BRKG ***CONFIRMED... Iran's Qassem Soleimani killed in US airstrike*** (i.e. BUCKLE UP!) - Iran counterattacks
AlfaMan
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Ok, going to bed. Just had two interesting events happen.
Fox 5 DC just reported that the base next to my house just increased security. Didn't say what level (they never do) but they were at Charlie so I'm thinking they just went Delta. So did quantico......
Second thing is a phone call my wife just got from her supervisor-it's 10 pm here folks- (she works at the retail store at the base by our house where they just increased security). She was told NOT to wear her uniform shirt to work tomorrow. Apparently that came down from the top management. They were told once before (after the Ft. Hood shooting if I remember correctly) to go grey like this.
Oh boy.
They're going to try and hit here and the timetable is soon.
Fox 5 DC just reported that the base next to my house just increased security. Didn't say what level (they never do) but they were at Charlie so I'm thinking they just went Delta. So did quantico......
Second thing is a phone call my wife just got from her supervisor-it's 10 pm here folks- (she works at the retail store at the base by our house where they just increased security). She was told NOT to wear her uniform shirt to work tomorrow. Apparently that came down from the top management. They were told once before (after the Ft. Hood shooting if I remember correctly) to go grey like this.
Oh boy.
They're going to try and hit here and the timetable is soon.
Terry there was 2 targets, sea based attack to minimize muslim deaths or say Tel Aviv.
Would US counter a non US nuclear attack. Also if a small nuc was not launched from Iran itself at Israel but from the ‘disputed’ territories what world political support and logistical (wind fallout etc) constraints would exist limiting retaliation by Israel.
Just gaming scenario’s as another flakey poster on a doomer board.
Would US counter a non US nuclear attack. Also if a small nuc was not launched from Iran itself at Israel but from the ‘disputed’ territories what world political support and logistical (wind fallout etc) constraints would exist limiting retaliation by Israel.
Just gaming scenario’s as another flakey poster on a doomer board.
Masterphreak
Senior Member
The model that was listed as being a Saudi 737 is based on the 737-NG series not the newer MAX series. Still doable with a fueling stop in Ireland or some Atlantic island depending on the the route flown.
You start involving true WMDs all bets as to responses and proportionality go out the window.
I don't know why they sent such a big plane, seeing what (little) was left of him.
TammyinWI
Talk is cheap
On CNN.com now:
Trump's threats could lead to a war crime
"Iraqis mourn over a coffin during the funeral procession of Iraqi paramilitary chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, and eight others, in Kadhimiya, a Shiite pilgrimage district of Baghdad, on January 4, 2020. - Thousands of Iraqis chanting "Death to America" joined the funeral procession Saturday for Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi paramilitary chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, both killed in a US air strike. The cortege set off around Kadhimiya, a Shiite pilgrimage district of Baghdad, before heading to the Green Zone government and diplomatic district where a state funeral was to be held attended by top dignitaries. In all, 10 people -- five Iraqis and five Iranians -- were killed in Friday morning's US strike on their motorcade just outside Baghdad airport. (Photo by SABAH ARAR / AFP) (Photo by SABAH ARAR/AFP via Getty Images)
The President says if Iran attacks Americans, the US is ready to strike Iran's important cultural sites. That would violate international treaties.
Trump's threats could lead to a war crime
"Iraqis mourn over a coffin during the funeral procession of Iraqi paramilitary chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, and eight others, in Kadhimiya, a Shiite pilgrimage district of Baghdad, on January 4, 2020. - Thousands of Iraqis chanting "Death to America" joined the funeral procession Saturday for Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi paramilitary chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, both killed in a US air strike. The cortege set off around Kadhimiya, a Shiite pilgrimage district of Baghdad, before heading to the Green Zone government and diplomatic district where a state funeral was to be held attended by top dignitaries. In all, 10 people -- five Iraqis and five Iranians -- were killed in Friday morning's US strike on their motorcade just outside Baghdad airport. (Photo by SABAH ARAR / AFP) (Photo by SABAH ARAR/AFP via Getty Images)
The President says if Iran attacks Americans, the US is ready to strike Iran's important cultural sites. That would violate international treaties.
et2
TB Fanatic
On CNN.com now:
Trump's threats could lead to a war crime
<img alt="Iraqis mourn over a coffin during the funeral procession of Iraqi paramilitary chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, and eight others, in Kadhimiya, a Shiite pilgrimage district of Baghdad, on January 4, 2020. - Thousands of Iraqis chanting "Death to America" joined the funeral procession Saturday for Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi paramilitary chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, both killed in a US air strike. The cortege set off around Kadhimiya, a Shiite pilgrimage district of Baghdad, before heading to the Green Zone government and diplomatic district where a state funeral was to be held attended by top dignitaries. In all, 10 people -- five Iraqis and five Iranians -- were killed in Friday morning's US strike on their motorcade just outside Baghdad airport. (Photo by SABAH ARAR / AFP) (Photo by SABAH ARAR/AFP via Getty Images)" class="media__image" src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200104194503-03-soleimani-funderal-0104-large-tease.jpg">
The President says if Iran attacks Americans, the US is ready to strike Iran's important cultural sites. That would violate international treaties.
CNN CAN FOAD
Border Collie Dad
Flat Earther
Thanks to all for providing all this great info.
I feel better informed here than anywhere else I could go.
I feel better informed here than anywhere else I could go.
jward
passin' thru
interesting, I thought..
Sharyl Attkisson️
(@SharylAttkisson) Tweeted:
Gallup: @realDonaldTrump popularity is highest of his presidency; tops "Most Admired Man in the World" poll for the first time (tying with former President Obama).
Gallup: Trump and Obama tie for 2019’s “Most Admired Man in the World” | Sharyl Attkisson Sharyl Attkisson️ on Twitter
View: https://twitter.com/SharylAttkisson/status/1214024492294574080?s=20
Sharyl Attkisson️
(@SharylAttkisson) Tweeted:Gallup: @realDonaldTrump popularity is highest of his presidency; tops "Most Admired Man in the World" poll for the first time (tying with former President Obama).
Gallup: Trump and Obama tie for 2019’s “Most Admired Man in the World” | Sharyl Attkisson Sharyl Attkisson️
on Twitter
View: https://twitter.com/SharylAttkisson/status/1214024492294574080?s=20And that's likely after they massaged the results....
packyderms_wife
Neither here nor there.
It did it to me too, but at least I didn’t ban myself...
auxman
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit...
jward
passin' thru
It did it to me too, but at least I didn’t ban myself...
Did you crash us installing our albums? I saw them and you and another admin working to get us up. Kinda scary wandering round here alone
jward
passin' thru
You say "common drunk" like it's a bad thing?
Let's show a little sensitivity here.
Aw millhousewares, how can you spend so many of your waking hours being so bratty?
auxman
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit...
Dude, you’re the most UNcommon drunk I know...You say "common drunk" like it's a bad thing?
Let's show a little sensitivity here.
Aw millhousewares, how can you spend so many of your waking hours being so bratty?
I'm a highly trained, professional.
Years of, drinking/driving, posting/driving, posting/drinking....... and dealing with crazy ex-wives. (mostly mine)
It give a depth of experience that is hard to convey.
Sammy55
Veteran Member
I agree with Deena! I am just now catching up for the 5th or 6th time today and want to very sincerely thank everyone for all of your information!! Much, much thanks!!
auxman
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit...
Dude, you’re the most UNcommon drunk I know...
I think I'll have another...
Hummm....and not just them.....
Posted for fair use.....
www.forbes.com
32 views Jan 5, 2020, 11:13pm
So What Are They Thinking in Tehran? Maybe That Having Some Nuclear Weapons Would Be A Good Idea.
Frank Kendall Contributor
Aerospace & Defense
I comment on national security topics affecting the defense industry.
It is difficult and probably risky for anyone with a Western background and perspective to speculate about what the leadership in Iran is thinking right now. Nevertheless, even a culturally distant person like myself can list some of the choices that Iran would logically consider. One option available to Iran, unfortunately, is to acquire nuclear weapons.
In any situation like the current one concerning Iran, there is both a long game and a short game to consider. Much of the focus of public discussion in the United States now seems to be on the short game: what targets might Iran strike in the days or weeks to come, and how will the United States respond. This immediate set of tactical options can have serious long term consequences as it can move both parties up the escalatory ladder to open warfare. My hope is that saner heads will prevail, and this escalation won’t happen. Somehow Iran will find a face-saving way to retaliate in a limited way, and the United States will take steps that are only proportionate, bringing this episode of tension to a short term close. Neither side should see it as in its interest to strike the larger numbers of targets that both sides are suggesting today. De-escalation is probably the best short-term outcome we can hope for.
But what of the long game? During the Obama Administration, there was one overarching goal with respect to Tehran:; to ensure that Iran did not acquire nuclear weapons. The belief was that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would be highly destabilizing for the region. It could trigger a military response by Israel, and it could motivate Iran’s other adversaries in the region, notably Saudi Arabia and possibly the United Arab Emirates or others, to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. The Obama Administration’s strategy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons had multiple components. It was widely reported that the cyber attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, using the malware Stuxnet, originated from the United States. On the military side, the option of strikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was considered and prepared for. This option was never necessary because another component, diplomatic efforts, led to the multi-national Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement. The Trump Administration has unilaterally withdrawn from JCPOA in an attempt to obtain more concessions from Iran. We don’t know what the thought processes in the White House were before the attack that killed Qassem Soleimani, but part of that calculation, and any calculation about Iran, should have carefully considered the effect the strike would have on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Iran has already indicated in response to the strike against Soleimani that it will stop all compliance with JCPOA and proceed with unlimited uranium enrichment. Current reporting indicates that Iran will not, at this point, expel the international inspectors in Iran under JCPOA. That’s good news, because it suggests that this move is not irreversible, and may not reflect a decision to actually acquire nuclear weapons – but there is no way to be sure. If Iran did take such a decision, there is a strong likelihood their plan to acquire nuclear weapons would include deception about both their progress and their ultimate objective. We just don’t know right now.
Earlier in my career I would often grow frustrated with the endless debates that policy professionals would have to analyze any decision. Over time, I came to realize that there was a sound reason for this degree of care and caution. History offers us too many examples of situations where short term tactical decisions or incautious comments, had serious – and devastating – long term consequences. North Korea is said to have invaded the South based in part on its incorrect interpretation of a speech by Secretary of State Acheson. Saddam Hussein is said to have believed, based in part on an American Ambassador’s comments, that the United States would not react militarily to the invasion of Kuwait. The killing of Qassem Soleimani is much more than an unintentionally misleading statement, especially to the Iranian leadership. How the Iranians see this will deeply affect how they react – in both the long and short games. Our policy makers, and the President, should have thought long and hard about the Iranian reactions.
Most Americans know little of the history of Iran or of how Iranians in general view the United States and why. Americans are aware of the hostages held in the U.S. embassy after the Iranian revolution in 1979 and of the US government identifying Iran as a sponsor of terrorism in the region, but not of much beyond that. For the Iranian leadership, the context for Soleimani’s killing goes back much farther. It begins in 1953, when the CIA helped engineer the overthrow of Iran’s elected leftist Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was in the process of nationalizing foreign owned oilfields in Iran when he was overthrown. Iranians also know that the Shah, who was installed in Mosaddegh’s place, led a brutal police state that imprisoned, tortured, and killed systematically to suppress any opposition. The Iranian people are also aware of the downing of a civilian airliner by the United States Navy in 1988, killing 290 people – mostly Iranian pilgrims. They also know of the United States’ support for Saddam Hussein during the devastating war, initiated by Iraq, between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s. They also know very well of the crippling economic sanctions imposed by the Trump Administration, despite their compliance with JCPOA. Now they know of the assassination of Qassem Soleimani. Americans, including our political leadership, have a history of speaking and thinking of Iran in Manichean terms: good and evil. It’s important to understand that the Iranians have a different, and inverted, perspective on the United States. I’m not agreeing with their perspective, just acknowledging it’s existence, and the basis for it. It will affect their decision making.
In the short game, the Iranian leadership will have to respond to the anger of their population (which they may well be reinforcing) for the killing of Soleimani. There will be a short term reaction, and one can only hope that it will not lead to a large-scale conventional war with Iran. I believe the Iranian leaders are well aware that they could not win such a war against the vastly superior United States armed forces, but they are also aware that there is no desire by the American people, or by the current President, to involve the U.S. in another protracted conflict in the Middle East. If both countries are smart, act in their best interests, and don’t misread the intentions of one another, we should be able to avoid a near term major conflict. Those are not trivial “if” statements, however, and the risk is high.
The long game is another matter. For Iran, the desirability of having nuclear weapons may have just gone up significantly. Iran has to be very well aware that it is dealing with a comparative giant in economic and military power. In this situation the logical inclination would be to look for asymmetric cost imposing leverage over the superior power. Four options come to mind; cyber attacks, stopping the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, attacking Saudi oil production, and acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran has sent the United States strong signals in all four of these area, but so far has acted with a measure of restraint. That may change now, most dangerously with regard to nuclear weapons. Some in Iran are sure to be asking: if Iran had nuclear weapons would the United States still have assassinated a key member of the regime’s senior leadership?
For the U.S.’s long game, we can do next to nothing to heal the deep fissures in the Middle East. The Sunni versus Shia fault line is centuries old. The Persian versus Arab fault line is millennia old. The Israel versus almost everyone else in the region fault line is newer, but equally strong. Our interest in oil, in protecting Israel, in combatting the legacy of the 9/11 attacks by Sunni jihadists (from Saudi Arabia, not Iran) and their successors like ISIS, and our concerns about weapons of mass destruction have drawn us into the region at our peril. We can do our best to tamp down and manage these sources of conflict; we cannot eliminate them. The Obama Administration focused on what was thought to be an achievable goal — preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons – because if Iran obtainned those weapons it would seriously increase the overall risk in the region from them on. For whatever flaws and shortcomings JCPOA may have had, the nuclear agreement with Iran moved us in the right direction toward that goal. Depending on what they are thinking in Tehran, we may have just sacrificed that goal for good.
Follow me on Twitter.
Frank Kendall
I am an independent consultant residing in Falls Church, VA. From 2012 to 2017 I was Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics. Earlier in my c...
Posted for fair use.....
What Are They Thinking In Tehran? Maybe That Having Some Nuclear Weapons Would Be A Good Idea.
De-escalation is probably the best short-term outcome we can hope for. But what of the long game? Expect Iran to look for asymmetric cost-imposing leverage over the superior military power of the U.S. in ways that could have grave regional consequences.
www.forbes.com
32 views Jan 5, 2020, 11:13pm
So What Are They Thinking in Tehran? Maybe That Having Some Nuclear Weapons Would Be A Good Idea.
Frank Kendall Contributor
Aerospace & Defense
I comment on national security topics affecting the defense industry.
It is difficult and probably risky for anyone with a Western background and perspective to speculate about what the leadership in Iran is thinking right now. Nevertheless, even a culturally distant person like myself can list some of the choices that Iran would logically consider. One option available to Iran, unfortunately, is to acquire nuclear weapons.
In any situation like the current one concerning Iran, there is both a long game and a short game to consider. Much of the focus of public discussion in the United States now seems to be on the short game: what targets might Iran strike in the days or weeks to come, and how will the United States respond. This immediate set of tactical options can have serious long term consequences as it can move both parties up the escalatory ladder to open warfare. My hope is that saner heads will prevail, and this escalation won’t happen. Somehow Iran will find a face-saving way to retaliate in a limited way, and the United States will take steps that are only proportionate, bringing this episode of tension to a short term close. Neither side should see it as in its interest to strike the larger numbers of targets that both sides are suggesting today. De-escalation is probably the best short-term outcome we can hope for.
But what of the long game? During the Obama Administration, there was one overarching goal with respect to Tehran:; to ensure that Iran did not acquire nuclear weapons. The belief was that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would be highly destabilizing for the region. It could trigger a military response by Israel, and it could motivate Iran’s other adversaries in the region, notably Saudi Arabia and possibly the United Arab Emirates or others, to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. The Obama Administration’s strategy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons had multiple components. It was widely reported that the cyber attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, using the malware Stuxnet, originated from the United States. On the military side, the option of strikes against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure was considered and prepared for. This option was never necessary because another component, diplomatic efforts, led to the multi-national Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement. The Trump Administration has unilaterally withdrawn from JCPOA in an attempt to obtain more concessions from Iran. We don’t know what the thought processes in the White House were before the attack that killed Qassem Soleimani, but part of that calculation, and any calculation about Iran, should have carefully considered the effect the strike would have on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Iran has already indicated in response to the strike against Soleimani that it will stop all compliance with JCPOA and proceed with unlimited uranium enrichment. Current reporting indicates that Iran will not, at this point, expel the international inspectors in Iran under JCPOA. That’s good news, because it suggests that this move is not irreversible, and may not reflect a decision to actually acquire nuclear weapons – but there is no way to be sure. If Iran did take such a decision, there is a strong likelihood their plan to acquire nuclear weapons would include deception about both their progress and their ultimate objective. We just don’t know right now.
Earlier in my career I would often grow frustrated with the endless debates that policy professionals would have to analyze any decision. Over time, I came to realize that there was a sound reason for this degree of care and caution. History offers us too many examples of situations where short term tactical decisions or incautious comments, had serious – and devastating – long term consequences. North Korea is said to have invaded the South based in part on its incorrect interpretation of a speech by Secretary of State Acheson. Saddam Hussein is said to have believed, based in part on an American Ambassador’s comments, that the United States would not react militarily to the invasion of Kuwait. The killing of Qassem Soleimani is much more than an unintentionally misleading statement, especially to the Iranian leadership. How the Iranians see this will deeply affect how they react – in both the long and short games. Our policy makers, and the President, should have thought long and hard about the Iranian reactions.
Most Americans know little of the history of Iran or of how Iranians in general view the United States and why. Americans are aware of the hostages held in the U.S. embassy after the Iranian revolution in 1979 and of the US government identifying Iran as a sponsor of terrorism in the region, but not of much beyond that. For the Iranian leadership, the context for Soleimani’s killing goes back much farther. It begins in 1953, when the CIA helped engineer the overthrow of Iran’s elected leftist Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was in the process of nationalizing foreign owned oilfields in Iran when he was overthrown. Iranians also know that the Shah, who was installed in Mosaddegh’s place, led a brutal police state that imprisoned, tortured, and killed systematically to suppress any opposition. The Iranian people are also aware of the downing of a civilian airliner by the United States Navy in 1988, killing 290 people – mostly Iranian pilgrims. They also know of the United States’ support for Saddam Hussein during the devastating war, initiated by Iraq, between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s. They also know very well of the crippling economic sanctions imposed by the Trump Administration, despite their compliance with JCPOA. Now they know of the assassination of Qassem Soleimani. Americans, including our political leadership, have a history of speaking and thinking of Iran in Manichean terms: good and evil. It’s important to understand that the Iranians have a different, and inverted, perspective on the United States. I’m not agreeing with their perspective, just acknowledging it’s existence, and the basis for it. It will affect their decision making.
In the short game, the Iranian leadership will have to respond to the anger of their population (which they may well be reinforcing) for the killing of Soleimani. There will be a short term reaction, and one can only hope that it will not lead to a large-scale conventional war with Iran. I believe the Iranian leaders are well aware that they could not win such a war against the vastly superior United States armed forces, but they are also aware that there is no desire by the American people, or by the current President, to involve the U.S. in another protracted conflict in the Middle East. If both countries are smart, act in their best interests, and don’t misread the intentions of one another, we should be able to avoid a near term major conflict. Those are not trivial “if” statements, however, and the risk is high.
The long game is another matter. For Iran, the desirability of having nuclear weapons may have just gone up significantly. Iran has to be very well aware that it is dealing with a comparative giant in economic and military power. In this situation the logical inclination would be to look for asymmetric cost imposing leverage over the superior power. Four options come to mind; cyber attacks, stopping the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, attacking Saudi oil production, and acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran has sent the United States strong signals in all four of these area, but so far has acted with a measure of restraint. That may change now, most dangerously with regard to nuclear weapons. Some in Iran are sure to be asking: if Iran had nuclear weapons would the United States still have assassinated a key member of the regime’s senior leadership?
For the U.S.’s long game, we can do next to nothing to heal the deep fissures in the Middle East. The Sunni versus Shia fault line is centuries old. The Persian versus Arab fault line is millennia old. The Israel versus almost everyone else in the region fault line is newer, but equally strong. Our interest in oil, in protecting Israel, in combatting the legacy of the 9/11 attacks by Sunni jihadists (from Saudi Arabia, not Iran) and their successors like ISIS, and our concerns about weapons of mass destruction have drawn us into the region at our peril. We can do our best to tamp down and manage these sources of conflict; we cannot eliminate them. The Obama Administration focused on what was thought to be an achievable goal — preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons – because if Iran obtainned those weapons it would seriously increase the overall risk in the region from them on. For whatever flaws and shortcomings JCPOA may have had, the nuclear agreement with Iran moved us in the right direction toward that goal. Depending on what they are thinking in Tehran, we may have just sacrificed that goal for good.
Follow me on Twitter.
Frank Kendall
I am an independent consultant residing in Falls Church, VA. From 2012 to 2017 I was Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics. Earlier in my c...
auxman
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit...
Posted for fair use.....
www.csmonitor.com
First Look
Soleimani blowback: Iran preps to build nuclear bomb
Iran says it will no longer abide by the limits outlined in the 2015 nuclear deal and Iraq's Parliament called for the expulsion of all U.S. troops.
January 5, 2020
Tehran, Iran
The blowback over the U.S. killing of a top Iranian general mounted Sunday as Iran announced it will no longer abide by the limits contained in the 2015 nuclear deal and Iraq's Parliament called for the expulsion of all American troops from Iraqi soil.
The twin developments could bring Iran closer to building an atomic bomb and enable the Islamic State group to stage a comeback in Iraq, making the Middle East a far more dangerous and unstable place.
Iranian state television cited a statement by President Hassan Rouhani's administration saying the country would not observe the deal's restrictions on fuel enrichment, on the size of its enriched uranium stockpile and on its research and development activities.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran no longer faces any limitations in operations," a state TV broadcaster said.
In Iraq, meanwhile, lawmakers voted in favor of a resolution calling for an end to the foreign military presence in the country, including the estimated 5,200 U.S. troops stationed to help fight Islamic State extremists. The bill is subject to approval by the Iraqi government but has the backing of the outgoing prime minister.
Why anti-Semitism is surging across the political spectrum
In yet another sign of rising tensions and threats of retaliation over the deadly airstrike, the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq said it is putting the battle against ISIS on hold to focus on protecting its own troops and bases.
The string of developments capped a day of mass mourning over Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, killed in a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad on Friday. Hundreds of thousands of people flooded the streets in the cities of Ahvaz and Mashhad to walk alongside the casket of Soleimani, who was the architect of Iran's proxy wars across the Mideast and was blamed for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in roadside bombings and other attacks.
U.S. President Donald Trump responded to the Parliament's troop withdrawal vote with a monetary threat, saying the U.S. expected to be paid for its military investments in Iraq before leaving and threatening economic sanctions if the U.S. is not treated properly.
“We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time. We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it," he told reporters aboard Air Force One.
“If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame," he said
He added: “We’re not leaving until they pay us back for it.”
State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus earlier said the U.S. is awaiting clarification on its legal meaning but was “disappointed” by the move and strongly urged Iraq to reconsider.
“We believe it is in the shared interests of the United States and Iraq to continue fighting ISIS together,” Ortagus said.
The leaders of Germany, France and Britain issued a joint statement on Sunday calling on Iran to abide by the terms of the nuclear deal and refrain from conducting or supporting further “violent acts.”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson specifically urged Iran to “withdraw all measures” not in line with the 2015 agreement that was intended to stop Tehran from pursuing its atomic weapons program.
Iran insisted that it remains open to negotiations with European partners over its nuclear program. And it did not back off from earlier promises that it wouldn't seek a nuclear weapon.
However, the announcement represents the clearest nuclear proliferation threat yet made by Iran since Trump unilaterally withdrew from the accord in 2018 and reimposed sanctions. It further raises regional tensions, as Iran's longtime foe Israel has promised never to allow Iran to produce an atomic bomb.
Iran did not elaborate on what levels it would immediately reach in its program. Tehran has already broken some of the deal's limits as part of a step-by-step pressure campaign to get sanctions relief. It has increased its production, begun enriching uranium to 5% and restarted enrichment at an underground facility.
While it does not possess uranium enriched to weapons-grade levels of 90%, any push forward narrows the estimated one-year “breakout time” needed for it to have enough material to build a nuclear weapon if it chose to do so.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations watchdog observing Iran's program, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. However, Iran said that its cooperation with the IAEA “will continue as before.”
Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi earlier told journalists that Soleimani's killing would prompt Iranian officials to take a bigger step away from the nuclear deal.
“In the world of politics, all developments are interconnected," Mousavi said.
In Iraq, where the airstrike has been denounced as a violation of the country's sovereignty, Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi said that the government has two choices: End the presence of foreign troops or restrict their mission to training Iraqi forces. He called for the first option.
The majority of about 180 legislators present in Parliament voted in favor of the troop-removal resolution. It was backed by most Shiite members of Parliament, who hold a majority of seats. Many Sunni and Kurdish legislators did not show up for the session, apparently because they oppose abolishing the deal.
A U.S. pullout could not only undermine the fight against the Islamic State but could also enable Iran to increase its influence in Iraq, which like Iran is a majority-Shiite country.
Soleimani's killing has escalated the crisis between Tehran and Washington after months of back-and-forth attacks and threats that have put the wider Middle East on edge. Iran has promised “harsh revenge" for the U.S. attack, while Trump has vowed on Twitter that the U.S. will strike back at 52 targets “VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. ”
He doubled down on that threat Sunday, dismissing warnings that targeting cultural sites could be a war crime under international law.
“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. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way,” Trump told reporters.
The U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia warned Americans “of the heightened risk of missile and drone attacks.”
In Lebanon, the leader of the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah said Soleimani's killing made U.S. military bases, warships and service members across the region fair game for attacks. A former Iranian Revolutionary Guard leader suggested the Israeli city of Haifa and centers like Tel Aviv could be targeted should the U.S. attack Iran.
Iranian state TV estimated that millions of mourners came out in Ahvaz and Mashhad to pay their respects to Soleimani.
The casket moved slowly through streets choked with mourners wearing black, beating their chests and carrying posters with Soleimani's portrait. Demonstrators also carried red Shiite flags, which traditionally symbolize both the spilled blood of someone unjustly killed and a call for vengeance.
The processions marked the first time Iran honored a single man with a multi-city ceremony. Not even Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who founded the Islamic Republic, received such a processional with his death in 1989. Soleimani on Monday will lie in state at Tehran's famed Musalla mosque as the revolutionary leader did before him.
Soleimani's remains will go to Tehran and Qom on Monday for public mourning processions. He will be buried in his hometown of Kerman.
Soleimani blowback: Iran preps to build nuclear bomb
Iran says it will no longer abide by the limits outlined in the 2015 nuclear deal and Iraq's Parliament called for the expulsion of all U.S. troops.
www.csmonitor.com
First Look
Soleimani blowback: Iran preps to build nuclear bomb
Iran says it will no longer abide by the limits outlined in the 2015 nuclear deal and Iraq's Parliament called for the expulsion of all U.S. troops.
January 5, 2020
- By Nasser Karimi, Jon Gambrell, and Zeina Karam Associated Press
Tehran, Iran
The blowback over the U.S. killing of a top Iranian general mounted Sunday as Iran announced it will no longer abide by the limits contained in the 2015 nuclear deal and Iraq's Parliament called for the expulsion of all American troops from Iraqi soil.
The twin developments could bring Iran closer to building an atomic bomb and enable the Islamic State group to stage a comeback in Iraq, making the Middle East a far more dangerous and unstable place.
Iranian state television cited a statement by President Hassan Rouhani's administration saying the country would not observe the deal's restrictions on fuel enrichment, on the size of its enriched uranium stockpile and on its research and development activities.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran no longer faces any limitations in operations," a state TV broadcaster said.
In Iraq, meanwhile, lawmakers voted in favor of a resolution calling for an end to the foreign military presence in the country, including the estimated 5,200 U.S. troops stationed to help fight Islamic State extremists. The bill is subject to approval by the Iraqi government but has the backing of the outgoing prime minister.
Why anti-Semitism is surging across the political spectrum
In yet another sign of rising tensions and threats of retaliation over the deadly airstrike, the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq said it is putting the battle against ISIS on hold to focus on protecting its own troops and bases.
The string of developments capped a day of mass mourning over Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, killed in a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad on Friday. Hundreds of thousands of people flooded the streets in the cities of Ahvaz and Mashhad to walk alongside the casket of Soleimani, who was the architect of Iran's proxy wars across the Mideast and was blamed for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in roadside bombings and other attacks.
U.S. President Donald Trump responded to the Parliament's troop withdrawal vote with a monetary threat, saying the U.S. expected to be paid for its military investments in Iraq before leaving and threatening economic sanctions if the U.S. is not treated properly.
“We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time. We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it," he told reporters aboard Air Force One.
“If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame," he said
He added: “We’re not leaving until they pay us back for it.”
State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus earlier said the U.S. is awaiting clarification on its legal meaning but was “disappointed” by the move and strongly urged Iraq to reconsider.
“We believe it is in the shared interests of the United States and Iraq to continue fighting ISIS together,” Ortagus said.
The leaders of Germany, France and Britain issued a joint statement on Sunday calling on Iran to abide by the terms of the nuclear deal and refrain from conducting or supporting further “violent acts.”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson specifically urged Iran to “withdraw all measures” not in line with the 2015 agreement that was intended to stop Tehran from pursuing its atomic weapons program.
Iran insisted that it remains open to negotiations with European partners over its nuclear program. And it did not back off from earlier promises that it wouldn't seek a nuclear weapon.
However, the announcement represents the clearest nuclear proliferation threat yet made by Iran since Trump unilaterally withdrew from the accord in 2018 and reimposed sanctions. It further raises regional tensions, as Iran's longtime foe Israel has promised never to allow Iran to produce an atomic bomb.
Iran did not elaborate on what levels it would immediately reach in its program. Tehran has already broken some of the deal's limits as part of a step-by-step pressure campaign to get sanctions relief. It has increased its production, begun enriching uranium to 5% and restarted enrichment at an underground facility.
While it does not possess uranium enriched to weapons-grade levels of 90%, any push forward narrows the estimated one-year “breakout time” needed for it to have enough material to build a nuclear weapon if it chose to do so.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations watchdog observing Iran's program, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. However, Iran said that its cooperation with the IAEA “will continue as before.”
Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi earlier told journalists that Soleimani's killing would prompt Iranian officials to take a bigger step away from the nuclear deal.
“In the world of politics, all developments are interconnected," Mousavi said.
In Iraq, where the airstrike has been denounced as a violation of the country's sovereignty, Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi said that the government has two choices: End the presence of foreign troops or restrict their mission to training Iraqi forces. He called for the first option.
The majority of about 180 legislators present in Parliament voted in favor of the troop-removal resolution. It was backed by most Shiite members of Parliament, who hold a majority of seats. Many Sunni and Kurdish legislators did not show up for the session, apparently because they oppose abolishing the deal.
A U.S. pullout could not only undermine the fight against the Islamic State but could also enable Iran to increase its influence in Iraq, which like Iran is a majority-Shiite country.
Soleimani's killing has escalated the crisis between Tehran and Washington after months of back-and-forth attacks and threats that have put the wider Middle East on edge. Iran has promised “harsh revenge" for the U.S. attack, while Trump has vowed on Twitter that the U.S. will strike back at 52 targets “VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. ”
He doubled down on that threat Sunday, dismissing warnings that targeting cultural sites could be a war crime under international law.
“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. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way,” Trump told reporters.
The U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia warned Americans “of the heightened risk of missile and drone attacks.”
In Lebanon, the leader of the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah said Soleimani's killing made U.S. military bases, warships and service members across the region fair game for attacks. A former Iranian Revolutionary Guard leader suggested the Israeli city of Haifa and centers like Tel Aviv could be targeted should the U.S. attack Iran.
Iranian state TV estimated that millions of mourners came out in Ahvaz and Mashhad to pay their respects to Soleimani.
The casket moved slowly through streets choked with mourners wearing black, beating their chests and carrying posters with Soleimani's portrait. Demonstrators also carried red Shiite flags, which traditionally symbolize both the spilled blood of someone unjustly killed and a call for vengeance.
The processions marked the first time Iran honored a single man with a multi-city ceremony. Not even Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who founded the Islamic Republic, received such a processional with his death in 1989. Soleimani on Monday will lie in state at Tehran's famed Musalla mosque as the revolutionary leader did before him.
Soleimani's remains will go to Tehran and Qom on Monday for public mourning processions. He will be buried in his hometown of Kerman.
auxman
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit...
From RT.
Read it through your counter-spin goggles and sift out the relevant bits.
Easier said than done: Making US troops actually leave Iraq will take more than parliament resolution
Adoption of the resolution, urging the expulsion of the US military from Iraq, marks a very important step for the country, yet making them actually leave will likely take more than that, analysts have told RT.
The resolution, calling for withdrawal of foreign troops from the country, was adopted by the Iraqi parliament on Sunday. The non-binding document that the government is yet to consider came in response to the assassination of Iranian Quds force commander Qassem Soleimani as well as other Iranian and Iraqi military officials, including the deputy commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Force (PMF), Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. The high-profile officials were killed in a US airstrike on the outskirts of Baghdad earlier this week.
Washington appeared unnerved by the resolution. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended the American military presence in the country, insisting that the Iraqis actually enjoy it.
“We are confident that the Iraqi people want the United States to continue to be there to fight the counterterror campaign,” Pompeo told ‘Fox News Sunday.’ The US top diplomat, however, apparently missed the part when Washington actually attacked the Iraqi forces. The PMF militia, which has been the key force in fighting the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) is a part of the country’s military, author and analyst Nicolas J.S. Davies has said.
“There’s now a confrontation between the Iraqi government and the US government. The US has already attacked Iraq’s armed forces, that’s how this began,” Davies told RT. “The Iraqi government has every right to ask them to leave, and if the US resists this request then we have a huge confrontation.”
Killing of Soleimani and his associates came not only in a blatant disregard of international norms, but breached the deal between Baghdad and Washington, Davies explained, thus the latest move by the country’s parliament is not very surprising.
“The US is really just behaving like a rogue state at this point. All of it is just a flagrant violation of international law in so many ways,” he said, mentioning that the US troops are in the country at the invitation of Iraqi government.
The parliament’s decision is an “enormous development” for the country that moved a step closer to ending the enduring occupation by the US forces, as well as for the whole region, political analyst and journalist Andre Vltchek believes.
“We never saw the US army to depart just because the parliament of the occupied country would vote that it should. So, this is not going to be easy for Iraq to get rid of the US and NATO military,” Vltchek told RT.
Washington is likely to recourse to “all sorts of tricks” to try and stay in the country, Vltchek warned. Transferring the forces into the autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan region – “as they did in the past” – is one of them. Still, the situation in the region has changed since the times of the 2003 invasion and the local powers and groups appear to show significantly more unity, and the death of Soleimani might potentially become a further unifying moment for it.
The whole endeavor to try and expel US troops from Iraq might still flop, former Pentagon official Michael Maloof has warned, since the country’s politicians – including the caretaker PM, who spearheaded it now – have been very reluctant to actually do so before the US attack.
“Prior to the assassination of the General Soleimani, there was dissent within these Shia ranks, and that’s why you had no decision, because for months, there has been discussion of doing just this – possibly removing foreign troops, namely the US in particular to avoid the very problem we’re having now,” he said.
The local forces have already been deemed capable of tackling the existing terrorist threat on their own – and now the US troops are “basically booted out” instead of departing after an accomplished mission. Still, there’s no certainty that they will actually depart – which will turn them once again into de-jure occupiers of the country, Maloof said.
“Now the question is – if ordered out, will the US forces leave? … If they do not, then they’ll become an occupying force once again.”
www.rt.com
Read it through your counter-spin goggles and sift out the relevant bits.
Easier said than done: Making US troops actually leave Iraq will take more than parliament resolution
Adoption of the resolution, urging the expulsion of the US military from Iraq, marks a very important step for the country, yet making them actually leave will likely take more than that, analysts have told RT.
The resolution, calling for withdrawal of foreign troops from the country, was adopted by the Iraqi parliament on Sunday. The non-binding document that the government is yet to consider came in response to the assassination of Iranian Quds force commander Qassem Soleimani as well as other Iranian and Iraqi military officials, including the deputy commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Force (PMF), Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. The high-profile officials were killed in a US airstrike on the outskirts of Baghdad earlier this week.
Washington appeared unnerved by the resolution. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended the American military presence in the country, insisting that the Iraqis actually enjoy it.
“We are confident that the Iraqi people want the United States to continue to be there to fight the counterterror campaign,” Pompeo told ‘Fox News Sunday.’ The US top diplomat, however, apparently missed the part when Washington actually attacked the Iraqi forces. The PMF militia, which has been the key force in fighting the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) is a part of the country’s military, author and analyst Nicolas J.S. Davies has said.
“There’s now a confrontation between the Iraqi government and the US government. The US has already attacked Iraq’s armed forces, that’s how this began,” Davies told RT. “The Iraqi government has every right to ask them to leave, and if the US resists this request then we have a huge confrontation.”
Killing of Soleimani and his associates came not only in a blatant disregard of international norms, but breached the deal between Baghdad and Washington, Davies explained, thus the latest move by the country’s parliament is not very surprising.
“The US is really just behaving like a rogue state at this point. All of it is just a flagrant violation of international law in so many ways,” he said, mentioning that the US troops are in the country at the invitation of Iraqi government.
The parliament’s decision is an “enormous development” for the country that moved a step closer to ending the enduring occupation by the US forces, as well as for the whole region, political analyst and journalist Andre Vltchek believes.
“We never saw the US army to depart just because the parliament of the occupied country would vote that it should. So, this is not going to be easy for Iraq to get rid of the US and NATO military,” Vltchek told RT.
Washington is likely to recourse to “all sorts of tricks” to try and stay in the country, Vltchek warned. Transferring the forces into the autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan region – “as they did in the past” – is one of them. Still, the situation in the region has changed since the times of the 2003 invasion and the local powers and groups appear to show significantly more unity, and the death of Soleimani might potentially become a further unifying moment for it.
The whole endeavor to try and expel US troops from Iraq might still flop, former Pentagon official Michael Maloof has warned, since the country’s politicians – including the caretaker PM, who spearheaded it now – have been very reluctant to actually do so before the US attack.
“Prior to the assassination of the General Soleimani, there was dissent within these Shia ranks, and that’s why you had no decision, because for months, there has been discussion of doing just this – possibly removing foreign troops, namely the US in particular to avoid the very problem we’re having now,” he said.
The local forces have already been deemed capable of tackling the existing terrorist threat on their own – and now the US troops are “basically booted out” instead of departing after an accomplished mission. Still, there’s no certainty that they will actually depart – which will turn them once again into de-jure occupiers of the country, Maloof said.
“Now the question is – if ordered out, will the US forces leave? … If they do not, then they’ll become an occupying force once again.”
Easier said than done: Making US troops actually leave Iraq will take more than parliament resolution
The adoption of a resolution urging the expulsion of the US military from Iraq marks a very important step for the country, but actually making them leave will likely take more than that, analysts told RT.
naturallysweet
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Posted for fair use.....
Soleimani blowback: Iran preps to build nuclear bomb
Iran says it will no longer abide by the limits outlined in the 2015 nuclear deal and Iraq's Parliament called for the expulsion of all U.S. troops.
First Look
Soleimani blowback: Iran preps to build nuclear bomb
Iran says it will no longer abide by the limits outlined in the 2015 nuclear deal and Iraq's Parliament called for the expulsion of all U.S. troops.
January 5, 2020
- By Nasser Karimi, Jon Gambrell, and Zeina Karam Associated Press
Tehran, Iran
The blowback over the U.S. killing of a top Iranian general mounted Sunday as Iran announced it will no longer abide by the limits contained in the 2015 nuclear deal and Iraq's Parliament called for the expulsion of all American troops from Iraqi soil.
The twin developments could bring Iran closer to building an atomic bomb and enable the Islamic State group to stage a comeback in Iraq, making the Middle East a far more dangerous and unstable place.
Iranian state television cited a statement by President Hassan Rouhani's administration saying the country would not observe the deal's restrictions on fuel enrichment, on the size of its enriched uranium stockpile and on its research and development activities.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran no longer faces any limitations in operations," a state TV broadcaster said.
In Iraq, meanwhile, lawmakers voted in favor of a resolution calling for an end to the foreign military presence in the country, including the estimated 5,200 U.S. troops stationed to help fight Islamic State extremists. The bill is subject to approval by the Iraqi government but has the backing of the outgoing prime minister.
Why anti-Semitism is surging across the political spectrum
In yet another sign of rising tensions and threats of retaliation over the deadly airstrike, the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq said it is putting the battle against ISIS on hold to focus on protecting its own troops and bases.
The string of developments capped a day of mass mourning over Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, killed in a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad on Friday. Hundreds of thousands of people flooded the streets in the cities of Ahvaz and Mashhad to walk alongside the casket of Soleimani, who was the architect of Iran's proxy wars across the Mideast and was blamed for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in roadside bombings and other attacks.
U.S. President Donald Trump responded to the Parliament's troop withdrawal vote with a monetary threat, saying the U.S. expected to be paid for its military investments in Iraq before leaving and threatening economic sanctions if the U.S. is not treated properly.
“We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time. We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it," he told reporters aboard Air Force One.
“If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before ever. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame," he said
He added: “We’re not leaving until they pay us back for it.”
State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus earlier said the U.S. is awaiting clarification on its legal meaning but was “disappointed” by the move and strongly urged Iraq to reconsider.
“We believe it is in the shared interests of the United States and Iraq to continue fighting ISIS together,” Ortagus said.
The leaders of Germany, France and Britain issued a joint statement on Sunday calling on Iran to abide by the terms of the nuclear deal and refrain from conducting or supporting further “violent acts.”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson specifically urged Iran to “withdraw all measures” not in line with the 2015 agreement that was intended to stop Tehran from pursuing its atomic weapons program.
Iran insisted that it remains open to negotiations with European partners over its nuclear program. And it did not back off from earlier promises that it wouldn't seek a nuclear weapon.
However, the announcement represents the clearest nuclear proliferation threat yet made by Iran since Trump unilaterally withdrew from the accord in 2018 and reimposed sanctions. It further raises regional tensions, as Iran's longtime foe Israel has promised never to allow Iran to produce an atomic bomb.
Iran did not elaborate on what levels it would immediately reach in its program. Tehran has already broken some of the deal's limits as part of a step-by-step pressure campaign to get sanctions relief. It has increased its production, begun enriching uranium to 5% and restarted enrichment at an underground facility.
While it does not possess uranium enriched to weapons-grade levels of 90%, any push forward narrows the estimated one-year “breakout time” needed for it to have enough material to build a nuclear weapon if it chose to do so.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations watchdog observing Iran's program, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. However, Iran said that its cooperation with the IAEA “will continue as before.”
Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi earlier told journalists that Soleimani's killing would prompt Iranian officials to take a bigger step away from the nuclear deal.
“In the world of politics, all developments are interconnected," Mousavi said.
In Iraq, where the airstrike has been denounced as a violation of the country's sovereignty, Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi said that the government has two choices: End the presence of foreign troops or restrict their mission to training Iraqi forces. He called for the first option.
The majority of about 180 legislators present in Parliament voted in favor of the troop-removal resolution. It was backed by most Shiite members of Parliament, who hold a majority of seats. Many Sunni and Kurdish legislators did not show up for the session, apparently because they oppose abolishing the deal.
A U.S. pullout could not only undermine the fight against the Islamic State but could also enable Iran to increase its influence in Iraq, which like Iran is a majority-Shiite country.
Soleimani's killing has escalated the crisis between Tehran and Washington after months of back-and-forth attacks and threats that have put the wider Middle East on edge. Iran has promised “harsh revenge" for the U.S. attack, while Trump has vowed on Twitter that the U.S. will strike back at 52 targets “VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. ”
He doubled down on that threat Sunday, dismissing warnings that targeting cultural sites could be a war crime under international law.
“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. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way,” Trump told reporters.
The U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia warned Americans “of the heightened risk of missile and drone attacks.”
In Lebanon, the leader of the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah said Soleimani's killing made U.S. military bases, warships and service members across the region fair game for attacks. A former Iranian Revolutionary Guard leader suggested the Israeli city of Haifa and centers like Tel Aviv could be targeted should the U.S. attack Iran.
Iranian state TV estimated that millions of mourners came out in Ahvaz and Mashhad to pay their respects to Soleimani.
The casket moved slowly through streets choked with mourners wearing black, beating their chests and carrying posters with Soleimani's portrait. Demonstrators also carried red Shiite flags, which traditionally symbolize both the spilled blood of someone unjustly killed and a call for vengeance.
The processions marked the first time Iran honored a single man with a multi-city ceremony. Not even Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who founded the Islamic Republic, received such a processional with his death in 1989. Soleimani on Monday will lie in state at Tehran's famed Musalla mosque as the revolutionary leader did before him.
Soleimani's remains will go to Tehran and Qom on Monday for public mourning processions. He will be buried in his hometown of Kerman.
Obama's plan said they could have nukes. They just needed to wait a few years. Which makes a lot of what this guy wrote, to be lies.
Yeah. The fact is that the MSM is in a tizzy trying to CYA and retrench their DNC support along with keeping up with their first team still recovering from New Years.....
Lone_Hawk
Resident Spook
Bull Shit!
It was said that Iran would have functional nukes in two years....10 years ago.
To think that they don't is sheer stupidity.
There was some conjecture that Li'lKimmie's nuke tests were actually Iranian devices or some kind of joint effort.
To think that they don't is sheer stupidity.
There was some conjecture that Li'lKimmie's nuke tests were actually Iranian devices or some kind of joint effort.
Makes you wonder how many they could actually have and how much over the market price they paid per kilo for the fissile material since they probably didn't have enough processed for many with domestic production.
In all likelihood they've got the devices a plenty, just limited on the U235/Pu239 to put into them.....
