IRAN 2020 - US takeout Top Iranian Gen. in transit from Baghdad Airport


My simple understanding is that embassy ground is regarded as sovereign soil of the representative country, therefore it would be classed or viewed as a direct attack maybe along the lines of, “Sir, The United Sates of America is under attack…”

According to this Fox tweet at the time and assuming it is accurate (translation), the militia made an open declaration of their leaderships identity:

Lucas Tomlinson

“Soleimani is our leader” written under window by Iran-backed militiamen at U.S. Embassy Baghdad, about head of IRGC’s Quds Force, responsible for special operations in Iraq and Syria


5:16 PM · Jan 2, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

Unsurprisingly, Israel wanted to take out Soleimani back in 2015, Obama Admin prevented this:

…The Trump administration, on the other hand, gave Israel a green light to assassinate Soleimani, according to a January 1, 2018 report from the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida . The paper quoted a source in Jerusalem as saying that “there is an American-Israeli agreement” that Soleimani is a “threat to the two countries’ interests in the region.” According to Haaretz , Al-Jarida is generally assumed to be a platform for the Israeli government to disseminate its message to other Middle Eastern governments.

According to the report, the agreement between Israel and the U.S. came three years after Washington thwarted an Israeli attempt to kill the Iranian general.
**> **
> “The report says Israel was ‘on the verge’ of assassinating Soleimani three years ago, near Damascus, but the United States warned the Iranian leadership of the plan, revealing that Israel was closely tracking the Iranian general,” Haaretz reported.

The incident “sparked a sharp disagreement between the Israeli and American security and intelligence apparatuses regarding the issue.” That sounds like an understatement.

President Barack Obama frequently snubbed Israel, considered by many to be America’s best ally in the Middle East. Yet the news that the Obama’s administration prevented Israel from assassinating the Quds Force leader seems particularly significant, since the Obama administration also kept a list of approximately 500 American soldiers who were murdered by Iranian IEDs. Since the Quds Force spearheads Iran’s operations outside the Islamic Republic, Soleimani would arguably be responsible for all of those deaths.

When Trump finally gave the order to kill the Quds Force leader, it came after multiple attacks against Americans and American facilities in Iraq — attacks that arguably traced back to Soleimani himself.

The Iran-backed Iraqi militia Kata’ib Hezbollah began the escalating tensions with a rocket attack on a U.S.-led coalition base on December 27. That attack killed a U.S. contractor and left many American and Iraqi personnel wounded. According to the Pentagon, Soleimani ordered that attack.

In response, America launched airstrikes against the militia, killing 25 militiamen. In retaliation, the militiamen stormed the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, invading American soil. The Pentagon claimed that Soleimani “approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.”

Killing Soleimani is a powerful response to the embassy attack, an attack that arguably constituted an act of war.

The Obama admin appear to have be very favourable to Soleminai, as noted in the Telegraph article surrounding some of the terms of the Iranian deal:

Obama’s Iran deal has just granted an amnesty to the world’s leading terrorist mastermind


Qassem Suleimani, the head of the elite Quds Force in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, fully deserves his reputation as one of the world’s leading terrorist masterminds.

For a decade a more he has been the driving force behind an array of Iranian-sponsored terrorist groups, from Hizbollah to Hamas, which have orchestrated a reign of terror throughout the Middle East.

From a purely British perspective, he was responsible for training and equipping the Shia militias in southern Iraq who killed scores of British troops during the dark days of Iraq’s sectarian conflict following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and was reported to have trained the Taliban in the art of making deadly roadside bombs that killed and mutilated our Service personnel serving in southern Afghanistan.

So you can imagine my amazement when, leafing through the more obscure annexes of President Barack Obama’s “historic” deal with Iran (page 86 of the annex, to be precise), I found that Mr Suliemani – as the White House no doubt now refers to him – has been granted an amnesty and taken off the list of proscribed Iranians – together with a number of senior members of the Revolutionary Guards.

Thanks to Mr Obama’s scandalous capitulation to Tehran, Mr Suleimani has overnight gone from being one of the world’s most wanted terrorists to the White House’s newest best friend…

…If I were Suleimani, I’d be organising an enormous party right now to celebrate a deal that is truly a “historic victory” for Tehran.

Alternative Link to Article Text:

Read Full Article here:

In a follow on interview a few days later, this aspect of the deal is aired in a questioned to Kerry:

Interview With Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday

John Kerry, Secretary of State
July 19, 2015

QUESTION: Under this deal, we lift the arms embargo on Iran being able to buy weapons and even ballistic missiles between five and eight years. And the sanctions against General Soleimani, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Qods Force, are also lifted. What we end up with, Secretary Kerry, is an Iran with billions, hundreds of billions of dollars more, able to buy weapons, and a Revolutionary Guard with fewer restraints. Isn’t that potentially an even more dangerous state sponsor of terror in the Middle East?

SECRETARY KERRY: First of all, Chris, don’t exaggerate. It’s not hundreds of billions of dollars. It’s $100 billion…


This connection popped up not long after the Embassy attack and before the hit on Soleimani.

It’s not a great image, but earlier higher quality version appear to have since been purged.

The person in question appears to be former Iraqi Transport Minister who according to this report was a former commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Hadi al-Amiri has been identified as one of the leaders behind the attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

Moreover, the Iranian militia leader was invited to the White House in 2011 during the presidency of Barack Obama, Fox News and The Washington Timesreported.

“In 2011, both Fox News and the Washington Times noted that then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki brought his transportation minister, al-Amiri, to a meeting at the White House,” Breitbart News reported.

“The Times noted that the White House did not confirm his attendance, but the official was on Iraq’s listed members of its delegation,” the report added.

“Fox News’ Ed Henry questioned White House Press Secretary Jay Carney following the visit about the attendance of al-Amiri at the White House. Carney refused to answer and stating that he would need to investigate the issue,” the report concluded.

Ed Henry, FOX News: When Prime Minister Maliki was here this week there have been reports that a former commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which U.S. officials say played a role in a 1996 terrorist attack that killed 19 U.S. servicemen.

He was here at the White House with Prime Minister Maliki because he’s a transportation minister, yeah, transportation minister —

Jay Carney, WH: Who’s [sic] report is that?

Henry: I believe the Washington Times has reported it. I think others have as well, but I think this is a Washington Times —

Carney: I have to take that question then, I’m not aware of it.

Mike Pompeo identified him

Leader of U.S. Embassy siege in Iraq was guest of Obama at White House

By Dave Boyer - The Washington Times
Thursday, January 2, 2020

One of the men identified by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as a leader of the Iran-backed siege of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was welcomed to the White House in 2011 by President Barack Obama.

Hadi al-Amiri was photographed outside the U.S. Embassy during the siege and was singled out by Mr. Pompeo as an Iranian “proxy” abetting terrorists who stormed the embassy walls and set fires.

In December 2011, Mr. Amiri was serving as Iraq’s minister of transport when he attended a meeting in the Oval Office with Mr. Obama, the Daily Mail reported. He was with then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Mr. Amiri is a former commander of the Badr Corps militia, which was funded by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

At the time that Mr. Obama hosted the meeting, then-Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of the House Foreign Affairs Committee expressed outrage that the president would allow Mr. Amiri into the White House. He was suspected at the time of a link to the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. Air Force personnel.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican, told The Washington Times in 2011 that it was “extremely disturbing that the White House would see fit to welcome al-Amiri to a discussion on the future of Iraq.”

“If anything, he should be subject to questioning by the FBI and other appropriate U.S. law enforcement and counterterrorism agencies,” she said at the time. “The victims of Khobar Towers and the families of thousands of U.S. troops who paid the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq deserve no less.”

The truck bombing was later blamed on Iran and Hezbollah.


If he was assassinated then so was bin laden ffs. The US should be nowhere near that awful part of the world. Leave them to it.


And if Iran starts seizing ships in the Strait of Hormuz? Or Hezbollah resume lobbing Iranian missiles at Israel? Or Saudi Arabia triggers a genocidal famine in Yemen for fear of Iranian-funded Houthis? It’s a dirty business, but “leaving them to it” is unlikely to result in less strife.


I agree, maybe other countries should step up. It’s easy to criticize from the sidelines and most countries aren’t self sufficient in energy therefore benefit from US dominance there. I’d rather the west became self sufficient post 1970s oil crisis…it’s not too late


Goegre Webb still making videos.

“You can’t think about it at the country level… it immediately dumbs down your analytical capabilities” - George Webb

From the video description:

For those who are saying I doxxed Solemani with all the videos over the past two years exposing his role in the Iran Nuclear deal with his desire for nuclear subs, I stand guilty as charged. If that went into Trump’s calculus, so be it. Iran was designation last April as a terrorist nation. All bets are off for terrorists. Mark Kulacz PGP Video - Great Stuff

Ep 19.2 - The roots of PDP : Blackberry network for the SpyRingInCongress - (

If you want me pixelate key evidence that will stop the Impeachment, I won’t do it. I will publish unpixelated images of Obama’s Vice President staffer’s blackberry to expose the ring that did the Iran Nuclear Deal. By the same token, if you as me to promote the insane conspiracy theories of Jerome Corsi and the Pixelation Champion of All Time sidekick Jason, please leave my channel now and get over to Pixelate the Truth right now. Corsi drops to his knees every time Kissinger calls and says he need to be over at the Harvard Club cloak room.


Reports of missile attacks on US military bases in Iraq


Was Soleimani part of the Blackberry Ring?

Have your trusted staff send me a secure phone… why was this redacted?”

Short but jam packed video with enough info to make your head spin.


Still playing catch up, but last nights light show (excluding Ukrainian plane for now) is looking a lot more like the Syria cruise missiles theatrical spectacular with a kind of reversing of the roles. Fascinating. :ninja:


If anything the media were a lot more freaked the day after the Syria hit, then they were last night/this morning, all things considered. It seemed to take for ages for BBC to report the story, and Sky a further ten minutes later. It was a bit muted compared to their usual over dramatisation and interpretation of events.


Hilarious! :rofl:


So is this the end of it?

And if so is it a win for Trump?

Certainly looks like it. Will be interesting to see how it impacts opinion polls.


LOL, that’s the end of it.

Sure and the Saudis, Iranian and Israels will be singing kumbaya and smoking the peace pipe on the shores of the dead sea.


You think there remains a realistic chance of Trump declaring war on Iran? Or vice versa?

Surely seems unlikely following last nights press conference?


Domestically it might be … and that’s probably all he cares about.

He may well have done some service to the cause of peace between Iran and Iraq - they have probably forgotten their hatred of each other , being bound now by their mutual hatred of the US - at the level of the ordinary populace and the moderate political classes that is almost certainly the case.

I think any chance of young Jared ushering a brave new era of Middle East peace can safely be forgotten - his plan for a supremely omnipotent Israel (a non-sequitur in terms of modern warfare anyway given Israels geographical and political isolation) towering over a fractured ME political landscape is probably not going to wash now. The attempt to drag Iran into the 9/11 attack is puerile - the failure to ‘follow the money’ (for obvious reasons) showed where the US stood in the matter of blame.

Trump will get away with it domestically but the decades (post-Shah) long attempt to bring Iran to a place where it would feel the hurt of international opprobrium and the pull of reason is now trashed and the possibility of Iraq being (at least partially and possibly (in time) more fully) a political anchor for the Wests interests is now gone.

Iran will do nothing - they don’t need to and they know that not having a war with Trump will do more harm than having one. All they have to do is wait this one out.

Trumps comment on the plane crash/downing can be applied - “Somebody made a mistake here” - Dead right, son - it was you


Can you expand on the implication that Trump made a mistake, what’s the focus here, tactical , strategic, political, economic, a mix etc. etc. I honestly don’t understand that point (nor did I hear that “mistake” comment by Trump yet, so I don’t know the context and understand you are t rowing it back… but if you have a link to that comment please post I’d like to hear it).

In short, what is the gross error committed by Trump as you see it?


Trump can’t declare war but that doesn’t mean that the US is not constantly at war with Iran since day dot.

Their is never going to be a full scale invasion. It is a war of targeted strikes. Attacks and wars via proxies - Yemen, Syria and everywhere else in the meddle east. And yet its the sunnis that keep up their terrorism in West. Go figure.


I re-quoted Trump on the basis of a non-contextual summary on the BBC - the context in the full interview that appeared later was WRT the downing of the commercial airliner. I wasn’t using the quote in that context although I was aware that was the rough context from which it was drawn.

The mistake that Trump made was to carry out what was essentially an extra-judicial assassination of a pretty nasty individual in a deliberate attempt to goad Iran into war. The war has been long desired by Trumps buddies - and up until now Trump has resisted on the basis of not having body bags in an election year - the thing is that Trumps agenda now aligns with theirs - he needs a distraction from impeachment, he needs an issue that will divide potential opposition in both Republican and Democrat parties - he now wants his second term so he must win the Republican nomination - the Democrats are always easy to fragment on a moral issue so this plays to making the Democrats fight an internal war before facing him. So that may work for his domestic agenda - so possibly not a mistake there - but as I point out in my post Iran are probably not stupid enough to retaliate - however if the downing of the flight is an Iranian error this could be used as a further lever to justify an escalation on the US side.


How is that an assassination and someone like bin laden wasn’t?


If the US blew up the head of the Irish army, would that be assination? What is the difficulty in calling it exactly what it is.