't win re-election, much will depend on his ultimate opponent, and he could always get another 'electoral college win' whilst losing the popular vote, but to say he's ahead in the polls is absolutely false.

he was very, very far from the universally loved, admired and aped character Western news networks are portraying him as.

Why would Western news networks choose to portray him this way, as apposed to a a sodomising, torturing murderer? Genuine question, and i'm more than happy to be educated, as I would have thought it made more sense to vilify him.

Because - to be honest - firstly, there aren't that many fluent Farsi speakers working in the western media, and because of the regime itself, it's very, very difficult to access any dissenting voices at all: if you are making that pool even smaller because you are restricting yourself only to English-speaking voices, you are distorting a distorted picture even further.

Secondly, there is definitely an anti-Trump bias in most Western media. I wouldn't piss on the man if he was on fire, but Obama also authorised extra-judicial killings to little to no criticism. However, this supports the narrative that Trump is evil/thick/dangerous (not saying he isn't all of those things, mind) because only an idiot/loose cannon would sanction killing such a popular individual. (Take a look at Chomsky and Herman's work from the 80s if you are interested in this idea of news being subject to prevailing paradigms etc)

Thirdly, whipping up drama is good for ratings-so affecting to believe what the regime itself says plays into this narrative.

Tbh, I'd be surprised if the vast majority of Western journalists and commentators had even heard of him before this - so a lot of the "takes" we're seeing is based on the same limited sources - a vast amount of household names in journalism consider themselves to be experts. And they are - at journalism. Very, very few have more than a superficial knowledge of the region, and even fewer speak any of the languages with anything like fluency, let alone to broadcast standard - so they are very much in the hands of their fixers and translators for their "insights".

Again - it was a stupid thing to do. But he has also been responsible for the suppression and tyranisation of several generations of Iranians. People beat their breasts when Hussein and Gaddafi were killed. It didn't make them good people.

News talking about the assassinated guy had a big role in taking down ISIS.

Pushing Iran to getting their nuclear weapons - I wonder why?

BananaTaffy we need you over on the Trump threads (we are on no.95 at the moment I think?)
Agree with what you say.

Dh works with some Iranians who fled Iran a while ago. They’re all delighted, say that this guy was a total arsehole. They reckon 99% of ordinary Iranians are delighted.

Sadly I would hazard a guess their opinion doesn’t count.

News talking about the assassinated guy had a big role in taking down ISIS

If you think the Iranians are ‘good guys’ in Syria, you are being extremely selective in your reading.

ISIS and Iran are a classic case of my enemy’s enemy not being my friend.

The Iranian regime is pro-Assad. It has opposed ISIS on the basis of it being a threat to Assad’s control over Syria.

To that end, Iran has also helped Assad’s regime bomb Syrian civilians to smithereens, as well as starving them to death in their besieged cities.

It opposes ISIS because they would merrily slaughter every Shia they could get their hands on.

I think it was wise to kill him and idiotic to admit it.

I wouldn’t believe trump if he said it was Friday today.

www.rawstory.com/2020/01/mike-pompeo-admits-on-live-tv-there-was-no-threat-to-the-american-homeland-from-suleimani/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

That's what I love about MN - some really insightful posts on here from those that know more than I (not difficult on the ME topic). Thanks!

I'll go back to lurking and learning.

Has the US basically just attacked Iran by killing QS?

Has the US basically just attacked Iran by killing QS?

Pretty much.

The more I think about it the more I think this is the start of a long term plan by America. They will know Iran will retaliate at some point, whether in a few weeks/months/next year. Which will give America the ultimate excuse for a full scale war/invasion. And I’m starting to think that’s the plan. They want to invade so they’re poking Iran as hard as they can and then when it kicks off they will say they had no choice but to invade.

I think so trending but no doubt we will see...

Where does Putin fit in with this?

He’s up for a war with Iran to detract from his Impeachment and he wants to get re-elected.
Or maybe he’s just a big, volatile child who didn’t get beyond the ‘kill the bad hombre’ crap he likes to pull to show what a big swinging dick he is and doesn’t understand why previous leaders have shown enormous restraint in not taking similar action against the General years ago.

Plus Israel are happy so that’s okay then...

I love people trying to still pin the blame on just Trump, the anti western snide remarks is why Orwell's comments still hold true.

It shows how terrible a job the media, including the BBC, is doing reporting on Iran and those just jumping to being anti Trump are totally unaware of the constant acts of war committed by Iran, that the US actions have been a long overdue response to. They stockpiled explosives in London. They've killed 600 US troops in Iraq. They killed 1500 protestors last month. They trained the 9/11 hijackers. They sponsor terrorists all around the globe, killing hundreds of thousands of people. They execute people for drinking alcohol, converting to Christianity, or watching pornography. And yet the left sides with them!

The dead man ordered the attack of the US embassy in Iraq last week, then visited Iraq, emboldened by America's constant appeasement. The fact he felt safe to visit Iraq after that says a lot about how weak the US has been under Donald Trump.

We have a situation where the islamic centre of england have arranged a candle light vigil.

pbs.twimg.com/media/ENX4M_VW4AEvvh9?format=jpg&name=large

This is a serious both sides situation, you are far from being nuanced and pretending you are more aware of the situation if you think this is just one sided.

This forum needs to up the so called the highly educated users it prides itself on, some of the users on here are really just parroting headlines and twitter feeds whilst pretending the other side just doing the same.

There is definitely a truth in the saying you hear 2 sides and not the third - the truth - where situations like this occur.

Of course we hear what ever they media want us to hear dependent on their angle and political bias (which they officially don't have obviously!).

But thank you to all the insightful and measured information here. I'm learning a lot and getting the information between the lines.

Plus Israel are happy so that’s okay then...

Is that you Jeremy?

Justanotherlurker

Completely agree with you