1648

I have an Iranian friend who lives and works in London. She’s normally pretty apolitical, throws in the odd joke about being the local terrorist sleeper.

Today’s the first time I’ve heard genuine nationalist anger from her. To her, Soleimani was a soldier who defended Iran from Saddam Hussein.

She was repeating jokes her Iranian friends were exchanging about Hassan Rouhani calling Trump in the middle of the night; “are you sure the base is empty? Can you check again?”

It’s just an anecdote. But maybe there’s going to be at least a segment of Iranian opinion that sees this as the milquetoast response. Maybe even a segment that was previously westernised and friendly that might now become radicalised.

1649

The crowds that had been the ambrosia of legitimacy for the Islamic Republic in its first decade, however, have been increasingly acting as its poison. Gradual disenchantment, not only with the theocratic infrastructure (headed by the supreme leader) but also with the democratic elements (parliament and presidency) of the Iranian polity, has become palpable in the last two years. Even the reformers have suffered a legitimization crisis.

There was only one thing that could revive the system: A robust external enemy. And what enemy could be better than the good old ogre, America, the “Great Satan”? The problem was that after four decades of blaming everything on that fictitious entity the trope had lost credibility.

With the assassination of Soleimani backed by Trump’s renewed sanctions and his bullying tweets, Iran is channeling the halcyon days of Khomeinist Revolution. The caricature of ugly American politicians falsely promoted for 40 years is now proudly embodied by the current occupier of the White House

1650

Looks like Iran saved itself. Didn’t they storm the American embassy in Iraq and kill somebody, prompting the American response? Surely they knew Trump would do something, and whatever it was they were ready to use it to unite against the common enemy, a tale as old as time.

1651

They didn’t storm the embassy, although they were likely agitators.

1652

I didn’t really follow events before the assassination, but was that not a direct response to the embassy storming? American Intelligence placed the blame on Iran?

1653

Well, Trump is in good company now. Saddam Hussein did a lot to keep the Islamic Republic from collapsing back in 1980 when he invaded Iran, a neighboring country with which Iraq had territorial disputes, in an attempt to grab what he could from what he thought was a house of cards. A million casualties and eight years later, the Iranians were still there, and while they didn’t “win” the war, neither did the Iraqis, and you can argue that as the invaded party the Iranian ability to return to roughly the status quo ante bellum was a huge plus. Saddam, on the other hand, ended up with an army (and country) with deep injuries, ones he overlooked I guess when he tried to do the same sort of thing to the Kuwaitis. Oops.

Hell, the Carter administration could be said to have “saved” the revolution by making such a big deal out of the embassy take over. So I guess American presidents are just part of a long series of people helping out the Ayatollahs.

1654

Didn’t Obama found the Islamic Republic, like he did ISIS?

1655

Obama always called it ISIL, in order to keep us confused and disoriented.

1656

Obama was too young to found the Islamic Republic. George Soros did it, shortly after he cloned Obama from a demon (in Kenya).

1657

Local political win - perhaps. We’ll see how the polls shake out in the next few weeks. Though the polling at this point in time doesn’t really matter - it’s November that counts, and I doubt this will even register as a blip in public consciousness by then.

In terms of global politics, I don’t particularly see why I should believe the assessment of people who are predisposed to violent action, over the measured, non-partisan assessments of international experts on the middle east. Note that the latter don’t dismiss the possibility that the US can make gains from the elimination of Soleimani, but here’s the kicker:

These things are concrete consequences of the assassination:

  • The Iranian regime has been strengthened domestically.
  • US diplomatic credibility has been knocked down several more notches, not only in the Middle East, but worldwide. The fact that not a single NATO ally has spoken in support of the attack (except the UK - after Pompeo had whipped Trump’s lapdog Boris) is a quite unprecedented example of how dim a view the rest of the world has of the US right now.
  • The Nuclear deal which was the only thing restraining Iran from enriching Uranium at full speed is now all but null and void. Currently, that means it would take Iran much less than a year to acquire the Uranium required for a nuclear weapon.

What is it that Trump’s assasination of Soleimani has actually achieved?

  • Curbed Iranian violent behavior in the region? That remains to be seen, but no reputable expert that I’ve heard/read believes that to be a likely consequence.
  • Stopped/will force Iran to sign on to a “better” anti-nuclear deal? At the moment, that is not even on the table, and there is nothing to suggest this is likely to happen. On the contrary, it has allowed Iran to withdraw from some of the last limitations of the treaty without any immediate response from its other signatories.
  • Stopped an imminent attack on the US? There is no proof of that atm, consequently the only ones who believe this are the people who already support Trump.
    .- Weakened QUDS? This is definitely a possibility, but again - that remains to be seen. Soleimani was a myth and by all accounts an effective and influential (though not infallible) commander, but he could easily become even more useful to them as a martyr.

Please explain what is it these people seem to think has been concretely achieved other than an assassination. Because I’m perfectly willing to believe that there are some upsides to the assassination beyond just making Trump feel all tingly inside, but I do require facts/proof, not assumptions. All I’ve currently seen is “maybes”.

Simply calling/feeling like something is a win doesn’t actually make it one.

1658

Yeah, and the Iranians who stormed the embassy had WMD. Also, they met Mohammed Atta in Prague.

1659

Well put. My simpler neanderthal take is: after the assassination, is the number of people who to kill us greater or less than before? Much more you say? Ok, probably not a win then. It’s the same dynamic we’ve been seeing with drone strikes over the last decade, except on a much larger scale.

image

1660

Latest Trump-ist spin, a 180-degree turn from yesterday, is that it was the Left that wanted war with Iran and Trump saved us with his statesmanship.

I’m sure FOX & Friends will be preaching the virtues of negotiation starting tomorrow, after they’ve shredded all their talking points preaching the virtues of punching America-hating countries in the face.

1661

This one is really amazing. Worth watching, particularly the second clip:

Democracy FTW. Though, I’m sure it won’t make him reconsider his support for McConnel’s sham impeachment hearings.

1662

I don’t really understand how a guy can hold forth on Constitutional history as Lee did there, and then just fall into line behind Mitch on the impeachment stuff.

1663

And right - we now know that violence is not going to be dialed down, because rockets have just landed in the “green zone” in Baghdad. Guessing not all the Iranian militias are as ready for cessation of hostilities as the regime.

Initial reports suggest two Katyusha rockets - one landing withing 100 meters of the US embassy (the likely target?). Fortunately there appear to have been no casualties.

1664

Because it’s about personal power. He cares about the constitution when the executive is trying to minimize the Senate’s ability to declare war or refusing to even give them good briefings, he doesn’t care when voting to impeach will probably make him lose his senate seat.

1665

We are so use to the idiocy coming from the Trump administration,that it is easy to forget that not all Republican are idiots. In fact most of the Senators (of both parties), and many of the Congressman are very intelligent people, highly educated, well read, with a deep knowledge of history and the constitution. It will always remain a mystery why they follow Trump and his band of sycophants.

1666
1667

Yeah so if they’re not idiots then they’re just, you know, horrible people. They’ve chosen power over what is right, and it doesn’t matter how intelligent or well read, or knowledgeable someone is if they take that knowledge and make those kind of choices.