So, What?

As was expected, political posturing and maneuvering started after the events in Iraq and Iran and it started in earnest. Suddenly Pentagon's Chief admits what anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature knew all along:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Mark Esper explicitly said Sunday that he had seen no hard evidence that four American embassies had been under possible threat when President Donald Trump authorized the targeting of Iran’s top commander, raising questions about the scale of the threat described by Trump last week. As the administration struggled with its justification for the drone strike that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Esper and other officials tried to refocus attention on voices of dissent in Iran.

Well, duh. Then the other "secret" (obvious from the git go) details begin to emerge:

United States officials used a secret backchannel to communicate with Iran in recent days, sending messages via Swiss intermediaries warning Iran not to retaliate so harshly that it would further provoke President Donald Trump, The New York Times reported Saturday. The messages came not long after the Trump administration authorized strikes that killed the top Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani, immediately escalating tensions between the US and Iran. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier Saturday morning that the Trump administration sent an encrypted fax to Iran just hours after killing Soleimani, warning not to escalate.

At this stage one has to pause for a moment and ask oneself a question: how did this "warning not to retaliate so harshly that it would provoke President" look to Iranians? Right, as an open admission of weakness and lack of desire to do real fighting. Moreover, if to believe reports (and they do seem plausible):

Trump initially passed on killing Soleimani in late December, opting instead for airstrikes that killed 25 members of an Iran-backed Iraqi militia. But when Trump watched TV coverage of militia supporters attacking the perimeter of the massive U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, "he's thinking about Benghazi" and "he's also thinking about the 1979 attack on the American Embassy in Iran that led to the hostage crisis," the Times' Helene Cooper recounts. "He's getting more and more angry, according to his aides, and then he calls for his menu of options again, and this time, he picks the extreme option," killing Soleimani.

So, what? I repeat this ad nauseam: United States doesn't handle states and people who are not afraid of her that well, to put it mildly. Obviously, Iran's violation of the sanctity of diplomatic institution such as US Embassy in 1978 is not an event to be admired, but the United States which bombed China's Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 (by "mistake", of course), among other things, not to mention having her embassies existing primarily (emphasis on primarily) for sabotage and spying activity, is in no position to complain too much. Trump, still being affected by a 41 year old event in Tehran, is a symptom of sorts, of a person who really has a very tentative grasp on the history and, especially so, geopolitics. Obviously, DJT doesn't know what US Consulate in Benghasi was actually doing. A hint, very little "diplomacy".  

Yet, this all also demonstrates an appalling level of competency, or, rather, lack thereof, at which National Security teams operate in the White House. Trump is not really a new phenomenon in this respect; of course, we all recall, completely fake and "cooked", "intelligence" which lead to the invasion of Iraq, we know what a stream of liquid dung called "intelligence" was poured into the White House prior to gang rape of Serbia, in the end, these were all those "intelligence" and "diplomacy" people who convinced Obama to unleash a suicidal events in Ukraine in 2013-14. And the system continues to operate like that in D.C. Trump might be more unhinged and illiterate than previous residents of the White House, but he really differs very little in his delusion from them. He is merely a symptom of a much more serious illness which afflicts US political class, "deep state", "elite", what have you--feel free to call it anyway you want. 

Assassination of General Soleimani and what followed is just the latest in a folly which replicates itself non-stop at the US political top. Sure, "warnings" sent to Iranians do not look that good and do not add to the American prestige in the region and around the globe, but the again--what did? As I write non-stop, the problem is systemic: it is one of a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the outside world it is also a very low, if any, level of self-awareness. To make a point: try as one might, one will be hard-pressed to find any competent and at least partially correct geopolitical forecast which emerged from the deep recesses of US national security and political "science" think-tankdom. When being consistently wrong in forecasts and calculating consequences of own actions becomes the only outcome system produces, it is the sign of a system which is completely broken. It is broken. But if some delirium from white board geopolitical "academe" has an impact which measures in years, such as purely risible pseudo-scientific treatises of "The End of History" or "The Grand Chessboard" on the level of POTUS justifications as such are simply inadmissible:

US President Donald Trump has lashed out against the “fake news media” and their “Democrat partners” over criticism of his administration’s decision to assassinate Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.The president claimed in tweets marred with misspellings that it does not matter if Soleimani presented an imminent threat to the US, something he had said previously to defend the assassination, because of the general’s “horrible past.”

Yes, "horrible past" such as cooperating with the United States in fighting ISIS in Syria and Afghanistan. Anyone wonders then why the US is non-agreement capable? But if DJT is a New York real estate shyster who was able, due to his entertainment industry experience, to deliver sound and attractive ideas written for him by Stephen Miller convincingly, one should not forget that in this sense Obama or Clinton (Bill), let alone W were just slightly more polished on the outside liars and incompetents. I will parrot myself yet again here: US political class is incapable to produce real statesmen, but even in that, bad as it is, it also lost, due to corruption and the death of meritocracy, any ability to produce any sort of competence. Enough to take a look at US Congress who work night and day to parade the United States globally as a freak show and do all in their power to NOT address real serious, some of them actually dangerous, problems facing the United States.

Recent events in Iran and Iraq are just another, however very significant, symptoms of Empire's decay and departure. I want, however, to clarify one thing. While Iran is a very important regional state and not for once I praised Iranians' courage and dedication, I am completely aware of the fact, of which I wrote not for once, that Iran is her own "thing". Russia may, in the words of Patrushev, declare Iran Russia's ally, for Iran, however, Russia is not an ally at all and Russia will remain just another state which could be used for Iran's own purposes. Nothing wrong with that--everyone is doing this, but Iran is not Russia's ally, whatever that means. So, Russian-Iranian relations are complex and we are yet to see how the potential of these relations could be realized. Especially since Russian and Iranian visions of the Middle East differ. Moreover, while Middle East IS the battle-space between US and Iran, this battle-space is just another theater of war the United States wages against Russia and China. We MUST NOT lose the sight of this important fact--the fate of the world depends on global realignment and shift of power poles (in progress), of which Iran provided yet another indication, and the way increasingly irrational Empire and her suicidal-homicidal tendencies can be kept in check.       

Orwellian

In the extreme. 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon on Monday distanced itself from President Donald Trump’s assertions that he would bomb Iranian cultural sites despite international prohibitions on such attacks. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said the U.S. will “follow the laws of armed conflict.” When asked if that ruled out targeting cultural sites, Esper said pointedly, “That’s the laws of armed conflict.” The split between the president and his Pentagon chief came amid heightened tensions with Tehran following a U.S. drone strike that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force. Trump had twice warned that he would hit Iranian cultural sites if Tehran retaliates against the U.S. Esper’s public comments reflected the private concerns of other defense and military officials, who cited legal prohibitions on attacks on civilian, cultural and religious sites, except under certain, threatening circumstances.

As I continue to say non-stop: while there are a lot of questions regarding US military's conduct, truth is--it is the last American institution which still has some vestiges of competence and common sense surviving within itself. The rest of US governance class is an Exhibit A of insanity and outright criminality. 

“We have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD," he tweeted. His Twitter message caught administration officials off-guard and prompted an immediate outcry from legal scholars, national security experts and Democratic lawmakers. But the president stood by his threat the following day. “They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people,” he told reporters traveling with him on Air Force One. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way.” By international law, however, it does.

I think the signals from US political top coming since the treacherous assassination of General Soleimani who was on a diplomatic mission in the third country are a testament to a complete breakdown of any command and control chains within Administration. They also testify to a continuous and accelerating ripping of the fabric of American statehood due to US "elites" reaching or nearing the limits of corruption, dual loyalty and incompetence beyond which governance becomes impossible and the system implodes. Those signs are all around us. Indeed, for the Head of State to threaten to attack holiest places of an ancient civilization--this is unprecedented. What would Donald Trump do if tomorrow (let's imagine unimaginable, as an example) Russian President would state that Russia will hit very fast and very hard Lincoln Memorial, Arlington Cemetery and Capitol, granted Russia can actually do it, what would the reaction be? There are things one simply doesn't do in the position of the Head of State even verbally, even in private--threatening national holy sites of immense religious and cultural significance. But, I guess, for NYC real estate shyster this element of state dignity and, in case of the United States, whatever remains (not much, if any) of moral "high" ground is completely unknown. But this is not what I am trying to say here, others did it better than me already, anyway. Such as Pepe Escobar.

My point is different. I think Vladimir Putin had it. Today he traveled unannounced, after all, who now knows what DJT or other factions in the US and Israel have in mind, to Syria. To meet Bashar Assad and, considering the presence of both Shoigu and Gerasimov in the delegation, to discuss some other "issues".  While in Damascus,  Putin visited both Umayyad Mosque and Holy Virgin Mary Orthodox Church. A rather very contrasting message to one(s) being produced by Trump Administration. But presence of Shoigu and Gerasimov, of course, was more than just symbolic. Syria borders Israel and is a key barrier to the attack of Iran either by Israel or whatever assets US Navy may decide to bring in the Eastern Med--it is about 900 miles (as the crow, or TLAM or JASSM fly) from Eastern Med to Tehran, so a bit of a pep-talk and maybe some check up of Russian forces in Syria, including ever important Air Defense part, was needed. We ARE in the state of war between US/Israel and Iran/Iraq. Bibi can spew whatever BS he wants, but Israel and its American governing neocon faction's culpability in assassination is unquestionable. After all, the United States fought few wars for its most trusted "ally" and only "democracy" in the Middle East.  

So, is Russia trying to contain the situation? Difficult to say at this stage since, in the end, it was and is clear to anyone who didn't spend last 10 years under the stone that "resolution", that is supplantation of the rotting and increasingly insane Pax Americana with real rules-based world order is bound to happen one way or another. The world is already very deep into the increasingly visible and felt multi-polarity, so, who knows, Russia may see some opening for final formalization of this new geopolitical reality by "helping" the United States to depart from largely self-proclaimed status of Hegemon. Iran could be, and, highly likely is this "Bridge Too Far" for the United States and if it takes the form of a proxy US-Iranian conflict initially, this could be the arrangement Russia be OK with. But there was some funny little piece of news today which, while by no means any confirmation of anything, still could be a somewhat circumstantial evidence of the whole "End of History" thingy coming apart at the seams. 

French Minister of Economy and Finances Bruno Le Maire, yesterday, suddenly felt an urge to "relaunch economic ties with Russia" by using "innovative ways" to circumnavigate US sanctions (in Russian). Here is the first question any normal Russian asks: what for? France is a second tier economic "partner" for Russia, with trade between two nations barely hitting EUR12 billion. Of course, Le Maire frames this "intention" as an action within Macron's plan of "improving strategic ties" with Russia. Well, it is all fine and dandy, but it is Germany and her market Russia primarily is interested in. But Le Maire's announcement is symptomatic, nonetheless. Macron and whoever "consults" him, obviously, figured it out that EU is America's sacrificial lamb and France, unlike totally emasculated Germany, still experiences phantom pains of European superpower, the seat of European culture and so on. Sure. The issue for Russia, however, is the fact that pains or no pains, France is United States' slap bitch and France depends greatly on American market, which the scale of trade between the two confirms. Unlike puny EUR12 billion of Russian-French trade, US-France trade reaches almost exactly an order of magnitude larger figure than the same with Russia, namely $139 billion. Add here France's special role (indeed, it was special) in the American history and voila'--things become very clear. US will order France to jump, French will ask how high. Thankfully for Russia, nobody of real power there exercises any illusions on "strategic relations" with France. Russia prefers to deal with sovereign nations. Among European sheeple, it is Germany which is more attractive as an economic partner, not France. After all, recall that it was Germany before 2014 which was Russia's main trade partner globally. Anyhow, try to find France in this list.  

France, as an American vassal has no future. Nor does she make any sense in terms of major economic partner, let alone some "strategic relations" partner, for Russia. Russia is not there to save anyone who is in the American fold, US sanctions on Russia are permanent and will only increase in scale and scope, so, no amount of "innovative ways" can change for Russia the fact that she is re-industrializing with a very good tempo and has very little cultural or metaphysical interest in what today passes for the "West", certainly not represented by France. But still, those weak voices of dissent from Europe are funny in terms of indication of a rudimentary self-interest guarding synapses appearing in otherwise dead European brain. Could it be a start of a long process of growing a spine against the background of the US departure? Well, the time for that growing has long since passed and for that Europeans have only themselves to blame. Russia, meanwhile, has a much bigger fish to fry.

Tell Me Who Your Friends Are...

And if Mike Pompeo, allegedly a top US "diplomat", is in your administration--that pretty much sums up who you are. Make no mistake, currently, the United States has zero diplomats of scale and skill required to handle a clusterfuck which US foreign policy is, but Mike Pompeo is something special--a devout Ruprutist, an Israeli-firster and, in general, is an Exhibit A of a collection of different delusions and disorders preventing such ilk from having any relation with the reality. He is also a BSer of a note when trying to state that: 

Mike Pompeo claims strike killing Iranian general was a 'collective decision' despite report saying leaders were 'stunned' by Trump's choice

Evidently this is not quite "true". I, of course, am not talking about the "the buck stops with me" guy in the White House who simultaneously declared war on Iran (and now on Iraq); in the end he is ultimately responsible for being unfit to run this country (but who is?) and making disastrous decisions. If to believe WaPo (I know, I know) it was US Secretary of the State who for months was pushing for assassination of Soleimani (the article at WaPo is behind the paywall), including feverish, several times a day, sessions with DJT precisely on this issue. Well, he, certainly, succeeded. Now he, together with Trump, are both personally responsible for what follows because Iran will respond. Some moves are already in progress, with Chief of the Iranian General Staff already having consultations with Shoigu (in Russian). Obviously, officially those consultations are defined as aimed "to not allow further escalation", which in military lingo means a review of options. Meanwhile, Pompeo makes rounds trying to convince everyone that assassination of a very senior government official of the sovereign nation was "necessary". As I say, yet again, he lied, some Americans already died. 

Evidently Pentagon knew what kind of shit Trump was getting United States into and what that meant for US bases in the Middle East. Larry C Johnson was straight to the point: 

                                              There Will Be Blood

Too bad (for Pentagon) that Trump went for the most insane option. But, I guess, against the background of a precipitous intellectual decline of US political elites and dual loyalties (primarily to Israel and Saudi money) being a normal fact of US body politic expecting sound geopolitical decisions based on expertise is not a possibility anymore. And so, here we are. I may gather enough will and strength to review some military options but, frankly, it is a fool's errand since pretty much everyone is going to be writing about it. One such piece, well intended, but wrongly justified has already been written by former Marine helicopter pilot in which this was stated:

An admiral in the UK states that an invasion of Iran would require millions of American troops, akin to the occupation of Germany after World War II. But he’s off the mark: things have come a long way since 1945. In World War II, when we wanted to cripple a German ball bearing plant at Schweinfurt, we had to send 291 B-17 bombers, 77 of which never came home. This scale was due to the inaccuracy of the dumb bombs being used. Today, we have GPS and laser-guided bombs that can reliably land within a few meters of their targets. The accuracy of every weapon system, from tanks to planes to artillery, has jumped by many orders of magnitude, thus requiring fewer personnel and delivery systems to achieve the same destructive results. Iraq was defeated with about 225,000 coalition troops in 2003. Millions of soldiers would not be required to invade Iran.

You know by now my attitude to all those historical parallels, especially when drawn inaccurately. The author, obviously, forgot that Iran, unlike Iraq in 2003, does have modern EW systems, including ones capable of jamming GPS signal and Iran's army herself has enough of those very same laser-guided munitions which, considering Iran's nightmarish terrain, will make any armor warfare a living hell for any invader. Same goes for infantry. So, I wouldn't dismiss assessments by Royal Navy's Admiral when he states that the United States will need a number of troops around million or so if the United States wants to "occupy" Iran. And here is a conundrum for the US--once the real escalation starts, the US will NEED to win the war for which it doesn't have resources. Both Trump and Pompeo bear direct responsibility for putting the United States into this strategic trap which, as Phil Giraldi termed it is:

The Soleimani Assassination. The Long-Awaited Beginning of The End of America’s Imperial Ambitions

Difficult to disagree.In the end, Trump chose his cabinet and as the saying goes, tell me who your friends are....

A Delusional VP.

VP Mike Pence is a colorless "born-again" Christian Zionist with degree in Law and a man who in real meritocracy would not be entrusted with mowing a lawn or tending beets or potatoes. But we live in the world where alternative reality is being sold wholesale and it does sell, at least on some of the occasions. The fact that Mike Pence is an idiot be damned. Yet, he sells this alt-reality non stop. His latest? Even Goebbelsonian NYT cannot take it:

In a series of tweets Friday defending President Donald Trump’s decision to authorize the drone strike that killed Iran’s top intelligence commander, Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Vice President Mike Pence reeled off a list of some of Soleimani’s most notorious attacks and machinations. Pence described “an evil man” who had threatened American national security interests for decades. In one of his tweets, Pence claimed that Soleimani helped 10 of the men who would go on to carry out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks cross through Iran and enter Afghanistan. That does not match established historical accounts of Soleimani or public U.S. intelligence about the hijackers.

First, can we finally settle on the obvious fact that US top political echelon in the last 30 or so years simply does not operate in facts. I am not talking about knowledge of the outside world of which there is pretty little precious in there. But even mentally challenged people CAN and often do recognize simple facts. You know, boiling water is hot, if you slam your hand with a hammer it will hurt like hell, do not cross the street in a front of the oncoming traffic and Iran has nothing to do with 911 and, in fact, immediately offered help to the United States in investigation. But never mind, for Mr. Pence, whose qualifications, with the exception of sucking up and being loyal to Israel, are that of the low level bureaucrat who has zero experiences with actual warfare, intelligence and statecraft, facts do not matter and he goes to interpret reality the way he wants. Even NYT is forced to state:

How Pence arrived at this number and this account is unclear. Why Soleimani, leader of a hard-line Shiite Muslim military apparatus, would have come to the aid of members of al-Qaida, a Sunni extremist group with strong ties to Saudi Arabia, is also unclear.

The problem with this statement is in the fact that this is not the only thing which is unclear--pretty much, at this stage, it is unclear if there are any sane people left in D.C. who actually are professionals and can calculate their steps beyond the first one. The consequences of Soleimani's assassination are already felt--but that is just a warm up from some random Shiite groups. Iran is going to take her time contemplating how to hit back, and she will. I will abstain now from going too deep in that issue, Bernhard of Moon of Alabama, as well as Andrei Raevsky and Scott Ritter already made their contributions, so I am not going to ponder this issue. Also of note is an excellent epitaph of sorts from Colonel Lang. I will, however, say this: this bunch of nutjobs in D.C. have no idea what they just unleashed and I don't believe anymore for a second that Trump does this for the sake of some sophisticated multi-dimensional plan of extracting the US from the Middle East. I don't buy this for a second. There is no plan which benefits the United States. Israel? Sure, but not the US, especially since any real war with Iran will shake the United States to its foundation which will make Vietnam look like a vacation. If they do not understand this in the White House and reside in the alternative reality, which second in command in the United States just demonstrated--we may have bigger problem than already a major shift in geopolitical balance since yesterday.

Trump Needs Some History Update.

Trump, in full accordance to US elites' MO, tweeted, in the wake of assassination of General Soleimani, next:

         Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!

I am not sure what DJT meant by this, but Iran, actually, withstood Saddam Iraq's, supported by half-the-world, onslaught for ten years and that, under the conditions which existed then, was nothing short of military victory. The stream of utter stupidity from top echelon of Washington's power ensued and even Yahoo News was forced to point out:

Earlier Friday, Trump tweeted that “Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!” That was not the conclusion of the U.S. Defense Department’s 1,300-page report on the Iraq war, which was released last year. The study found that Iran was the only winner in the decades-long conflict.

What do ya know. Trump really needs some basic course in military history of the XX-XXI centuries to improve his situational awareness in order to order his minions to stop delivering absolutely delusional statements:

The initial Pentagon statement on the strike said it “was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.” In an interview on CNN Friday morning, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a more urgent explanation, saying the attack headed off an “imminent threat to American lives.” He gave no details. Pompeo said “the world is a much safer place” with Soleimani gone. “I can assure you that Americans in the region are much safer,” Pompeo said.

It is very clear that the "strike" achieved totally opposite aims and one can only guess at this stage what will be Iran's response. There WILL BE a response. Iran is neither Iraq nor Syria, she can defend herself and she can project power in the region. So, at this stage, let's wait and see where this all leads us, but any US involvement in Iran directly can be the end of whatever is left of US power. So much for "safety".

LONDON (AP) — The price of oil surged Friday on concerns that Iran might respond to the killing of its top general by the United States by disrupting global supplies of energy from the Mideast. If sustained, the rise in oil prices could lead to more expensive car fuel, heating and electricity bills, stifling the global economy at a time when it is already slowing. News that Gen. Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran’s elite Quds Force, was killed in an air attack at the Baghdad international airport prompted expectations of Iranian retaliation.

UPDATE: Oh goodness gracious. If true, we have, indeed, imbeciles running this country. 

A convoy carrying high-profile members of the Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), an umbrella group of Iran-backed militias, was hit by an airstrike while traveling in Baghdad, according to multiple reports.The three-car convoy was struck in the northern outskirts of the Iraqi capital in the district of al-Taji, according to an Iraqi military source cited by Reuters. Six militiamen were reported killed in the attack, with three others critically injured. It remains unclear who carried out the strike.

We'll see what is going on pretty soon. But as Andrei Raevsky reports:

This is also clearly part of the Empire’s anti-Shia strategy.

If it is, indeed, a "strategy", it is not a good one, to put it mildly. But in the end, could it be just Bibi not willing to go to jail?  

UPDATE-2: and why did they want this war for decades? My first book answers this question in full. It is the same reason why the US defeated Nazis alone, simple as that. Exceptional nations do not get humiliated, after all, do we remember how Iran humiliated Jimmy Carter? Not that Ronald Reagan was against it... Do you recall what date hostages were released by Iran? Right.... Reagan's Inauguration Day.