Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Why neither Bush nor Obama killed Qassem Soleimani

Why neither Bush nor Obama killed Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani, who the US just took out in an airstrike

 

On Thursday evening, the Pentagon confirmed that at the direction of President Donald Trump, US forces killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani in an airstrike near Baghdad's airport, the most drastic step toward conflict with Iran in the 21st century.

 

Soleimani was for decades one of the most important and highly regarded military figures in Iran, playing a pivotal role in shaping Iranian foreign policy and the politics of the Middle East today. As the leader of the elite and secretive Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which carries out foreign intelligence operations outside of Iran, Soleimani abetted terrorism and violence throughout the region on several fronts. The Pentagon said he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US service members in Iraq and beyond.

 

Soleimani's intelligence work focused on bolstering the influence of Shiite Muslims by helping build up the firepower of terrorist groups like Hezbollah, supporting Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip, and attacking American forces in Iraq, The New York Times reported.

 

Yet neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama took action as president to target Soleimani or anyone from the Quds Force.

 

Why?

 

Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat from Michigan who worked as a CIA analyst and Pentagon official on Middle East issues under both Bush and Obama, shed some insight on Friday on why neither administration tried to kill Soleimani.

 

Slotkin wrote in a Twitter thread that she "participated in countless conversations on how to respond to Qassem Soleimani's violent campaigns across the region," adding that the "sophistication of Soleimani's covert and overt military activities" had "contributed to significant destabilization across the region."

Previous administrations decided that attacking Soleimani wasn't worth the risk

 

Slotkin said that "what always kept both Democratic and Republican presidents from targeting Soleimani himself was the simple question: Was the strike worth the likely retaliation, and the potential to pull us into protracted conflict?"

 

She added that "the two administrations I worked for both determined that the ultimate ends didn't justify the means."

 
Specifically, Slotkin cited the potential for retaliation from Iran against US troops, diplomats, and allied forces in the region as a major reason, writing that "it is critical that the Administration has thought out the moves and counter-moves this attack will precipitate."

 

So far, analysts and experts have predicted that Iran could retaliate against the United States in the form of cyberattacks and targeting US military personnel and diplomats in the region. In the aftermath of the attacks, the US State Department ordered all American citizens in Iraq to leave the country

 

But as Iran expert and Carnegie Endowment senior fellow Karim Sadjadpour noted on Friday, Iran's possible retaliatory actions against the United States could extend to its network of proxies far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East itself. 

McChrystal recounted his decision not to attack Soleimani's convoy in Iraq in 2007

 

Sadjadpour wrote on Twitter that instead of Iran engaging in a direct armed conflict with the US, "what's more likely is sustained proxy attacks against US interests/allies regionally and even globally," noting that "Iran has a long history of such attacks in Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America, with mixed success."


Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was the head of the Joint Special Operations Command in the Bush administration, in a 2009 article for Foreign Policy recounted his decision not to attack Soleimani's convoy in Iraq on a night in 2007.

 

McChrystal said that while "there was good reason" to attack Soleimani over the deaths of US forces by Iranian-placed roadside bombs in Iraq, "to avoid a firefight, and the contentious politics that would follow, I decided that we should monitor the caravan, not strike immediately."

 

"Despite my initial jealousy of Suleimani's freedom to get things done quickly, I believe such restraint is a strength of the US political system," he wrote. "A zealous and action-oriented mindset, if unchecked, can be used as a force for good — but if harnessed to the wrong interests or values, the consequences can be dire."

 

US policy toward Iran shifted markedly in the Obama administration, which attempted to improve relations with Iran and ended up negotiating a landmark nuclear deal in 2015. Under the conditions of the deal, it wouldn't have made sense for the US to take out one of the country's top officials.

Questions remain surrounding the rationale behind the US' decision to strike Soleimani now

 

But Trump, who criticized Obama's Iran policy for years, took a more aggressive approach toward Iran, withdrawing from the nuclear agreement and significantly inflaming tensions both by antagonizing Iranian officials on Twitter, and the military expanding its presence in the region.

Michael Singh, who was a senior director for Middle East affairs on the National Security Council under Bush and is now the managing director of The Washington Institute, told Insider that Trump's more adversarial posturing toward Iran and the failures of past policy likely drove the administration to take the drastic step of killing Soleimani.

"Previous administrations concluded that the risks of targeting high-level figures outweighed the prospective benefits," he said. "The Trump administration — mindful, perhaps, of the unsatisfying results of past US restraint — clearly reached a different conclusion."

It's "hard to decouple his killing from the impeachment saga"

 

In a Friday Twitter thread, veteran foreign correspondent Rukmini Callimachi, who covers the Middle East and groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda for The New York Times, reported even more details that cast significant doubt on the Pentagon's claim that Soleimani was planning an imminent attack that would pose a direct threat to American lives and interests.

 

Citing US intelligence officials briefed on the strike, Callimachi described the purported evidence of Soleimani's planned moves as "razor-thin," with one source describing the justification for taking out Soleimani as making an "illogical leap." 

 

Why neither Bush nor Obama killed Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani, who the US just took out in an... 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Bronze Conversationalist


@Centristsin2010 wrote:

Why neither Bush nor Obama killed Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani, who the US just took out in an airstrike

 

On Thursday evening, the Pentagon confirmed that at the direction of President Donald Trump, US forces killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani in an airstrike near Baghdad's airport, the most drastic step toward conflict with Iran in the 21st century.

 

Soleimani was for decades one of the most important and highly regarded military figures in Iran, playing a pivotal role in shaping Iranian foreign policy and the politics of the Middle East today. As the leader of the elite and secretive Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which carries out foreign intelligence operations outside of Iran, Soleimani abetted terrorism and violence throughout the region on several fronts. The Pentagon said he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of US service members in Iraq and beyond.

 

Soleimani's intelligence work focused on bolstering the influence of Shiite Muslims by helping build up the firepower of terrorist groups like Hezbollah, supporting Hamas' takeover of the Gaza Strip, and attacking American forces in Iraq, The New York Times reported.

 

Yet neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama took action as president to target Soleimani or anyone from the Quds Force.

 

Why?

 

Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat from Michigan who worked as a CIA analyst and Pentagon official on Middle East issues under both Bush and Obama, shed some insight on Friday on why neither administration tried to kill Soleimani.

 

Slotkin wrote in a Twitter thread that she "participated in countless conversations on how to respond to Qassem Soleimani's violent campaigns across the region," adding that the "sophistication of Soleimani's covert and overt military activities" had "contributed to significant destabilization across the region."

Previous administrations decided that attacking Soleimani wasn't worth the risk

 

Slotkin said that "what always kept both Democratic and Republican presidents from targeting Soleimani himself was the simple question: Was the strike worth the likely retaliation, and the potential to pull us into protracted conflict?"

 

She added that "the two administrations I worked for both determined that the ultimate ends didn't justify the means."

 
Specifically, Slotkin cited the potential for retaliation from Iran against US troops, diplomats, and allied forces in the region as a major reason, writing that "it is critical that the Administration has thought out the moves and counter-moves this attack will precipitate."

 

So far, analysts and experts have predicted that Iran could retaliate against the United States in the form of cyberattacks and targeting US military personnel and diplomats in the region. In the aftermath of the attacks, the US State Department ordered all American citizens in Iraq to leave the country

 

But as Iran expert and Carnegie Endowment senior fellow Karim Sadjadpour noted on Friday, Iran's possible retaliatory actions against the United States could extend to its network of proxies far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East itself. 

McChrystal recounted his decision not to attack Soleimani's convoy in Iraq in 2007

 

Sadjadpour wrote on Twitter that instead of Iran engaging in a direct armed conflict with the US, "what's more likely is sustained proxy attacks against US interests/allies regionally and even globally," noting that "Iran has a long history of such attacks in Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America, with mixed success."


Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was the head of the Joint Special Operations Command in the Bush administration, in a 2009 article for Foreign Policy recounted his decision not to attack Soleimani's convoy in Iraq on a night in 2007.

 

McChrystal said that while "there was good reason" to attack Soleimani over the deaths of US forces by Iranian-placed roadside bombs in Iraq, "to avoid a firefight, and the contentious politics that would follow, I decided that we should monitor the caravan, not strike immediately."

 

"Despite my initial jealousy of Suleimani's freedom to get things done quickly, I believe such restraint is a strength of the US political system," he wrote. "A zealous and action-oriented mindset, if unchecked, can be used as a force for good — but if harnessed to the wrong interests or values, the consequences can be dire."

 

US policy toward Iran shifted markedly in the Obama administration, which attempted to improve relations with Iran and ended up negotiating a landmark nuclear deal in 2015. Under the conditions of the deal, it wouldn't have made sense for the US to take out one of the country's top officials.

Questions remain surrounding the rationale behind the US' decision to strike Soleimani now

 

But Trump, who criticized Obama's Iran policy for years, took a more aggressive approach toward Iran, withdrawing from the nuclear agreement and significantly inflaming tensions both by antagonizing Iranian officials on Twitter, and the military expanding its presence in the region.

Michael Singh, who was a senior director for Middle East affairs on the National Security Council under Bush and is now the managing director of The Washington Institute, told Insider that Trump's more adversarial posturing toward Iran and the failures of past policy likely drove the administration to take the drastic step of killing Soleimani.

"Previous administrations concluded that the risks of targeting high-level figures outweighed the prospective benefits," he said. "The Trump administration — mindful, perhaps, of the unsatisfying results of past US restraint — clearly reached a different conclusion."

It's "hard to decouple his killing from the impeachment saga"

 

In a Friday Twitter thread, veteran foreign correspondent Rukmini Callimachi, who covers the Middle East and groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda for The New York Times, reported even more details that cast significant doubt on the Pentagon's claim that Soleimani was planning an imminent attack that would pose a direct threat to American lives and interests.

 

Citing US intelligence officials briefed on the strike, Callimachi described the purported evidence of Soleimani's planned moves as "razor-thin," with one source describing the justification for taking out Soleimani as making an "illogical leap." 

 

Why neither Bush nor Obama killed Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani, who the US just took out in an... 


Soleimani was a monster. He was plotting a vicious attack against American soldiers in Iraq, hence why he was in Iraq. He was coordinating rocket strikes against 5,000 Americans. Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis wanted to spread terror and fear throughout the middle east through whatever means necessary. They needed to be wiped out. They were definitely an imminent threat.

“Trump masquerades as an angel of light, but he is the father of lies”
0 Kudos
376 Views
5
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@AristotleOfGreece wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

Soleimani was a monster. He was plotting a vicious attack against American soldiers in Iraq, hence why he was in Iraq. So you were told..... were you also told why he had to be in Iraq when he was so successful planning these attacks in Iran?  Were you also told by a Republican POTUS that Iraq had WMD's and we just had to attack them because the inspectors just weren't capable?  How many American lives were lost???   He was coordinating rocket strikes against 5,000 Americans. So you are told..... Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis wanted to spread terror and fear throughout the middle east through whatever means necessary. So you are told......They needed to be wiped out. So, the biggest liar of all time told you that, eh?  They were definitely an imminent threat.  "Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!'"


 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
0 Kudos
275 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

You think she is saying this about Iran alsoYou think she is saying this about Iran also?

0 Kudos
225 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Yes, would like to see the link, and who has the inside track on this information. 
Thanks

Bronze Conversationalist

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-qassem-soleimani-was-doing-in-iraq-before-assassination-2020-1 

“Trump masquerades as an angel of light, but he is the father of lies”
0 Kudos
340 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

So how did Fellman come by the "likely secret" information as to why the Iranian was in Iraq.?

0 Kudos
330 Views
0
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png