Trump and the General

Podcast: Download

Subscribe: RSS | More

Darrell Castle talks about the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani by a Hellfire missile fired from a U.S. drone.

Transcription/Notes:

TRUMP AND THE GENERAL

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. Today is Friday, January 10, 2020, and on this Report I will be talking about the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani by a Hellfire missile fired from a U.S. drone. The attack, apparently personally ordered by President Trump, occurred at the Baghdad airport where the General had just arrived on a flight from Tehran, Iran. He was there to meet with an Iraqi named Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis who had personally planned and led the blockade attacks against the U.S. Embassy. Keep in mind that the situation is fluid and changing as I speak.

 A brief background to this story tells us that first an American civilian contractor was killed and several U.S. soldiers wounded in a rocket attack on an Iraqi base near KirKuk in Iraqi Kurdistan. In response, President Trump authorized airstrikes on five camps of the attackers. The targeted organization was designated a terrorist organization by President Obama’s State Department in 2009. The group has repeatedly attacked U.S. forces in Iraq.

In retaliation for the U.S. bombing, protesters led by the Iraqi Muhandis, blockaded and attacked the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Attacking embassies is a common tactic used by Middle East groups, who believe they are immune from retaliation. Remember the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, and the siege of the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya during President Obama’s administration.  

President Trump tweeted out a threat, as he termed it, and said that Iran would pay a very big price. The Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Khamenei taunted President Trump on New Year’s Day by saying “there is not a damn thing you can do.” It turns out that the Ayatollah was wrong because when his top General got off his airplane and got in the car with Muhandis, they did not make it off the tarmac before a Hellfire missile fired from a U.S. drone obliterated them.

I suppose the Ayatollah confused President Trump with Presidents of his past dealing, but apparently Trump wanted to send him a Hellfire message that could be read as, “I’m not Jimmy Carter and I’m not Barack Obama, and when you kill one of us I will kill you back”.

 The Iranians had to retaliate, of course, so they sent some rockets into Iraqi bases where U.S. troops were stationed, apparently killing no one but appearing strong and unafraid. So, they killed some of ours and in retaliation, Trump killed some of theirs and they retaliated for that, although in a benign way designed to not require further retaliation. The President spoke to the nation and accepted their quid pro quo as the end of it as far as he is concerned.

If the Iranian retaliation was planned and accepted in advance I would not be surprised. There are rumors floating around that a back channel note sent through the Swiss embassy to Tehran said that proportionate retaliation would be acceptable and I assume that means a military and not a civilian target. I’ll be surprised if this tit for tat goes any further than that because I think Trump wants to use it as an opportunity to do what he promised in his campaign he would do, and that is get the U.S. out of the eternal war business. So, perhaps a quiet deal with Iran is in place, and everyone avoids embarrassment. That’s just a guess on my part but it looks plausible.

I admit thought that this idea of pre-planned withdrawal looks shaky now, considering the massive buildup of U.S. forces in the Gulf Region, so we will see.

In response to all this fighting, the Iraqi Parliament met and voted to invite U.S. troops to leave Iraq immediately. Perhaps the President will accept their invitation and pull the U.S. out of Iraq as he promised to do in his 2016 campaign. Perhaps he will do that, but if so, it won’t solve the problem unless they come home completely. Remember that in 2014, the U.S., under President Obama, went back into Iraq and Syria to assist those countries in their resistance to ISIS. Now that ISIS has been defeated and its leader killed, the mission is complete and over so leaving would be perfectly understandable.

That is enough background to ask the question; was the killing of General Solimani and his Iraqi right hand man, Muhandis justified. Is it OK for a U.S. President to order targeted killings on the other side of the world? Political assassination is an act of war but remember that Iran declared eternal war on the United States, the Great Satan, in 1979. Generals are fair game in war since they wear uniforms just like their soldiers.

I remind you of when President Obama used to meet every Tuesday morning with his staff and by video conference with military and intelligence people from around the world to go over that week’s kill list, which contained over one hundred names. The President would then personally decide who would die and who would live another week. He was proud of it and called the New York Times to brag about how good he was getting at it. The Times did a front page article describing it all in detail, so the Democrat reaction to Solimani is the height of hypocrisy. Using their definition, President Obama committed acts of war several times a week.

So, despite Hollywood and the American media referring to the killing as murder, there is precedent. Is killing during war murder? That is a philosophical discussion that my wife and I often have. I will ask her if soldiers killing in war get some kind of special pass from God. If its war and you’re on the right side, then you get a pass. That’s all well and good you may say, but this isn’t war because no formal war has been declared.

Well, folks that’s where you are wrong because as I just mentioned, according to Iran, that country has been at war with the United States since 1979, or about 40 years. Why all the animosity and why do they hate the United States so much? History tells us that going back to the time of World War One, or 100 years ago, Iran was known as Persia. That is an ethnic designation that in Latin roughly translated means Aryan. In the years leading up to World War Two, it was run as a dictatorship by Shah Pahlavi and his family. He decided in 1935 that from then on Persia would be known by its more inclusive name of Iran rather than the 1000 year old ethic name of Persia.

Through various uprisings the country finally had a free election, and in 1954, Mohammad Mossadah was elected Iran’s first Prime Minister. The CIA apparently didn’t think he was friendly enough to U.S. policy so he was removed by coup and replaced by Shah Reza Pahlavi who ran the nation of Iran for 25 years. During that term there were constant complaints of harsh conditions and treatment, as well as complaints of excess, such as the Shah’s gold toilet, etc.

Jimmy Carter was President then and he was bothered by all the complaints. He seemed very concerned by what appeared to be the immorality of the U.S. supporting a dictator like Pahlavi, so he orchestrated a plan for the Shah to step down and be replaced by a group of Islamic Mullahs. The deal did not totally abandon the Shah, but it allowed or required him to spend his remaining life in exile, at least part of which would be in the United States. That should satisfy the Mullahs, right?

Well, no, it only infuriated and empowered them because they were now in power and headed by Ayatollah Khamenei, who demanded that the Shah be turned over to them. President Carter refused to do that and that decision led the Iranians to take over the American Embassy and hold 52 Americans hostage. Through all this long process Iran declared that the Iranian leadership considered itself to be at war against the United States and said that it would never cease efforts to drive the United States from the region.

Shortly thereafter, beginning in 1980 ,Iran fought an 8 year long war with Iraq that took over a million lives on both sides. Finally a stalemate truce was negotiated and Iraq was then free to turn its attention to Kuwait which gave George H.W. Bush the excuse for invasion and from that point on ,which was 1991, United States troops have been committed to the Middle East in large numbers.    

So with that background of history you can see that U.S. and Iranian hatred goes back a long time.What then is the answer to our question of whether or not the killing of General Soleimani was justified or not. It was an act of war against a sovereign nation, obviously but as I have argued that nation apparently has considered itself at war with the United States for some 40 years. So I argue, yes it was a just act, but was it the right thing to do? Apparently it was, because it certainly sent the message to Iran that Trump wanted to send and that message is just because I don’t want war don’t assume that I won’t fight one.

My own view is that the United States is going to continue to experience problems like this for as long as it has troops deployed around the world, especially in hotspots, such as the Iraq/Iran border and the Muslim holy lands of the Middle East. Killing everyone who threatens them is a very big and very difficult task, and as we’ve seen it normally leads to escalating retaliation. That is the Roman view of the world, i.e. the world is ours, and if you harm one of us the retribution will be swift and deadly.

The American view was and should be non-aggression and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other nations. Take care of your own people, secure your own border, and provide a defense adequate to protect your own nation and its people. The actions we are taking now, especially in the Middle East, are forcing other nations to escalate their own military spending in order to keep up, and that is a never ending, constantly escalating process.

Most of America’s enemies probably understand that you do not fight the Americans unless you have nuclear weapons and if you are trying to develop nuclear weapons, then you intend to fight the Americans. That presents another problem and that is Iran’s stated goal of a nuclear program and Trump’s statement that they will never be allowed nuclear weapons. The possibility of the use of nuclear weapons to stop the Iranian nuclear program is ever before us.

What then should the United States do? That question, in my view, is pretty simple to answer  Mind our own business and prepare our own defense posture accordingly. Let the trouble spots of the world solve their own problems, and trade with everyone who wants to buy and sell.

Withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq ,whether the Iraqis order us out or we leave of our own accord, has certain downside risks. First is the fact that it would cede to Iran what Iran has been unable to obtain in 40 years of war against the United States, and that is control of Iraq and Syria all the way to the Mediterranean Coast. Second is the possible rebirth of ISIS and/or other terrorist groups some sponsored by Iran. Third is the possibility that nuclear weapons could be developed in Iran.

Those scenarios are all bad but I would suggest that attempting to control the entire world with blood and treasure is an even worse choice.

Finally folks; if President Trump is able to find a back channel way out of the struggle with Iran, and perhaps out of the Middle East it would be cause for rejoicing, not criticism especially the hypocritical Democrat kind of criticism.

At least that’s the way I see it,

Until next time folks,

This is Darrell Castle,

Thanks for listening.