Nothing has changed about this general who was probably to be Iran’s next president. He had always been engaged in these kinds of attack plans. His proxy, the leader of the associated Shia-affiliated political party in Iraq, was the one who called the initial protesters OUT of the embassy grounds. The only and relevant and real question that matters is, why the Trump attack with no constitutional backing now?
There are many possible answers, but one is more logical than others: damning new evidence in the impeachment proceeding.
We are being asked to shut off of our rational minds in the face of five years of evidence and ignore this liklihood.
Until presented with clear, convincing, and verifiable evidence to the contrary, I shall not.
In both the impeachment proceeding and Iran, the world is depending on Americans to return to rational, logical thought based on evidence.
couves says
There is an undeniable “wag the dog” feel to this. But Soleimani’s assassination was not the act of a lone mad-dog President. The same is true of our withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. The reality is that our foreign policy establishment is strongly aligned with anti-Iranian interests. There is no doubt that the more hardline anti-Iranians would risk a catastrophic war, just to kill an Iranian leader (who was arguably one of our most important allies in the fight against Al-Qaeda and ISIS). Some may even view catastrophic war with Iran as the goal.
Had Democrats included withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal in the impeachment, we would have had real leverage over Senate Republicans right now. That did not happen, because Democrats are almost as beholden to the hard-line foreign policy establishment as Trump. Even while accomplishing his nuclear deal, Obama gave crucial US support to two major proxy wars against Iran. As we are now seeing, the Iran nuclear deal was not nearly as consequential as changing our overall anti-Iranian strategy.
None of this will change until we elect a President willing to invest the political capital needed to clean house in the foreign policy establishment and provide the steady and determined leadership needed to chart a new course in the Middle East. The American people are on board with this. But the party and media’s reaction to Tulsi Gabbard has been a clear message that moderate reform can not even be a part of the discussion.
With moderate reform off the table, I’m willing to try wealth-taxing the donor class into oblivion.