Trump Assassination of Iranian General Soleimani - IRGC Counterstrike

[Oxajil]

Very interesting possibility as written on SOTT's FB page:

By brazenly droning Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, did Trump out-NeoCon the NeoCons?

The Iraqi parliament has today voted for US troops to leave their country. Now, it might be a while before that physically happens, but politically, it's untenable for US troops to remain there long-term, especially in the midst of the Shia hornet's nest Trump just poked. And if they leave Iraq, the remaining pocket of US troops in Syria will no longer have its support base, so they'll be on their way home too.

Assuming the Americans adhere to the Iraqis' demand, this would mean that BOTH Trump and Iran just got what they wanted: American troops sent home. Additionally, the Iranian govt today announced that it will proceed with 'unlimited uranium enrichment', which is almost certainly euphemism for 'develop nuclear weapons'.

This means that Israel will, sooner or later, NOT be the only country in the region with nuclear weapons - and the means to deliver them. It will be forced to choose between fundamental reform in order to live peaceably with its neighbors, or suicidal war against a unified 'Shia Crescent'.

And so it strikes us that, in preemptively handing Soleimani's head on a platter to Israel, Trump is attempting to at least win the US the option of NOT partaking in Israel's next Middle East war: the inevitable showdown with Iran.

Hence, perhaps, his message that he killed Soleimani "not to start a war, but to stop one..."

Somewhat in line with what Jones wrote earlier: "It was part of Trumps 'America First Policy' to withdraw troops from foreign affairs, and if he's being true to that, then maybe the assassination is a part of his strategy to get US troops home against the wishes of the deep state." I thought the same when I heard about Iraq's parliament call for US troops withdrawal. Anything's possible still, will have to see. BTW, Killary and Obomber are being fairly quiet these days, wonder why.

I do wonder what Trump is thinking now that he sees how many people took to the streets out of respect for who Soleimani was and what he did. Did he really think he was a 'bad guy', and if so, does he now realize he was informed wrongly? Or did he know he wasn't a 'bad guy', but thought that assassinating him was the only way to achieve getting the troops home and giving Iran the window and reason to proceed uranium enrichment? Just some thoughts. Let's hope the US troops will actually leave Iraq (and the rest of the ME, hopefully)!

 

[Gawan]

Very interesting possibility as written on SOTT's FB page:

Somewhat in line with what Jones wrote earlier: "It was part of Trumps 'America First Policy' to withdraw troops from foreign affairs, and if he's being true to that, then maybe the assassination is a part of his strategy to get US troops home against the wishes of the deep state." I thought the same when I heard about Iraq's parliament call for US troops withdrawal. Anything's possible still, will have to see. BTW, Killary and Obomber are being fairly quiet these days, wonder why.

I do wonder what Trump is thinking now that he sees how many people took to the streets out of respect for who Soleimani was and what he did. Did he really think he was a 'bad guy', and if so, does he now realize he was informed wrongly? Or did he know he wasn't a 'bad guy', but thought that assassinating him was the only way to achieve getting the troops home and giving Iran the window and reason to proceed uranium enrichment? Just some thoughts. Let's hope the US troops will actually leave Iraq (and the rest of the ME, hopefully)!

If it is that way as written on the FB page, most likely a very high price needed to be paid that the neocons do believe him and that it is dramatic enough. Nonetheless, it is unfortunate for the Iranian general or any other person that got killed by that strike. But considering it hopefully prevents many, many more victims.

 

[Cosmos]

Did he really think he was a 'bad guy'

Hard to say. I would tend to think he is probably not all that versed in the region and the people/leaders there. He probably doesn't want to know either so much. He likes to focus on America and isn't known I think to be very up to date and informed about other regions and nations. Having said that, it is pretty likely I would think that he is not believing what he said there, (at least not in those words) since at least that part of the speech sounds very much scripted by Zionist script writers. I would guess that he tends to be rather skeptical in general about the advice he is receiving, more or less knowing that he is surrounded by hawks and can't really trust any of it by faith.

Coming back to the idea, of Trump sort of making a pact with the devil or playing with the devil. If we assume that is and has been the case, we might be able to note that in previous situations like this, as he was forced to start a war, he opted (I think consciously) to give the devil/hawks some food, by targeting sites where it was unlikely many if any people could die. Remember the last big Syria situation in that regard, where the decision was made to launch rockets, while the areas targeted wasn't likely to cause much damage, both in term of human life and infra structure? And the result was indeed very much symbolic and not damaging; As far as I know, nobody died (or maybe one person?) and no significant damage to infrastructure was caused...

This time around it seems a similar things might have been attempted and Trump might have felt the need/pressure to step up the game, compared to the previous attack, to show his strength, but mostly to keep the wolves under wraps. This time 8 people had to die among which was one very famous and popular heroic figure in the eyes of big parts of the world. The idea being here; that if you start to give in to the devil, he will demand ever more things for his appeasement in the future, step by step.

Assuming that is the case, Trump could have gotten himself into a serious quagmire now with this bloody move, since the devil will demand even more next time. The question to ask is this; where will this end and how much is Trump willing to sacrifice to still keep the peace and appease the devil at the same time?

 

[Aeneas]

This time around it seems a similar things might have been attempted and Trump might have felt the need/pressure to step up the game, compared to the previous attack, to show his strength, but mostly to keep the wolves under wraps.

Yes, along with what Joe and Niall have been writing on Sott and FB, then this could well be the case. Trump has several times announced the return of the troops only for the Pentagon/Deep State to do the opposite. So, in this case, Trump might have given the neocons exactly what they have been asking for for decades and some more. The initial reaction of the neocons/Israel has been "Great, Yeeeehaa". But as they live in a fantasy world(echo chamber) of wishful thinking, then their euforia is going to be shortlived and as reality sets in turn to more of "Holy S...t, this is getting really really bad. Who would have thought that would happen? Our little shitty country is in existential danger and there is nothing we can do".

To continue this line of thinking, Trump is not letting up and thus giving the neocon strategists no thinking space and says he will bomb Iranian cultural sites, thus uniting all Iranians apart from already already unifying much of the ME. There were some post by Elijah, (see here) allegedly from people working in the WH and freaking out as they don't quite know what to do with this situation, where they now are hated everywhere. They had been asking for this for years and now that they got it they are freaking out. The prospects for US troops staying in the ME are not looking good. Did the neocons ask Trump to light a fire, only to have Trump come along with a flamethrower and a truck full of jetfuel? If this is the chessgame going on , then Trump is on the offensive and is creating space around him. How it will play out is anybody's guess. A high stake gamble and not without risks.

 

[Cosmos]

Trump latest two tweets on Twitter (see below) are rather interesting in light of what Joe suggested in his article:

Given this, and Trump's talk of there being "less and less reason" for the US to remain in the Middle East combined with the upcoming Iraqi parliament vote to officially demand the removal of US forces from the country, it's likely that the killing of Soleimani was a negotiated (by Trump) alternative to a relatively imminent, large-scale Israeli attack on Iranian assets in Iraq, and possibly Iran itself. Such an attack would have sparked a real war between Israel and Iran, which would inevitably have drawn in the US. This is, I propose, what Trump meant when he said that "we took action last night to stop a war."

In this scenario, public statements made by Trump administration officials that killing Soleimani was necessary to stop "significant strikes against Americans" in the region can be understood as necessary lies to cover up the truth: that rather than protecting its own immediate interests, the US government was acting to prevent Israel from doing something dangerously irrational that would threaten the lives of millions in the Middle East and beyond.

What US officials privately told their Iranian counterparts soon after the assassination fits this scenario. Rear-Admiral Ali Fadavi, deputy commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, told Iranian state television that "the Americans resorted to diplomatic measures" the very next morning. Fadavi said Washington asked Tehran to respond "in proportion." They "even said that, if you want to get revenge, get revenge in proportion to what we did" which makes the entire situation seem like something of a sordid geopolitical game. This evening, rockets were fired at the US 'green zone' in Baghdad. Perhaps that is Tehran's proportionate response.

Here are Trump latest tweets:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1213689342272659456

https://twitter.com/x/status/1213919480574812160

If Joe's line of thought (it was a Trump measure to prevent a war instigated by Israel) should be the case (which I'm inclined to think as well) and the Americans indeed resorted to diplomatic measures directly afterwards, by asking the Iranians to respond in proportion and thereby de facto giving them the green light and permission to do so, then how are we to interpret the last two tweets of Trump above?! There he seems to directly contradict this promise and permission that was apparently given to Tehran. Is he betraying the promise? He speaks about any American or American facility being targeted will be enough to get a response and even perhaps a "disproportional" one. How to reconcile that with the diplomatic promise given to the Iranians that they are allowed to react proportionally? In proportion would logically mean, since 8 people died, probably all Iranians, Iran is allowed to retaliate in the same proportion. Yet Trump is saying that the targeting alone (so not even killing or damaging anything) of Americans or American facilities is enough reason for Trump to retaliate "possibly disproportionally".

Several reason come to mind for what he said there:

- The hawks and/or media also got wind of Trumps diplomatic negations of proportional retaliation by now and Trump feels the need/pressure to reassure them that he will not fulfill any of those measures

- The diplomatic measure directed at Iran was a tongue in cheek move, not by Trump or any of his guys, but by Zionist elements, to aggravate the situation in a sort of double game way, since they know that Trump will react differently and not like the promise has said

- The proportional response by Iran has already happened in the way of those rockets being fired at the US 'green zone' in Baghdad and Trump means any other action of the Iranians after that point

- There is a somewhat different scenario being played here from that which Joe proposed, which one exactly is hard to tell

 

[loreta]

If it is that way as written on the FB page, most likely a very high price needed to be paid that the neocons do believe him and that it is dramatic enough. Nonetheless, it is unfortunate for the Iranian general or any other person that got killed by that strike. But considering it hopefully prevents many, many more victims.

The general was not a normal victim but the most important man in Iran. So do you think there will be no more retaliation from people from Iran or elsewhere from an Arabic country that adore the general? And that killing the most important man in Iran has been the solution to save victims in the future? Victims will be, as had always been, specially in Irak. But we will see.

 

[Laurentien2]

Let see if those news are reported by msm in the coming days.

Iran TV Broadcasted Call To Offer $80 Million Bounty For Trump's Head

The call for a bounty on US President Donald Trump was broadcast live on Channel One on January 5 during...

southfront.org

The call was made by an unidentified Islamic eulogist at the funeral procession in Mashhad.

Iran Drops Alll Nuclear Deal Commitments, Puts Missiles On High Alert

On January 5th, Iran announced that it would enrich uranium without any restrictions, in a further reduction of its commitments...

southfront.org

What Israel fear the most and probably the first target they will hit in an eventual war and, who the neocon hate the most as a target painted on is back.. I smell a fish.

 

[seek10]

I am not sure whether this video is related to Soleimani's killing is not, but it is floating around in Whatsapp as his. Pretty bad. I couldn't figure out the dates.

 

[RedFox]

I don't know if I've ever come to realize just how much I appreciate having Sott around for all these years and having access to this forum than I did after watching this video by Sargon of Akkad, who seems to have become famous from the SJW and Peterson stuff (posted in other threads on the forum). I watched some of his stuff on that subject and I was pretty impressed, but this video let's just say isn't flattering to him in my eyes. It was sent to me by a friend, who I guess came to know and follow him due to the Peterson controversy. Basically, the video is Akkad giving his views and the views of those he might consider as experts on the subject of Iran and all the comments and points he makes could be seen as CIA or Deep State talking points. You don't even need to watch but a few minutes.

He echoed the MSM talking points on Venezuela too. In that case it appeared his distain for communists meant he accepted the narrative without question. In this case it seems to be the same 'thinking' - 'Islam/Iranian man bad', so all the MSM narrative around the event must be true. Gad Saad does something similar too.

Sargon is useful for certain perspectives (especially the SJW ones), but is also stuck in the 'little Englander' mindset too - that is, he's a little too enamoured with his projected idea of imperialism I think. I doubt he has people around him can call him intelligently on these points.

Also, from seeing the overall reaction of people on twitter and people I'm friends with on Facebook, it is staggering just how much of a confused and staggering mess things are on the information level and in people's minds. It actually has me thinking about laying low a bit on social media and seeing how things play out.

Yeah, had a bit of that today too. Just wanted to bow out of it.
But I think actually speaking up where we can is helpful, even if it seems pointless or hopeless (is that pointless or hopeless thinking our own?). At the least we can learn to sharpen our understanding of the situation.

 

[angelburst29]

Here are Trump latest tweets:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1213689342272659456

https://twitter.com/x/status/1213919480574812160

If Joe's line of thought (it was a Trump measure to prevent a war instigated by Israel) should be the case (which I'm inclined to think as well) and the Americans indeed resorted to diplomatic measures directly afterwards, by asking the Iranians to respond in proportion and thereby de facto giving them the green light and permission to do so, then how are we to interpret the last two tweets of Trump above?! There he seems to directly contradict this promise and permission that was apparently given to Tehran. Is he betraying the promise?

I see many of Trump's tweets to have a double meaning or code?

The second tweet:
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!

"These Media Posts" - Trump's not able to pick up the phone and talk to Iran - directly. Look at the problem Trump has with trying to talk to Putin - the Democrats want transcripts!

I think, Trump is sending a warning - "a notification" to Iran's Intelligence, which I'm sure are closely monitoring developments in the U.S.?

"... to the United States Congress" - think of who owns U.S. Congress ... (Israel) ... that should Iran strike any (Israeli) person or target,
(Israel) will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate (Nuclear) manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!

Netanyahu, in apparent stumble, calls Israel 'nuclear power' (Warning to Iran?)

Iran's missile forces at heightened state of alert: U.S. official
The United States has detected a heightened state of alert by Iran's missile forces across the country, a U.S. official told Reuters on Sunday, adding it was unclear whether the higher readiness level was defensive in nature or not.

Pelosi says House to vote on resolution to limit Trump's military actions on Iran
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House will introduce and vote on a war powers resolution this week to limit U.S. President Donald Trump's military actions regarding Iran.

 

[Cosmos]

What Israel fear the most and probably the first target they will hit in an eventual war and, who the neocon hate the most as a target painted on is back.. I smell a fish.

One wonders of course if part of what is going on was from the beginning to paint a giant target on Trumps head? Certainly, with Soleimani choosen as target, exactly that has happened now, which is now even further inflamed by Trumps speech calling him the Nr. 1 Monster in the world who killed Millions. And certainly Trump isn’t the one to have brought up Soleimani as the target. What better way to make Trump the prime target for many muslims in their revenge, of killing their hero? So, either Trump‘s ignorance of the region was being used against him in choosing Soleimani or he was duped and only later after the fact realized who was choosen as target. Also, it provides a perfect cover and believable plot for any future attempt to kill Trump by blaming it on an angry muslim/Iranian, while also creating the perfect condition to use that as a reason to attack and start a war with Iran. Thinking about it, for the deepstaters, what has happened potentially provides them with a perfect opportunity to kill at least two birds with one stone.

 

[Jones]

Pelosi says House to vote on resolution to limit Trump's military actions on Iran
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House will introduce and vote on a war powers resolution this week to limit U.S. President Donald Trump's military actions regarding Iran.

I'm not sure how far they'll get with that because Trump, as head of the Executive, has the power of veto over congress and is Commander in Chief of the military forces. I reckon if he was ever in danger of assassination, it's now.

 

[Anthony]

I was thinking that if a pullout of U.S. troops from ME does occur, that this will give incentive to the psychos rulling Israel to stage some sort of a false flag inside U.S. attributed to Iran. I mean the timing is right for such a thing, especially with all the rethoric flying around between U.S. and Iran.

 

[Laura]

One wonders of course if part of what is going on was from the beginning to paint a giant target on Trumps head? Certainly, with Soleimani choosen as target, exactly that has happened now, which is now even further inflamed by Trumps speech calling him the Nr. 1 Monster in the world who killed Millions. And certainly Trump isn’t the one to have brought up Soleimani as the target. What better way to make Trump the prime target for many muslims in their revenge, of killing their hero? So, either Trump‘s ignorance of the region was being used against him in choosing Soleimani or he was duped and only later after the fact realized who was choosen as target. Also, it provides a perfect cover and believable plot for any future attempt to kill Trump by blaming it on an angry muslim/Iranian, while also creating the perfect condition to use that as a reason to attack and start a war with Iran. Thinking about it, for the deepstaters, what has happened potentially provides them with a perfect opportunity to kill at least two birds with one stone.

Up to now, Trump has only had the hysterical hatred of a small - but very vocal - group of Left/Libtards. There might be serious consequences to having the distilled hatred of millions of Muslims directed at him. Not a very pleasant thought.

 

[Jones]

Another idea is what if Trump didn't give the order for the strike on Soleimani and it was all a set up to plan Trumps assassination as Pashalis says. Then as soon as Trump hears about Soleimanis assassination, he's got to choose how to play the cards in his hand. Even if Trump didn't give the order for Soleimanis assassination, I get the feeling that denying involvement would put him in a weaker position than taking the credit for it would - protect an image of power and control that might also protect the confidence of US citizens and troops in him.