By now it should be clear: the killing of Qassem Soleimani, at the time of his death the world’s greatest terrorist, has made the world a safer place. In his 25 years of violent activity, Soleimani had shown himself to be a more dangerous terrorist than either Osama bin Laden or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. He extended the tentacles of Iran’s malign influence throughout the Middle East, into Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen. He gave both military and financial aid to Hezbollah, including 140,000 missiles with which to threaten Israel. In Lebanon, Soleimani helped build up Hezbollah to became a state-within-a-state, always threatening to drag that country into a war with Israel that no one else in Lebanon wanted. Most recently, Hezbollah has supported the government in Beirut against popular protests, because it has consistently done Hezbollah’s bidding. The terror group has helped to violently suppress the protesters, including many Shi’a, against that same government. For Soleimani, Hezbollah was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Iran. Behind the official head of Hezbollah, the Lebanese Hassan Nasrallah, it was Qassem Soleimani who called the shots. In Yemen, Soleimani delivered weapons and money to the Shi’a Houthi, who have been fighting against the Sunni-dominated government. Soleimani’s goal was the conquest of Yemen by the Houthis, which would then become Tehran’s puppet state, right on the southern border of Saudi Arabia, with Iranian bases inside Yemen able to threaten the KSA. In Iraq, Soleimani had helped create, fund, and supply with weapons several Shi’a militias that dutifully promoted Iranian interests. According to the Iraqi statesman Mithal al-Alusi, Soleimani also bribed Iraqi parliamentarians to vote as Tehran demanded. Everywhere he turned, Soleimani was a force promoting corruption, mayhem, and terrorism in the service of Iran’s interests.
When Soleimani was killed, there were many in the Sunni Arab world who rejoiced. The official press of Saudi Arabia celebrated his killing. Other countries – the UAE, Egypt, Bahrain – made clear their own satisfaction, though not quite to the degree expressed in Riyadh. In Iraq, the response was divided, but even some Shi’a were gladdened by the news. Of 22 Arab states, only four – Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Qatar — expressed their condolences on Soleimani’s death.
In America many, though not all, Democrats criticized the killing which, some claimed to fear, might well lead to an “escalation” and war. But the Iranian response was noticeably mild. The Iranians lobbed fewer than twenty missiles toward two American bases in Iraq, taking care to warn the Iraqi government several hours before the attack was launched, thereby giving the Iraqis time to inform the Americans, and for U.S. soldiers to seek shelter in bunkers; as a consequence, no Americans were killed or wounded. “We did not intend to kill,” said Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the head of the Revolutionary Guard’s Aerospace Force, according to Iranian state media. “We intended to hit the enemy’s military machinery.” That was the truth. The lie, which Iran’s government hoped its own people would believe, was their initial statement that 80 Americans had been killed and 200 wounded in the attack, a figure that was later decreased to “tens of people were killed or wounded.” And then, having engaged in that attack that was intended not to kill or wound Americans, Iran announced that it considered the matter closed. No “war” resulted from “warmonger” Trump’s order to kill Soleimani. The Iranian rulers are now clearly terrified of what Trump might do in the future; American deterrence has been restored; relative calm now prevails; Soleimani’s killing has removed one of the chief sources of conflict in the Middle East.
One might have thought the Europeans would have been at least as enthusiastic as the Sunni Arabs over the death of Soleimani. But they were diffident – even muted – in their praise for the killing. Some of this must surely reflect the deep hostility, among European elites, for Donald Trump himself. Even when he does something that has so obviously benefited the world, the Europeans deny him credit. Some did more than mute their praise; they were actually critical of Americans for the killing.
Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has been at war not just with America and Israel, but with the entire Western Infidel world. The 58 French soldiers who were killed in their barracks in Beirut in 1983 by Hezbollah, working under Iran’s direction, ought to have been reason enough for the French to applaud the killing of Soleimani, but there was no applause. The reaction in Paris was decidedly unenthusiastic: “We are waking up in a more dangerous world. Military escalation is always dangerous,” France’s deputy minister for foreign affairs, Amelie de Montchalin, said on a radio program. “When such actions, such operations, take place, we see that escalation is underway.”As for Germany and the U.K., both said that Iran bore some of the blame for the heightened tensions, but that the important thing was to now avoid an “escalation.” German government spokeswoman Ulrike Demmer did describe the strike as “a reaction to a whole series of military provocations for which Iran bears responsibility,” pointing to attacks on tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, and on Saudi oil installations, among other events. “We are at a dangerous escalation point and what matters now is contributing with prudence and restraint to de-escalation,” she said.
Meanwhile, the British foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, noted that “we have always recognized the aggressive threat posed by the Iranian Quds force led by Qassem Soleimani. Following his death, we urge all parties to de-escalate,” he said. “Further conflict is in none of our interests.”
Neither France, nor Germany, nor the U.K., nor any of our other European allies, came out with full-throated approval of the Soleimani killing. They all warned, in unison, of the threat of “escalation.” It was their word of the day. None suggested that precisely because Trump had scared Iran’s rulers with his bold act that there would be no “escalation.”
And those Europeans had long had their own reasons to want Soleimani dead. The French knew, from the Beirut attack in 1983 by Hezbollah that killed 58 French soldiers, that the Iranians were their mortal enemies, but made no plans to retaliate. The British concluded that Soleimani, using lraqi Shi’a militias, had been running a violent campaign against British troops in Basra in 2007. The SAS planned his assassination, but that plan was cancelled because David Miliband, then the British Foreign Secretary, was worried about possible consequences in the region.
In the European media, Soleimani was described as a “government official,” “widely admired” and “legendary.” These are not the epithets one expects for the world’s most dangerous terrorist. There was also, in some of the coverage, a harping on American “aggression” in the Middle East, suggesting a moral equivalence between Soleimani and his American enemies.But where is that equivalence to be found? Soleimani helped the dictator Assad to kill half-a-million of his own people, and to cause another five million to flee the country. The Americans, on the other hand, were in Syria in order to help put down the Islamic State, and to support the democratic opposition to Assad. In Iraq, Soleimani helped Shi’a militias to make war on Sunnis, while the Americans spent hundreds of billions trying to lessen the fissures between Shi’a and Sunnis in that country, and to help create a Western-style democracy, a forlorn but noble hope.
Democratic presidential candidates were, like many Europeans, critical of Trump for the killing of Soleimani. Joe Biden compared the killing of Soleimani to “throwing a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox.” Bernie Sanders said, with his accustomed hyperbole, that “Trump’s dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars. Trump promised to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one.”
Just as many Europeans make a moral equivalence between Palestinian terrorists and the Israelis who are defending themselves against those same terrorists, there were some in Europe who used the occasion of Soleimani’s killing to deplore both America and Iran. Some of this undoubtedly reflects the widespread contempt in Europe for President Trump, and also may reflect fear of Iran, and what its operatives might do on the European continent. The European feeling seems to be that they must not antagonize the ayatollahs. The European Council President, Charles Michel, said that the “cycle of violence, provocations, and retaliations which we have witnessed in Iraq over the past few weeks has to stop.” A “cycle of violence” implies equal responsibility; for Michel there seems to be no moral difference between Soleimani’s responsibility for the deaths of tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of people, and the killing of Soleimani himself. And Michel has plenty of company.
Then there is Agnes Callamard, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, who said in a post on Twitter that the killing of Soleimani “most likely” violated international law. “Use of lethal force is only justified to protect against an imminent threat to life,” Callamard wrote. Use of drones for targeted killings outside active hostilities was “almost never likely to be legal.” Did the recent acts by Iran not constitute active hostilities? The attacks on Saudi oil facilities, on oil tankers in the UAE, the seizure of a British oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, the shooting down of an American drone, the killing of an American contractor in Iraq, Iran’s part in the attempt to storm the American Embassy in Baghdad, the kidnapping of Western nationals – all of this surely qualifies as “active hostilities.” And Callamard deliberately ignored the American claim that Soleimani was planning attacks that constituted “an imminent threat to life.” One wonders if this “UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings” objected to the deaths of Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (who committed suicide to avoid being killed by the Infidels).
The Iranian lobby seems to be quite effective in Brussels. Indeed, Federica Mogherini, until recently the former EU Foreign Minister (“High Representative of the Union for Security and Foreign Affairs) hardly reacted, when she was still in that position, to the popular protests in Iran against the government. She let a week of these protests go by before commenting on the violent repression of protesters: “In the spirit of openness and respect that is at the root of our relationship,” she said “we expect all concerned to refrain from violence and to guarantee freedom of expression.” What had Iran done to deserve the EU’s “openness and respect”? Its hanging of homosexuals? Its torture and murder of political prisoners? Its endless “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” rallies? Its support for such terrorist groups as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad? And why does she say that we “expect all concerned to refrain from violence,” when all of the violence she deplored came only from the Iranian government itself, and not from the protesters? And how can Mogherini ask “all concerned…to guarantee freedom of expression”? Only one side, the Iranian government, can “guarantee” such a freedom, but it is that very government that has stifled freedom of expression in Iran for the past 40 years. But Mogherini could not bring herself to demand that “the Iranian government must refrain from violence and guarantee freedom of expression.” That would be taking sides. That would be unfair.
Mogherini’s recent successor as the EU’s Foreign Minister is Josep Borell, is even worse. He is a Spanish socialist who has been involved in several financial scandals, including insider trading and failures to declare income. As one of his former colleagues said, Borell is “a fine example of ineffectual, corrupt, and empty leadership.” He also happens to be rabidly pro-Iranian. This past year he celebrated the “achievements” of the Islamic Republic during the 40 years of its existence; he has been a frequent visitor to Iran, always full of praise for the police state known as the Islamic Republic. Given his record of financial finagling, it’s not implausible to suspect that during those trips to Iran he has received expressions of “gratitude in greenbacks.” Sometimes it really is all about the benjamins.
The killing of Soleimani was a remarkable achievement. Now it should be followed up by cleaning out the Augean stables of pro-Iranian officials, whether at the E.U. (as Mogherini and Borell), or at the U.N. (Agnes Callamard), or in foreign ministries of European states. America has shown that even the most dangerous Iranian terrorist can be taken down, and Iran’s leadership can be made sufficiently scared so that any retaliation they take will be deliberately mild and ineffectual. The U.K.’s Prime Minister is now Boris Johnson, a man who is both pro-Israel and alarmed about Islam; there is an opportunity, beginning with the U.K., to start this cleansing operation. Britain has recently been the main European target of Iranian plots. In 2015, the British government discovered a Hezbollah bomb factory near London. This should not be a surprise. Iran has always regarded the U.K. as an enemy, going back to resentment of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company’s power within Iran, and of the British role in orchestrating, along with the Americans the 1953 coup against Mossadegh. In 2016, Ayatollah Khameini said that “for centuries, Britain has always been the source of wickedness and evil among nations of our region. The strikes that these Britons have blown [sic] against the lives of our neighbors are incomparable to others.”
In recent years, Iran has kidnapped British citizens (with dual nationalities), unleashed a cyber-attack in 2017 on the British Parliament, which affected dozens of MPs, and disrupted 9,000 email accounts; the victims included Theresa May, who was then the Prime Minister. Iran seized a British oil tanker in July and held it for two months. This January an Iranian government plot to kidnap anti-regime Iranian journalists from London and fly them back to Iran was revealed. And the British government has also been infuriated by the arrest of the British ambassador to Iran, who had made the mistake of visiting one of the anti-regime protests. The British demanded his immediate release and Iran complied, but the Islamic Republic’s indifference to the accepted international norms regarding treatment of diplomats will remind many people of the siege of the American embassy back in 1979.
It’s time for Europe, beginning with the U.K., to press the advantage that Trump’s boldness has achieved. Europe’s leaders too, should emulate Trump’s praise on social media of the students protesting in Iran. They are not protesting against the regime, as has been reported, only because of its incompetence, in its shooting down of the Ukrainian airliner, and its lies, in denying it had done so. The students are also enraged at the corruption and mismanagement of the economy. They know that Ayatollah Khamenei has amassed billions of dollars for himself. They are tired of the mindless hatred promoted by the regime. In taking care not to step on representations of the American and Israeli flags, and booing those few who do, the students have shown they are fed up with such nonsense. They cry “Death to the Dictator” and “Our Enemy is Here.” The protests on the streets of Iran are becoming ever bigger and bolder. The forces of repression have gone beyond tear gas and rubber bullets; they now have also been resorting to live fire, kindling still more popular rage. Meanwhile, the Iranian economy continues to tank. The rial sinks, while unemployment soars. Oil revenues have dropped by 90% in less than two years. There is no rescue in the offing. Iran’s only Arab allies are the two pariah states of Syria and Qatar.
Thanks to Trump, Soleimani is dead and the Iranians leaders are full of dread. Now is the time for Europeans to join in what the Americans have started. They should follow America’s, and now Britain’s, lead, and ban both wings of Hezbollah – its military and its so-called “political wing” – as inseparable parts of the terrorist group (and Iranian proxy) that it has always been. Close down Hezbollah offices. Seize the foreign assets, wherever possible, from all those who are connected to Hezbollah, including Iranian officials. Reduce imports from, and exports to, Iran, to an absolute minimum. Deny Iranian planes landing rights in Western airports. Increase the Farsi-language programs beamed into Iran, providing accurate coverage both of world events, and of what is going on in Iran itself. Fill social media with stories, including video, of the protests in Iranian cities. Post online details of the private fortunes of Ayatollah Khamenei, and of all the other top officials who have made out like gangbusters – or more exactly, like gangsters.
With that kind of effort across the board, let’s see how long the criminals in Iran manage to hold onto power. Three years? Two years? One year? Even less?
PETER BUCKLEY says
“The leader” himself today in Friday prayers claimed that Germany, France ans the UK were nothing more than “stooges” for the USA. In so doing, the old fool has isolated his country even more and unwittingly unleashed the very thing he probably dreads: the coming together of Europe with the USA.
According to intelligence reports, Iran “could” have a nuclear bomb within 18 months. The West will not allow that. So expect Europe to come on board with the USA and tighten the noose with more sanctions in the coming year. This will lead to more and more unrest amongst Iranians.
By the end of the year, if the regime still hasn’t “cracked” (I expect it to be on its knees by then), plans will be put in place the take out Iran’s nuclear plants. You read it here first……
mortimer says
Dominic Raab is whistling past the graveyard: ““Further conflict is in none of our interests.”
The mullahs disagree with Raab. They think that looking for trouble is the way for Iran to go. The mullahs WILL NOT CHANGE or not stop this behavior.
There has to be regime change in Iran and Europe has to join in to make it happen.
To Mr. Raab and other WILLING BLIND European leaders, I advise:
IT’S THE IDEOLOGY, STUPID.
Walter Sieruk says
It’s ,indeed, now time for the nations of Europe to “Stand up “ To the growing influence of the stealth jihadists of Islam as well as to the brutal ,cruel and murderous violent jihad of Islam .
For as a whole 91% of the victims of Islamic violence ,as in many cases deadly Islamic violence .The jihadists use firearms as well as using bombs .Even using themselves as human bombs time bombs ,just waiting to go off in the many cities of Europe . It only takes a few out of many to inflect much murderous harm. Those jihadists engaging in Islamic suicide/homicide bombings attacks is for a large part, the outcome the extreme brainwashing that is performed in Islamic mind programming centers which are mosques and madrasas. In those jihad mind control places students are thoroughly indoctrinated into the jihadist mindset of committing murderous bombing attacks in the jihad for the advancement of Islam. As Islam’s “holy book,” the Quran instructs in 9:111. , for example, “The believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain they kill and are killed.” Therefore, those who come out of those Quran based mind programming centers .mosque and madrasas, are so terribly harmed and damaged that they are literally, as it has be rightfully called, “dangerous to self and others.” This results in jihad suicide /homicide attack in which those jihadists who commit such murderous actions are so very deluded that they think of that jihad mass murders as “martyrdom operations.” This is Islamic delusion of the most heinous and malicious kind.
This may be, somewhat, explained by the narrative from the fable of Aesop which is entitled THE SCORPION AND THE FROG So “Once upon a time there was a scorpion who really wanted to get to the other side of the river, but he could not swim. Therefore, the scorpion begged a frog to carry him on his back across the river. The kind but foolish frog agreed and then half-way across the river the scorpion stung the frog. In shock and horror the dying frog asks the scorpion “Why did you sting me since this means that we both are going to die” The scorpion replied “The reason that I stung you even though we both will now die is because that just what a scorpion, by nature, does.”
In conclusion, just as that scorpion in the fable had proven himself by the dangerous and deadly, to self and others, because of his nature. The violent and murderous jihadists of Islam are as that scorpion, dangerous so self and other because they is their nature because they have been thought programmed in the ways of the violent and murdering jihad of Islam. As always stated above ,this is the sad and tragic reality of Islamic terrorism in today’s world.
Roland says
I no longer trust the Democrats with American foreign policy. First, Jimmy Carter installed the mullahs. I remember Carter protege Andrew Young calling Khomeini a “saint”. Then, Barack Obama concluded a fraudulent nuclear disarmament deal with the mullahs and shoveled billions of dollars into their hands. The congressional Democrats, with few exceptions, voted in favor of this deal. Now, they are sniping at Trump’s assassination of Soleimani. Even though I have many misgivings about Trump’s domestic policies, I appreciate his assertive defense of American interests.
gravenimage says
Carter’s weakness sure as hell did not help, Roland–but your belief that America installed the Mullahs and that this had nothing to do with Islam is *quite* mistaken.
Walter Sieruk says
The vast increase of arson , Muslim riots as well as Muslim sex assaults against European girls and women in the nations countries has been strongly linked to the large number of male Muslim migrants may serve as an example of Muslim ungratefulness and unthankfulness for letting them enter the countries of Europe to live. This this further exposes the Muslim’s Islamic contempt for people who are Westerners and Western civilization, Western laws.
This Muslim violence may be yet better explained by one of the fables of Aesop which is entitled THE FARMER AND THE VIPER. So here it is “Once in ancient Greece there was a farmer outside on a very cold winter day walking in if field to make sure that everything is in order and as it should be. The farmer came upon a half-froze viper about to die from the bitter cold. The kind yet foolish farmer took pity on the viper and in an action of kindness put it his is vest jacket to warms and up and thus save its life. The viper warned up revived and then bit farmer through the vest jacket. So the kind but foolish farmer died a slow painful death in awful agony because he felt sorry of the viper and saved it life. The point to this fable is the no amount of kindness will change and vicious and evil nature.
So it is with those Muslim migrants who were allowed to enter nations of Europe to live . Those violent migrants who are Muslims will not be impress and change because kindness of Westerners. This is because those violent Muslims have that ungrateful dangerous viper nature because of their venomous and violent religion which is Islam.
Walter Sieruk says
This Muslim migrant sex assaults and outrights rapes and other type of hideous violence girls and women of Europe as well as the other countries of Europe had been foreseen in the last century, as the following essay explains.
For it might be of some interest to a few people that that a book with title of JIHAD IN THE WEST published in the year 1998 authored by Paul Fregosi ,was a man who was thinking ,a bit ahead of his time ,as in before 9/11 and then many Islamic horrors of jihad terrorism that hit London, Manchester, Madrid Paris as well as other Western nations of Europe .For above mentioned book of page 411 reads “Most worrying , both Islam and the West see each other as potential enemies of tomorrow .The future is a source of concern , not of optimism.”
For this year of 2019 in the “future” as seen from the time-frame of the year 1998 when that book was published. As the author thus had a valid point in what he wrote in the above quote .
Moreover the threats of the jihadists towards the people of the nations of West .This has been further explained and revealed by in the book , by Robert Spencer ,THE HISTORY OF THE JIHAD FROM MUHAMMAD TO ISIS .Which in page 367 informs the reader that “The early twenty- first century saw a sharp rise in jihad massacres perpetrated all over the West by individuals or small groups of Muslims: in London, Manchester, Paris, Toulouse, Nice ,Amsterdam, Madrid, Brussels, Berlin Munich ,Copenhagen…”
Those jihadists /Muslims with their insidious jihad-minded Muslims scheming for the subtle and not so subtle, Islamic conquest of Europe by every possible means, including the stealth and violent jihad which is, indeed, awful.
As explained by William Wagner in his book HOW ISLAM PLANS TO CHANGE THE WORLD .Which informs the reader n page 195 “Of all the continents of the world, Europe is probably the number one target by Muslim strategist who are seeking world dominance.”
Therefore, all Europeans and other Westerners would be wise to be on guard.
Walter Sieruk says
One of the main goals of many jihad –minded Muslims is the Islamic conquest of the nations of Europe. One of the methods of achieving Muslin object by not necessary by the means of the violent and deadly “militant” jihad but by the subtle, sly, subversive and insidious way of engaging in that which is known as the stealth jihad. This type of jihad for the advancement and control of Islam in the European countries is to infiltrate into, as in gain, access to, the governmental institutions of the nations of Europe.
This is a large and great part of the grand scheme of stealth jihadist agenda to enhance and gain strong and then stronger influence and then supreme control of Islam over the whole continent of Europe. As on scholar on Islam and the Muslim zeal -filled intentions for Islam had revealed that “Of all the continents of the World, Europe is probably the number one target by Muslim strategists who are seeking world dominance…” [1] of course ,this author means “world dominance. , Not for those specific Muslim themselves but “world dominance for Islam.” Likewise, another scholar r and expert on this subject wrote exposed that “Since the stealth jihad is more advance in Europe then in the United States, the situation there is more dire….Muslims are accomplishing today what they have tried but failed to do for over a millennium : conquer Europe.” [2] Most intelligent people will well understand that “As Europe goes so will in time, go North America.
Further, about this Muslim scheme of the stealth jihad otherwise called the Muslim method of Islamic Gradualism to enact Sharia law in many different countries of Europe is in contrast to the way of the violent jihad or also called the militant jihad .This non-violent form of the jihad for Islam is a very sly, insidious, subtle and deceptive way of working for the advancement of Islam.
This Muslim scheme for achieving the goal of the Islamic agenda is as, many times, as subtly effective as it is demonically clever. Furthermore, this Islamic gradualism, in some ways, is very similar to the instruction printed in the book entitled THE ART OF WAR by Sun Tzu. Which reads “At first, then, exhibit the coyness of a maiden, until the enemy gives you an opening; afterwards emulate the rapidity of a running hare, and it will be too late for the enemy to opposes you”
In addition, those scheming stealth jihadist /Muslims who attempt to have Sharia law set up in the countries of Europe do also engage in the doctrine of the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya which is very insidious. Taqyyia is the jihad dogma that deception is a good thing to do as long as it’s done for the advancement of Islam. Nevertheless, the God of the Bible “condemns those who devise wicked schemes…” Proverbs 12:11. [N.I.V.] Likewise, Proverbs 12:20 teaches “Deceit is in the hearts of those who plot evil.”
[1] How Islam Plans to Change the World by Willian Wagner , page 195.
[2] STEALTH JIHAD by Robert Spencer , page 270.
WithPurpleAbandon says
In a sense, it’s logical that the UK and the USA should be very much on the forefront with regards to Iran.
Ever since the mullahs became acquainted with the modernizations of the Pahlavi regime, they lost influence during the sixties and they must have gnashed their teeth at these developments. And ever since then, the USA became the Great Satan in their warped apocalyptic mind and this became part and parcel of their polarized rhetoric. In the ranks of the mullahcracy, the UK has been known as the Little Satan, and in fact this has a much longer history to it. When India became colonized by the British, Iran also lost influence over cities in Afghanistan which the Persians at the time considered their back yard, like Herat and Kandahar. During the Great Game, the British regularly sent spies on mission to Central Asia and Afghanistan from their embassies and consulates in Persia, and although those were meant to find out what the Russians were up to in Central Asia, in many cases they also helped to thwart Persian aspirations in Afghanistan.
I once read a book written by the historian Peter Hopkirk called the Great Game. A great read which helps to explain a lot of how the UK is perceived in Iran. The are considered the worst of traitors since the 19th century.
I feel – being European – that the meek response of our governments shows you just how much we’re meant to be diplomatical all the time, but I think that’s because we are a spent force not to be taken seriously on the international stage. And that’s the way it is, I am afraid: we carry no clout at all these days.
In any case, I for one think that Soleimani’s killing was well justified, I make no bones about that.
gravenimage says
Good post.
Linde Barrera says
To WithPurpleAbandon- I have to wonder how much influence the elites of the Military Industrial Complex have on administrations throughout Europe and in the US. Their job is to make money selling weapons, drones, fighter jets, tanks, all manner of equipment in the cause of war. And if there is no war going on anywhere in the world, well by cracky they will somehow cause a war to start. ??
WithPurpleAbandon says
There’s indeed a lot to be said about a few combining factors with regards to our attitude.
1) generalized anti-Trump sentiment and PC of the leftwing media having seeped into EU politics +
2) the historical precedent of the embassy hostage crisis of 1979. No US president will ever allow the world to see him twiddling his thumbs since, and the EU can’t relate to any of that. +
3) there must indeed be some profits at stake for our governments while the US has economically sanctioned Iran through and through. +
4) we don’t share the same aggravated history as the UK and the US with regards to Iran +
5) we’d rather present ourselves as ‘pacifists’ but in reality we have no significant military back-up of our own. NATO is just about as dead as a dodo, totally neglected by Europe, we don’t take any initiative. We’d rather sell weapons than use them to defend ourselves. +
Conclusion: we’d rather forget about the Beirut barracks bombings of 1983. Thing is, if Iran wanted to primarily target ‘the Great Satan’ via Hezbollah, then they considered the death of 58 French soldiers as mere collateral damage at the time, a small detail. ‘Who cares ?’ Hezbollah must have thought.
So, our governments don’t give a damn about the past and Donald Trump can do no good. Adn the above reasons may help to explain why.
The EU is toothless, let’s face it. If you can’t beat them, join them, kind of thing.
WithPurpleAbandon says
In any case, US and Israeli governments tend to think that killing major terrorists (Osama Bin Laden, al-Baghdadi, Soleimani,…) is the right way forward because it proves a point: you can’t let terrorists mess you up indefinitely and keep emboldening them by doing nothing. Not being American or British, I tend to think that’s exactly what Europe needs.
Alas, European governments, particularly on the European mainland, don’t believe in this for various reasons. Sure enough, if we want to take military action, we send fighter jets to Syria and Libya and let the local people on the ground do the dirty work, like we have done in the past.. (like for instance the Kurds) But that’s just as far as we are prepared to go, because we tend to think that the problem will be solved this way: just drop a few bombs and get out of there. Putting boots on the ground is too much of a hassle, and when the American military leaves the war zone, (like Syria) we scream indignantly at their departure, full well knowing that we’re not willing to do anything on the ground ourselves.
Our politicians seem to feel that Trump had to be painted as a mindless warmonger from the get-go, without taking any notice of the reasons why such actions were
justified. But we are not going to do this ourselves. So, all in all, there’s a lot of complacency and hypocrisy involved in our politicians’ attitudes towards the Trump administration from the start.
Trump aversion + PC + economic interests + unwillingness to take decisive action when and where it matters. That’s the sorry state of the EU these days. That’s why Iran is being handled with kid gloves.
Carol the 1st says
Even though Russia and China are supposedly some kind of allies with Iran, I read a post a few years ago (by someone who seemed pretty knowledgeable) that if Islamic forces got anywhere near taking over Europe’s nuclear stock and abilities, THEY would be the ones to ensure this NEVER happened.
gravenimage says
I don’t think that arming for defense against Jihad is necessarily a bad thing.
gravenimage says
On Iran, It’s Time For Europe to Step Up
……………….
I won’t be holding my breath for that one, I’m afraid…
Carol the 1st says
Very good article by Mr. Fitzgerald.