DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus President orders attack that kills Iranian leader

Qasem Soleimani: US kills Iran Quds Force leader, Pentagon confirms
13 minutes ago
Share this with Facebook Share this with Messenger Share this with Twitter Share this with Email Share
Qasem SoleimaniImage copyrightAFP/GETTY
Image caption
The Pentagon confirmed that US forces had killed Gen Soleimani
General Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' elite Quds Force, has been killed by US forces in Iraq.
The Pentagon confirmed he was killed "at the direction of the president".
It comes after reports of a strike at Baghdad's international airport, which is said to have killed a number of people.
The death marks a huge escalation, which analysts fear could lead to an Iranian response.
Gen Soleimani was a major figure in the Iranian regime. His Quds Force reported directly to the country's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and he was hailed as a heroic national figure.
Gen Soleimani: Iran’s Quds force commander
Iran's Revolutionary Guards - a profile
US President Donald Trump tweeted an image of the American flag after the news broke.
Global oil prices meanwhile soared more than 4% in the wake of the strike.
What has happened?
"At the direction of the President, the US military has taken decisive defensive action to protect US personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani," a Pentagon statement said.
"This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world."
The strike comes days after protesters attacked the US embassy in Baghdad, clashing with US forces at the scene. The Pentagon said Gen Soleimani approved the attacks on the embassy.


Media captionProtests outside the US embassy in Baghdad continued on Wednesday
Iran's Revolutionary Guards said Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis had also been killed in the US attack, blaming an attack by US helicopters.
Reports also suggest that a number of Iraq militia heads have been detained by US forces in Baghdad, although this is unconfirmed.
Who was Qasem Soleimani?
Since 1998, Maj Gen Qasem Soleimani led Iran's Quds Force - an elite unit in Iran's Revolutionary Guards, which handles clandestine operations abroad.
Iran has acknowledged the role of the Quds Force in the conflicts in Syria, where it has advised forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and armed thousands of Shia Muslim militiamen fighting alongside them, and in Iraq, where it has backed a Shia-dominated paramilitary force that helped tackle IS.
These conflicts turned the once-reclusive Gen Soleimani into a something of celebrity in Iran.
The Trump administration has alleged that the Quds Force is "Iran's primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting" US-designated terrorist groups across the Middle East - including Lebanon's Hezbollah movement and Palestinian Islamic Jihad - by providing funding, training, weapons and equipment.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo designated Iran's Revolutionary Guards and its Quds Force as a foreign terrorist organisation in April.

Erin Banco @ErinBanco

Just got off the phone with Sen. Graham: "We need to get ready for a major pushback. Our people in Iraq and the Middle East are going to be targeted. We need to be ready to defend our people in the Middle East. I think we need to be ready for a big counterpunch."
7:01 PM - 2 Jan 2020

President Trump ordered a game-changing U.S. military attack that killed Iranian Gen. Qassim Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' elite Quds Force, among other military officials at Baghdad International Airport early Friday, the Pentagon confirmed.

Soleimani is the military mastermind whom Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had deemed equally as dangerous as Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In October, Baghdadi killed himself during a U.S. raid on a compound in northwest Syria, seven months after the so-called ISIS "caliphate" crumbled as the terrorist group lost its final swath of Syrian territory in March.


In April 2019, the State Department announced Iran was responsible for killing 608 U.S. troops during the Iraq War. Soleimani was the head of the Iranian and Iranian-backed forces carrying out those operations killing American troops. According to the State Department, 17 percent of all deaths of U.S. personnel in Iraq from 2003 to 2011 were orchestrated by Soleimani.

As recently as 2015, a travel ban and United Nations Security Council resolutions had barred Soleimani from leaving Iran.

Friday's Baghdad strike also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, a source told Fox News.

In all, at least seven people were killed and at least three rockets were fired, officials told The Associated Press. An official with the Popular Mobilization Forces said its airport protocol officer, Mohammed Reda, also died.

Iran just called the action of the US an act of war.

Yep, Trump started a war with Iran just hours after email proof of his guilt in the Ukraine impeachment hit the wires. Timing is everything.

They said this guy is considered the number 2 in Iran behind only Iatola Komani.

American leaders praised the death of Qassim Soleimani, the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, who was killed with six others during an American airstrike on Friday that targeted Baghdad's international airport.

The Pentagon confirmed the attack was ordered by President Trump.


"At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization," the agency said in a statement.

Rep. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., tweeted the general was "an enemy of the United State. That's not a question."

I just hope Trump can handle what's next. It's one thing to land the sucker punch, it's another to live with the aftermath. I have no issue with us killing this guy but I don't think we needed a war with Iran.

A war with Iran is up to the Iranians at this point.

We responded to their killing of an American and wounding others followed by attacking our embassy.

Trump is still willing to talk.

Why oh why was an iranian general in iraq, coincidentally during the same time our embassy got attacked......

i dunno what the long term ramifications are for this and our middle east strategy, but boy oh boy do we have a ton of questions that need answering.

Supposedly, he was the one behind the embassy attack.
I hope we have a clue on what maybe coming-Israel, Saudi, UAE, Embassies are all in play.
Hopefully, we were working on a strategy for the after, but I doubt it

You don't think the Pentagon hasn't already thought about it?

I don’t know. We just ordered more troops to the region but they haven’t arrived.
I just heard a report that we were working all night tonight on fortifying embassy’s in places like in Libya.
I don’t think you can be completely ready. You could have conventional US vs Iran. But this probably start off as a-conventional . Saudi, UAE, Israel, the straight of Hormuz-Western Europe, cyber attacks.
Was it a whim? Just heard not even McConnell was told this was coming

Pelosi says Trump carried out strike on Iranian commander without authorization and she wants details

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the U.S. strike that killed the commander of Iran's Quds Force "risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is calling on the Trump administration to immediately brief lawmakers on the U.S. airstrike that killed a top Iranian commander in Iraq and what the White House plans to do next.

The strike in Iraq was directed by President Donald Trump and killed Qassim Suleimani, the commander of Iran's secretive Quds Force, the Defense Department announced Thursday night.

The move, which is likely to provoke retaliation from Iran, comes amid heightened tensions between the Trump administration and Tehran over rocket attacks aimed at coalition forces in Iraq. U.S. officials have said those attacks were likely carried out by Iranian-backed militias with links to the Quds Force.

"Tonight's airstrike risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence. America — and the world — cannot afford to have tensions escalate to the point of no return," Pelosi said in a statement late Thursday.

The strike was carried out without an "authorization for use of military force" against Iran and without the consultation of Congress, the speaker said.

"The full Congress must be immediately briefed on this serious situation and on the next steps under consideration by the Administration, including the significant escalation of the deployment of additional troops to the region," Pelosi said.

The Defense Department characterized the strike as “decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad" and said in a statement that Suleimani "was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region."

Several Republicans, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Sen. Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, praised Trump's move.

Graham said in a statement that Suleimani "had American blood on his hands" and welcomed what he called Trump’s “bold action against Iranian aggression."

"To the Iranian government: if you want more, you will get more," Graham said.

Suleimani and the Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and other coalition forces and orchestrated attacks on bases in Iraq within the last several months, including a Dec. 27 attack that killed a U.S. contractor and wounded several service members, the Defense Department said.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, tweeted that Suleimani “was responsible for unthinkable violence and world is better off without him."

"But Congress didn’t authorize and American people don't want a war with Iran," Schiff said. "All steps must now be taken to protect our forces against the almost inevitable escalation and increased risk."

Iran’s Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, called the U.S. strike an "act of international terrorism" and an assassination. He said in a tweet that it was an “extremely dangerous & a foolish escalation.”

"The US bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism," Zarif said.



At least two Congressional Republicans called on the Trump administration to provide more details to Congress on its strategy for the region or any further steps.

Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, in a statement commended the strike but said that the administration must be prepared for possible retaliation and should "consult closely with Congress on any next steps should the situation escalate."

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, also pushed for more information from the White House. "It's imperative that the US & our allies articulate & pursue a coherent strategy for protecting our security interests in the region. I will be pressing the Administration for additional details in the days ahead," he tweeted.



Presidential hopefuls in Congress raised concerns about the strike.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said that although Suleiman “was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans,” the strike was a reckless move.

“Our priority must be to avoid another costly war,” Warren tweeted.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, tweeted that "Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars.”

Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, tweeted Thursday night: “We have a president who has no strategic plan when it comes to Iran and has only made that region less stable and less safe.”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said Suleimani “was responsible for directing Iran’s destabilizing actions in Iraq, Syria, and throughout the Middle East, including attacks against U.S. forces,” but she also said the immediate focus is on protecting U.S. military and diplomatic personnel in Iraq and the region.

“The Administration needs to fully consult with Congress on its decision-making, response plans, and strategy for preventing a wider conflict,” she tweeted.

In addition to Suleimani, the deputy of the militias known as the Popular Mobilization Units in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was also killed, according to Iraqi state television and the PMU.

He had been accused of plotting attacks on the United States since the 1980s. He was convicted in absentia and sentenced to death by Kuwait for his role in the 1983 attacks on the U.S. and French embassies in Kuwait, in which five Kuwaitis were killed.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pel...zation-n1109831


Been having trouble sleeping because of the stupid flu. Thought I'd read up on this guy and make an informed opinion of Trump's hit on him... Kudos Trump! This guy was a POS and needed to die a long time ago.

I'm not sure if not informing congress or the gang of 8 was a matter of limited time/opportunity or Trump ignoring procedure. I hope it doesn't mean all out war, but I can't see Iran not responding in the craziest way possible.

At roughly 4 AM the State Dept. issued a warning for all US citizens to leave Iraq. We've apparently been on high alert and scrambling to secure our embassies and assets throughout the region since the strike. Hopefully this was part of a plan and not just an 'oh crap' scramble after not thinking things through.

Again, I don't want another war over there. I am skeptical about Trump's true reason for doing it too. Did he want a distraction from impeachment and more damning evidence coming out? Did he was to enter the 2020 election cycle as a sitting wartime POTUS for the advantage? Did the opportunity just present itself after the attempted siege of the US Embassy in Iraq? This matters to me.

Regardless, I do not hold killing this guy against Trump for the act itself and I actually applaud him. This was a surgical strike that took out two high profile targets and set Iran on its heels for the moment. There are many in the region thanking the US for this on twitter this morning.

The dems and GOPers in congress are both right to support their views on this. There are going to be a lot of questions that should be answered, but the act of getting this guy itself should not be one of them.

A bit embarrassed that my awful spelling got through my spell check like this. The supreme leader of Iran is Ali Khamenei, not spelled Komani. No idea how 'Iatola' passed for Ayatollah either.

We’re going to world war and trump just kick started it. Fairly reckless IMO. As tax payers we deserve an explanation and total transparency on this. Any other respectable POTUS would have held a press conference immediately explaining this attack to US citizens. trump just doesn’t have oratory capabilities though so this will done on Twitter and we’ll never know the truth until it’s too late.

Go apologize like Obama did. I like the fact he took advantage of an opportunity to get rid of a terrorist.

Back in 2011 and 2012, prior to the election, Trump went on several twitter rants about how Obama, who was struggling at the time (or so Trump said) would start a war with Iran to help his Re-Election campaign.

Look what trump is doing. Exactly what he was accusing Obama of doing..

If Obama had done this the same as Trump you would have lost your mind.

Maybe I am mistaken, but if he was behind the attacks on the embassy, and is considered a terrorist - I was under the impression he wouldn't need to go through congress. Like that of the airfield bombing in Syria - he would have the right for retaliation as he is responding. Congress is only needed to declare war I thought.

Obama bombed and killed more than Trump or anyone else has in history. That's not really a valid argument.

I think because he is #2 in Iran... or was.

Have to hope for the best - that this was a well thought out attack and it was proposed/initiated/recommended by experts in the region. Hopefully allies around the globe - even the ones alienated by Trump - will support and vouch for the USA.

If it turns out that this was another knee jerk reaction by Trump - like pulling troops out of Turkey - then it will be an unmitigated disaster.

Isnt Assad number 1 in Syria? We blew his airfield up.

I don't think Nancy has a leg to stand on with this issue, he didn't declare war. He took an opportunity to retaliate an attack on US soil.

She is pandering.

I’ll just leave this here...

We are probably so screwed now.

Stuff like this is how WW3 gets started...what a moron...

This is a blatant act of war.

Most of us knew he was a moron well before this. Welcome aboard.

Until we get more information on the strike, we have to look at the big picture.

This is pretty much the exact opposite of stopping endless wars.

And I want everyone to understand something crucial when talking about the pentagon: military leaders haven’t met a conflict they didn’t like. Yes, strikes and operations will be well thought out, planned, and executed to the highest standard.

But that isn’t the point. The point is who and why was this carried out. We talk a lot about escalation of force at the micro levels of combat, but you guys also need to do that when it comes to operations the impacts they have at the macro level.

And what I mean by that is,,,,,is it smart to respond to a state sponsored protest conflict with the killing of a top military general? If you have John Bolton’s taste, sure. But what if you don’t? The pentagon will hardly ever turn down an operation or long term conflict if that means they keep getting increases to their budget. There’s always a reason to justify increase military spending, and the private contractors BEG for situations like this to go down.

The same way we don’t shoot a .50 cal at kids growing rocks at our convoys, from thr looks of it, responding to the embassy protest with the killing of a military general seems like a blatant escalation.

This wasn’t some ISIS loser with his Toyota pick up truck talking trash. This isn’t some terrorist leader running his mouth in videos backed by the saudis who will deny knowing the dude anyway.

This was an actual military general. Lets be clear, WE would go to war if any country killed one of our generals in an attack like this, REGARDLESS of circumstances. Nobody should be expecting that Iran not retaliate, because it WILL be considered a retaliatory attack, not an escalation by Iran.

These are all very good points.

The new leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' elite Quds Force once boasted that U.S. troops have “suffered more losses from us than we have suffered losses from them” and has repeatedly ripped President Trump and America’s allies.

Brigadier Gen. Esmail Qaani, 62, now spearheads the special military unit following the death of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who was killed Thursday in a U.S. airstrike at Baghdad International Airport in Iraq. He had served as Soleimani’s deputy commander since 1997 – and the Treasury Department says he has used his power to direct funding toward terrorist groups like Hezbollah.

He was certainly a bad guy and from purely the standpoint of having killed him I can't say I object. I don't see him as any better than any other terrorist we've taken out.

The problem becomes the ramifications of our actions. Iran has tentacles that reach throughout the middle east. There are several nations who we back they could use as targets to strike back against us. From Saudi Arabia to Israel to U.A.E. From a standpoint of logistics it will be nearly impossible to defend all of these places at once. So there will certainly be some long ranging consequences.

Sometimes the overall strategic consequences of an action should make you take a second look before you react. That may be the case here. If I had to guess I would say their first of many responses will be to interrupt the global oil supply. That's purely speculation on my part but they aren't ruled by people who will back down and the have they strongest military and the most far reaching connections all across the region.

This will probably be very ugly.

I do simply because this guy was the right hand man of khamenei. From the standpoint of how much of a trash person he is compared to any other terrorist, I agree. But he ISNT any other terrorist, he’s the top general for Iran. This guy has more clout than Osama. So we can’t view him as any other terrorist simply because killing any other t doesn’t put us in such a potential crisis as this operation does.

I understand your overall point, but I just can’t let that particular comment slide.

I’m curious to see what retaliatory attacks Iran comes up with, as there’s gonna be 3 days of mourning before we see the potential fireworks. Strategically, going straight up against the US is dumb. They are looking to embarrass the US, so any sort of counter attack will probably be modeled like another embassy attack, or something a level higher. Because Iran has been building relationships with our biggest adversaries, a conflict is gonna be based around the areas you listed, plus easier targets such as the Kurd regions. It would be ridiculously easy.

For example, if I was a general, the first thing I would do is talk to Assad. Assad has direct contact and backing of Putin, so since Iraq looks like it’s gonna be the site of yet another war, I get with Syria and sandwich the Kurdish region. Now you have the US trying to push back two flanks in the northern Province of Iraq: Syrian forces from the left, Iranian forces from the right.

This creates a problem because while the US *should* be able to hold it, they won’t get much help from Turkey from the north, seeing as they look for any reason to kill Kurds. Turkey will be zero help, as they are also in bed with Russia, plus will be looking to push they’re non stop “can’t handle refugees” nonsense and just wont do anything.

Then the issue comes with Baghdad. Iran will use their influence in Iraq to push more embassy attacks, and because Iraqis are viewing Iran as more reliable - and relatable- allies, this creates a situation where Iraqis start protesting against continued US occupation, which will help spin the narrative against the US, which will accomplish far more than military action will; even more distrust and disdain for American diplomatic and military engagements in the area.

All of this is a way to engage against the US without the FULL engagement of the US. Because a full on military operation is something Iran knows it has no shot of winning, even if Russia throws their hat directly into the ring.

Iran is going to try and exploit the momentum it’s gained from trump pulling out of the nuclear agreement, plus its ties with Russia and other forces hostile to the US.

The wildcard here is Trump. You, I, 40, or whoever will try and argue back and forth with logic and reasoning and well thought out responses.

The problem is that none of that describes trump. Trump is dumb, inconsistent, and any decision will be based around reelection and what gives him more control, not what will help win the actual conflict or deescalate The situation.

I hate admitting this but Iran picked a perfect time to start drama. North Korea is acting up, the EU is somewhat fractured due to brexit, as well as not liking trump to begin with, the Middle East is more fractured thanks to the saudis and other situations around the region, Turkey back to killing Kurds with no pushback, Syria more empowered after the US leaves the region, and putin whispering in trumps ear.

We literally empowered Iran by getting out of the nuclear agreement. The pentagon will put a sound plan together that will win us a potential war. But the decision making from the guy in charge will neutralize that, and possibly have us in another Nam situation where we win the battles but lose the hearts and minds, which is the actual war. Because again, nothing Iran did was new, but killing their general WILL be viewed as escalation from the rest of the world.

I highly doubt we get the ally support we typically get during other conflicts. This could be a US VS everyone else situation......

Agreed - good points all.

I think the proof of the pudding will be the international reaction from allies and the rest of the global community.

US to deploy 3,500 additional troops to the Middle East after Iranian general killed

-The U.S. military will send about 3,500 additional soldiers to the Middle East following the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani less than a day earlier, NBC News reported Friday, citing three U.S. defense officials and one U.S. military official.

-The new troops are being deployed to Iraq, Kuwait and other parts of the region, NBC reported.

-They are ordered to serve as a response to threats throughout the region in the wake of Soleimani’s death.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/03/us-to-de...ani-killed.html

We’ve been at war since my freshman year of college. I remember my reservist dorm buddies being nervous of being called up. I can remember sitting in the student lounge watching the news coverage with my peers. The uneasy feeling that guys I went to high school with were over there. Guys I was currently going to class with were getting ready to be called. Would there be a draft?
It was a pall over what was otherwise an awesome freshman year.
It’s hard believe it’s been 30 years and nothing has changed. I feel for those that sit in dorm rooms across the country with this over their heads. I fear for my nephew in the Marines. He’s already in Saudi Arabia. Be safe troops. Sorry history is repeating itself.

Oh grow up. Trump did another good thing and it pisses you Lefties off.When he pulled the troops out over there you guys got Butt hurt and all of a sudden grew a pair.

And about Trump not going to congress about the attack. How long do think it would have taken Schiff,Pelosi and other scumbags to announce to the world what we were planning?

Maybe Trump should send them another plane load of money

Anything Trump does is fine with you, that's how it works with lemmings, over the cliff Duty, over the cliff.

We have been at War since I was a Junior in High School, I am 34 going on 35 this year. There really is not a logical explanation for that.

Trump stated as a CAMPAIGN promise, that we would be getting out of being the police leader of the world, did he not?

I recall you and others complaining about being in every country we shouldn't be in, and that we need to focus on America First, or was I hearing things? I don't think I was, because I agreed with that concept.

I don't know exactly how I feel about this scenario yet, and I am holding my reservations until more information is coming out. But I have heard some good arguments from the LEFT and RIGHT so far.

My biggest fear, is the Right is trying to start a war in an election year, as it seems that's a sure fire way to get votes.

My other biggest fear, we do nothing and more embassy's and Americans are killed for fear of lack of repercussions.

But its easy to tell someone to "grow a pair" when you don't have military aged nieces, nephews, and children.

I think you should take a step back, stop trying to be internet tough guy with a Budweiser and a cut off flannel, and understand that ACTUAL peoples lives are at risk, when things like this happen, and consequences are a little more damaging then shaving off a handlebar mustache and spilling a can of skoal.