The Aftermath of Soleimani's Assassination and the Darker Side of U.S. Foreign Policy

On January 3, 2020 a U.S. drone took out one of the world's most ruthless terrorist, Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the head of the dreaded Quds Force which is a specialized unit within the elite Revolutionary Guard. General Soleimani wasn't just feared throughout the Middle East. He was equally feared at home in Iran where his Quds Force were responsible for the torture and murder of thousands of ordinary Iranians. Yet, within hours after the announcement of his assassination, tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets in protest of his death. Why?

You would think that death of someone as vile as Solemani would be reason to celebrate. Granted many of the protests were organized by the Iranian government who typically use paid organizers some are actually members of the Revolutionary Guard, YEGUP or the PAVA (internal security and the secret police respectively). They tend to bribe or threaten people into participating. Nevertheless, some of the protestors were legitimately upset by the assassination of a government official, hated though he may be, by the U.S. military.

Frankly, you can't blame them if you think about it. After all, how would the American People feel if a foreign power decided to bump off U.S. officials simply because they didn't like their policies towards their country? I think most Americans would be demanding scalps! What if they had assassinated a senior U.S. government official like the President or Vice President? As soon as we found out who was responsible, God help them. We'd turn the country into an uninhabitable wasteland.

Well, perhaps that's was the thinking of at least some of protesters following Solemani's death. Of course, more recently the protests are in response to the Iranian military shooting down an Ukrainian passenger plane and then blatantly lying about for days until overwhelmed proof exposed their lies. The Iranian government brought the Iranian People a step closer to war with the U.S. which would have lead to the utter destruction of their country and the deaths of millions, all because of a lie.

Here is something we tend to forget about in this country. We've get lied to as well, especially when it comes to U.S. foreign policy (and I'm not talking just about Benghazi, though it's a more recent example). Hell, the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 which got us into a war in Vietnam was based on a lie. Let's remember too that in 1953 the U.S., through the CIA, overthrew a popularly elected government in Iran that it didn't like (that is, U.S. "hawks" and certain powerful corporations).

The result was installing Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, who was far from a benevolent monarch. Thousands in Iran "disappeared" while numerous others were tortured or simply murdered. But nevertheless, the Shah supported an open door policy for U.S. military and economic interests. Of course, that wasn't the only time we overthrew a duly elected government. Actually, it's far from it.

In 1952, the U.S. backed Colonel Fulgencio Batista in overthrowing Carlos Prio Socarras, the popular Cuban president. The government which Basista inherited was rather prosperous by Latin America standards with good schools and medical care, a strong economy with a decent infrastructure and a generally open society. However President Prio was protective of Cuban interests from foreign influences, especially the American mafia and certain corporations which wanted control over key Cuban resources, particularly sugar. Enter Colonel Batista and his American backed military coup.

Under Batista, Cuba became a highly repressed society with very limited freedom of expression. Batista cracked down on anyone he viewed as the threat. Corruption was rampant. The infrastructure broke down, and with it the education and healthcare systems, at least for the ordinary Cubans. For the elites, life was good. In fact, it was very good. Batista ruled over Cuba until 1959 when he was ousted by Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro.

At first it was assumed that Castro's demands for major reforms was just the usual political theatrics and the revolution was nothing more than one corrupt politician replacing another and nothing would change. However, Castro was serious when it came to reform. He threw out the mafia and after various corporations balked at improving their treatment and pay of Cuban workers (like providing health benefits, job safety, and time off), he simply kicked them out and nationalized the businesses. It was the same when it came to land reform where Cubans farmers weren't allow to own land but foreign nationals could! It created a sense of being outcasts in their own country.

It's also worth noting that at no time did Castro ever claim to be a Communist at this point. In fact, he repeatedly denied being a Communist and would often state publicly that he want a democratic government reminiscent of President Prio. After pressure by these "sore butt" corporate presidents (and no doubt the mob), it was decided that Castro had to go.

So, in typically fashion he was vilified and economic sanctions were imposed. Then we backed an invasion and attempted coup of U.S. trained and equipped Cuban rebels. However, this time we failed. It was only after the "Bay of Pigs" fiasco in 1961 that Castro announced that from then on he would be a Communist. Who could blame him? After all, Cuba was a tiny little island nation and it needed a powerful friend, which it found in the USSR to our chagrin. Despite the sanctions, Castro remained in power until 2011.

The U.S. had also supported military strongman, General Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay in his coup, ousting Frederico Chavez, in 1954. Stroessner, who was responsible for deaths of thousands, including native Ache Indians who were also often enslaved, largely due to U.S. and European corporations wanting (and gaining) access to the country's forests, mines and grazing lands which the Ache considered sacred and refused to give up. The enslaved Ache were typically worked to death. Thousands more were imprisoned and upwards of 500 political detainees simply "disappeared". In 1974,the UN condemned the Stroessner Regime of slavery and genocide. Nevertheless, he retained power for 35 years until he too was ousted by a coup.

In 1964, the U.S. sponsored a military coup against Brazilian President Goulart out of fear of another Cuban type revolution. As a result, Field Marshall Castelo Branco seized power (with a detachment of U.S. Marines standing by in San Paulo just in case). Branco's regime, which last over 20 years, resulted in the destabilization of the economy amid vast corruption and the imprisonment, torture, and deaths of thousands of Brazilians.

The similar thing happened in South Korea with the U.S. backed coup led by General Park Chung-Hee in 1961. Thousands of either known or suspected pro-Communists or Leftists were arrested, tortured, and executed. Best estimates put the total over 100,000. Of course, anyone who voiced any opposition was subject to the same fate. In 1963 South Vietnam, the U.S. supported the overthrow and assassination of President Ngo Dinh Diem through a U.S. approved military coup led by General Duong Van Minh.

It's not that Ngo was the poster boy of a decent guy. He wasn't. It's just that his policies didn't jive with the interests of American "hawks" or the military/industrial complex which saw an opportunity to push back Communist expansion and make a pretty handsome profit to boot. Duong's military junta and subsequent government proved to be much more "cooperative" than his predecessor's.

On September 11, 1973, the popular and democratically elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende, was brutally overthrown by a military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet. Thousands of "troublemakers", from labor leaders, politicians, educators, activists, and anyone viewed as a potential threat were systematically rounded up and executed. The slightest whisper of discontent could get you arrested and you could "disappear" into one of dozens of secret camps throughout the country. After decades in power, it's believed that at least 50,000 Chileans are known to shared this fate.

In 1976, the U.S. backed another military led coup in Argentina. This time is was to overthrow the widow of President of Juan Peron who was serving as the new president (she was Juan Peron's Vice President). Lieutenant General Jorge Rafael Videla was installed and remained the de facto president until 1981. In 1985, Videla was arrested and put on trial for crimes against humanity. It's estimated that as many as 30,000 Argentines were tortured and murdered. In addition it was learned that he sanctioned infant and child kidnapping while their mothers were held in prison camps (the children were sold). Videla was found guilty and sentenced to 50 years in prison. He died while still in prison in 2013.

In 1968, while publicly supporting the military coup by General Omar Torrijos in Panama, the U.S. began a long and lucrative relationship with his head of intelligence, General Manuel Noriega. While Torrijos was known to be corrupt, he was also known to be quite cooperative with U.S. foreign policy objectives in the region and a willing partner in the selling of Panamanian resources.

Torrijos first began receiving American support during the Nicaraguan Revolution which resulted in the removal of U.S. backed dictator, President Anastasio Somoza in 1973 (he had been installed in power in 1967). As a result, the U.S. needed a new and reliable partner, which they found in Torrijo. This relationship continued until Torrijos was killed in a plane crash in 1981.

Due to the useful relationship with Noriega, he was Torrijos' logical successor. That partnership lasted until 1989 when it was decided that he was no longer reliable. In addition, Noriega had made the cardinal mistake of acting on his own. He was eventually arrested and sent to the U.S. where he was tried and sent off to prison. Nevertheless, between Somoza, Torrijos and Noriega, tens of thousands were arrested, tortured, murdered, or simply made to vanish...all without a word from the U.S. Government.

These individuals, as horrible as they were, aren't meant to represented all of the euphemistically named "regime changes" that the U.S has engaged in, along with active encouragement of the same Oligarchy which now controls our country. Not by any means. Starting with the end of WWII in 1945 somewhere around 57 countries have experienced U.S. sanctioned "regime change"; some on multiple occasions. No telling how many changes of government or policies were impacted indirectly by the mere hint of a "regime change". To many in the world this is what "spreading democracy" looks like to them. How would we feel if the tables were reversed I wonder?

The U.S. isn't alone in coercing change in another country's politics, but it is by far much more active in doing so than its ideological enemies. It is also worth mentioning that overwhelmingly these changes have been in favor of very ruthless military juntas which violently suppressed those very ideals which we hold in the highest esteem. Things like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly including the right to protest, the right to fair and speedy trial as well as the right of knowing what we're accused of and facing our accuser. The right to bear arms or being free from self incrimination as well as the freedom for "cruel and unusual punishment" which originally meant torture.

No doubt the Iranian People are glad that someone like General Soleimani is dead along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis who was another blight on the region. Nevertheless the Iranian People remember how the U.S. had previously removed previous government officials they didn't like. Surely they have to wonder whether this assassination was simply an attempt to remove a terrorist or a prelude to an invasion, which the U.S. has been threatening to do since the Hostage Crisis in 1979. Regardless, it should be remembered that we don't have clean hands either.



U.S. involvement in regime change

Mapped: The 7 governments the U.S. has overthrown

How the U.S. Government Has Supported The Deaths Of Hundreds of Thousands

Gulf of Tonkin incident

The Killing of Qassem Soleimani: Making the World Safer or Lighting the Fuse for WWIII?

I'll cut straight to the chase and right to the point. President Trump ordered the execution of a cold blooded terrorist. A man who was directly responsible for the murder of thousands of Iranians, Iraqis, Yemites, Afghanis, Yazidis, Kurds, and American servicemen and women as well as civilians. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was involved in aiding the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Boku Haram.

They are responsible for the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and even other Muslims, plus the kidnapping, rapes and selling of young women into slavery. The final straw for the U.S. was the murder of an American contractor, ordered by General Soleimani. From a moral perspective, the world is far better off by his removal. But is the world any safer? By removing this individual are we any closer to world or even regional peace?

There's no question that General Soleimani, who headed the Quds Force, part of the hard line Revolutionary Guards which serves as a cross between the CIA, the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and Delta Force, was despicable; someone on the same level as a Tamerlane or Himmler. President Trump has received nothing but criticism, ranging from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and members of the Democratic Party to the print and electronic media to the talking heads on television.

Pelosi is miffed that Trump didn't tell her first about the pending attack. But then, President Obama didn't tell her beforehand about taking out Osama Ben Laden either and she was just fine with it. In fact, not only Obama, but George W. Bush had ordered the targeting of key ISIS and Al Qaeda leaders without alerting either Pelosi or Congress and everyone seemed okay with that. In fact, the media never said "boo" to either about it. Now why is that? My guess is that this is nothing more than an ongoing attempt at character assassination; of promoting public distrust of President Trump.

So, what was General Soleimani doing in Iraq on January 3rd in the first place (and at a public airport no less)? His presence there was supposed to have been forbidden by the Iraqis. Well, it turns out that he was there to meet with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandi, the deputy commander of the Iranian sponsored Popular Mobilization Forces, an umbrella organization overseeing the various pro-Iranian militias.

Al-Mudandi had arrived with a small convoy to meet with Soleimani and escort him to a safe location outside of Baghdad, presumably to coordinate plans for future terror attacks on pro-Western targets, including U.S. diplomats and military personnel. Al-Mudanhi and a driver were also killed in the attack. It should be pointed out that the drone attack which took out Soleimani came just days after a failed attempt to seize the U.S. embassy by pro-Iranian militias in Baghdad had ended (that attack was in response to an earlier U.S. air attacks killing 25 Hezbollah fighters).

In addition, under the direction of Soleimani, members of the Revolutionary Guards had seized or attacked several oil tankers in the Gulf of Hormuz, attacked a Saudi oil field, and shot down a U.S. surveillance drone (okay, that may have been justified). Pro-Iranians militias, operating through Quds Force, have also been active in Syria and supplying both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Giza.

So now what? Well, in keeping with tradition, Iran responded. They withdrew from the agreement restricting their development of "nuclear reactors" (wink wink) which, to be honest, they've not been following anyway. They also launched a limited missile attack on two American bases in Iraq (no one was killed or injured). Heck, they've even raised their "red flag of doom" on the Jamkaran Mosque in Qom to signify a pending war (this is Iran's largest and most famous mosque).

Nevertheless, while their flag stills flies atop the mosque, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said that "proportionate measures" have been taken and the matter is now concluded. He added that Iran didn't want any further escalation but would respond in self defense is provoked further. However, Iran's religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called the Iranian missile attacks a "slap on the face" of the U.S. hinted at possible, more "severe" attacks to come in the near future.

Iran has to be careful in its response. First, to overreact is to essentially admit that Western intelligence was correct about Soleimani's importance as the mastermind behind Iran's attempts to destabilize the region and export its brand of radicalized Islam. Iran, while acknowledging Soleimani as the head of Quds Force, has long denied any involvement in terrorism in the region. Their response must be measured; even downplayed. He must be treated a merely a high ranking general.

Secondly, despite American led sanctions, Iran depends heavily on its restricted oil exports to keep the economy going. Iran has close ties to Russia, China, and North Korea which has helped. So has its limited trade agreement with the EU (especially France, Germany and the UK), along with various Arab nations including the United Arab Republic (UAR). To engage the U.S. in a tit-for-tat conflict could easily disrupt Iran's current trade arrangements, which would plunge the country into an economic spiral for which it might not recover.

At the same time, a enlarged U.S. military involvement in the region could also trigger panic in the West and drive the cost of oil and gas to near record highs (some have predicted as much as $100 per barrel of oil). Despite having one of the strongest militaries in the Middle East, Iran wouldn't stand much of a chance against the U.S. However, Iran would be no Iraq. The Iranians are much better trained and equipped than Saddam's forces thanks to support from Russia and China.

In addition, Iran is the lynchpin in the "We Hate America and Israel" club. Muslims throughout the Middle East and elsewhere, while appreciating the removal of a despot like Saddam Hussein, resent the continued presence of Western forces in the region which is viewed as a "conquering force". They also disapprove of our continued support of Israel. A war could result in Iran being able to unite Muslims and turn it from a political/economic conflict into a religious one (and as any historian will tell you, religious wars are the most ruthless and bloody of them all. After all, you're murdering on behalf your god. How can you possibly compromise or surrender?).

I would expect Hamas and Hezbollah to attack Israel with weapons its stockpiled from Iran. Additionally, it would provide an irresistible opportunity for North Korea to act up as well with a possible attack against South Korea, launch missiles at Japan (which it hates as much as it hates us) or even Hawaii or U.S. territories like Guam or Midway. Who knows, maybe China would use U.S. preoccupation to retake Taiwan. After all, we can't be everywhere and with over 20 years of active military engagement, we're kind of pooped. Our military badly needs time to reset, overhaul equipment and replenish inventory. The burnout rate of military personnel is at record highs (as are suicides).

Lastly, there's home...our home, America. Although Homeland Security, U.S. intelligence agencies, members of Congress, and the media have long known but remained virtually silent on the point that there is the strong likelihood of the Muslim terrorist cells in the U.S and quite possibly Canada, the UK, Mexico, throughout Western Europe.

For that matter, Russia and China likely have terrorist cells as well. Both Russia and China have had ongoing problems with Muslim separatists. There are some 9.4 million Muslims in Russia; mostly living in the southwestern portion of the country. Russia's troubles with the Chechens started back in 1994 and is still going on, with thousands dead and no end in sight. China has been attempting to suppress the Muslim Uyghurs in the Xinjiang Province for a couple of decades now.

The Uyghur comprise almost 50% of the population in Xinjiang with large pockets throughout mostly western China, including the Hui, Kyrgyz, and Kazakh who are also mainly Muslim. Although no official numbers are kept, it's estimated that China has around 23 million Muslims---up to 2% of their entire population. However, the more pressure applied by the Chinese, the more they resist. Already, almost 1.5 million Muslims have been imprisoned in what Chinese officials called "reeducation camps".

A war or even a serious uptick in hostilities between Iran and the United States benefits no one. It would deeply affect not just the already fragile economy of Iran (and possibly topple their government), but further destabilize the region, and deeply affect the economies of Europe, the U.S. and the rest of the world. It could engulf the world in a asymmetrical war which could last decades and where there would be no winners.

It's even possible, if not likely, that the end result could be a nuclear war. At the very least, it could involve chemical and biological weapons regardless of any so-called "international prohibitions". I don't care what god you believe in, I can't imagine one who would want to see all of humanity either destroyed or reduced to subsistence conditions. We could only hope that aliens would come down and save us from ourselves.

But reality being what it is, this is about oil. It's about gas. It's also about its control and flow. As an aside, Iran had just announced the discovered of an new oil field capable of producing over 56 billion barrels of oil. Think that's a coincidence? The ruling Oligarchy is, as readers of A/O already know, all about the control of assets and resources, which, by the way, also includes us.

If they are unable to acquire control through normal business channels, then they will employ the resources of government, which they control, to achieve their desired consequences, backed by a media they also control, to manufacture a properly suited villain. Add a dash of nationalism, a pinch of fear and you've got yourself the recipe for a military "intervention". Whether it's called a "war of liberation", a "fight for freedom" or "spreading democracy", it's all about control and, of course, profit.

President Trump, whether you love him or loathe him, acted on the intelligence presented to him by his advisors and generals, along with their recommendations. Trump was and will always be a businessman. He's not an expert on foreign policy or military matters. Obama, with virtually no political experience and had been a local "community organizer" wasn't either. George W. Bush was a largely unsuccessful businessman and mediocre governor wasn't much better.

All three men acted on what others told them. This is where you'll find the ruling Oligarchy; the "Deep State". It lays within the system itself, which makes the situation all the more dangerous. We can only hope that those who advise the president, whoever that may be, are acting in our national interests with an eye toward preserving Humanity rather than towards short term power and wealth.

'Stick of dynamite in a tinderbox': Why General Qassem Soleimani was killed, and what may happen next

European Commission: Iran


Iran supreme leader says missile attack was a 'slap on the face' of the U.S. but it was 'not enough'.


Trump Says Iran Appears to Be Backing Down From Conflict After Overnight Strikes


Analysis: The different stages of Iranian support for ISIS